Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version VT1.00C 11/1/84; site vortex.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!epsilon!zeta!sabre!petrus!bellcore!vortex!lauren
From: lauren@vortex.UUCP (Lauren Weinstein)
Newsgroups: net.news.group
Subject: Re: Possible group: net.news.weather
Message-ID: <760@vortex.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 27-Aug-85 18:42:56 EDT
Article-I.D.: vortex.760
Posted: Tue Aug 27 18:42:56 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 28-Aug-85 09:47:08 EDT
References: <2144T3B@psuvm>
Organization: Vortex Technology, Los Angeles
Lines: 23

This is a joke, right?  C'mon!  I have trouble thinking of anything
with less potential as a newsgroup in our current distribution 
environment than weather!  Even in localized areas news often takes
slow distribution paths, and weather info would be obsolete before
most people saw it even locally.  The situation would be even worse
for "travelers" interested in distant weather.  The local people
can turn on the TV or radio and get current weather info.  Distant
people can do the same thing and get national weather forecasts that
are perfectly adequate for travel purposes.

This network isn't a substitute for local news and information media!
To use it as if it was is wasting incredible amounts of time and money.
When you create new newsgroups you create new noise.  I'm convinced that
you could create a group called net.fur and suddenly find out that,
sure enough, 15 or 20 people were fur fetishists and thought it 
was a great group--and then would start filling the net with
various fur-oriented articles.  But just because something CAN be
talked about on this network, does that mean it SHOULD be?

This newsgroup creation situation is getting out of hand.  Excuse me,
let me correct that... it's ALREADY out of hand.

--Lauren--