Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site k.cs.cmu.edu
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!mit-eddie!think!harvard!seismo!rochester!pt.cs.cmu.edu!k.cs.cmu.edu!mcb
From: mcb@k.cs.cmu.edu (Michael Browne)
Newsgroups: net.news.group
Subject: Re: net.flame will no longer be distributed by many sites
Message-ID: <640@k.cs.cmu.edu>
Date: Sat, 16-Nov-85 17:24:31 EST
Article-I.D.: k.640
Posted: Sat Nov 16 17:24:31 1985
Date-Received: Mon, 18-Nov-85 08:04:42 EST
References: <738@seismo.CSS.GOV> <636@k.cs.cmu.edu> <791@osu-eddie.UUCP> <530@brl-sem.ARPA>
Distribution: na
Organization: Carnegie-Mellon University, CS/RI
Lines: 23

In article <530@brl-sem.ARPA> ron@brl-sem.ARPA (Ron Natalie <ron>) writes:
>>> Since net.bizarre was rmgrouped, why can't net.flame be 
>>> rmgrouped as well?
>> 
>> Because too many people write flames to net.news.group when rmgroups
>> are sent out.  Then again, now they're writing flames when rmgroups
>> *aren't* sent out.  So the news administrators at the backbone sites
>> can't win -- someone is *always* mad at them.

I'm not mad at anybody.  I'm just curious why net.flame has been treated
differently than net.bizarre.  (I apologize for any "flame" content in my
messages about net.flame and net.bizarre.)

>Besides, rmgrouping won't do any good unless you specifically stop
>redistributing a group.  It just keeps coming back.

I don't know about this.  Net.bizarre seems pretty dead to me.  And I doubt
if net.flame would come back either.
-- 
UUCP: ..!seismo!k.cs.cmu.edu!mcb		ARPA: mcb@k.cs.cmu.edu

"It came time to move, so I packed up my Salvador Dali print of two 
blindfolded dental hygienists trying to make a circle on an Etch-a-Sketch..."