Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site polaris.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!mit-eddie!think!harvard!cmcl2!philabs!polaris!herbie
From: herbie@polaris.UUCP (Herb Chong)
Newsgroups: net.news.group
Subject: Re: Net.Bizzare's Murder
Message-ID: <270@polaris.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 10-Nov-85 16:00:29 EST
Article-I.D.: polaris.270
Posted: Sun Nov 10 16:00:29 1985
Date-Received: Tue, 19-Nov-85 05:44:26 EST
References: <807@wdl1.UUCP>
Reply-To: herbie@polaris.UUCP (Herb Chong)
Organization: IBM TJ Watson RC
Lines: 68
Summary: 

In article <807@wdl1.UUCP> jrm@wdl1.UUCP writes:
>We are aware that there always has been a small number of
>people on the net who disapproved of net.bizzarre; however,
>it established its right to exist by the fact that a much larger
>number of people approved of it. 

the number is not small, and most importantly, consists mostly of the
people who pay for the transport of net.bizarre.  if you want to pay
for it, you're welcome to.

>So you overrule the majority, but you're not a fascist. Are you a
>communist instead? They operate by these sorts of rules,too.

the majority?  if you count the posters to net.bizarre, you will find
about 40 people.  total.  since its existence.  if that's a majority,
then i need to learn the math you use.  even the people who started
net.bizarre are beginning to think that maybe it wasn't such a good
idea after all.

>So the situation is that:
>  If too few people are interested in a group, it dies.
>  If too many people are interested in a group, it dies.
>You want to have it both ways.  

too many by whose numbers?  have you polled the net?  can you submit
proof?  even the net.news.group discussion that lead to the "temporary"
reinstatement of net.bizarre involved fewer than 100 people.

>       HOWEVER, saying that net.bizzarre is number one on the 
>hit list indicates brain damage.  It is an interesting group 
>that is mostly peaceable and civilized; its flame and slander content 
>is remarkably low.  

interesting to whom?  even some of the creators are knocking the drivel
in it.  if it kept to the spirit of Ripley's, then maybe one could
justify it.  instead, it consists mostly of stupid jokes which
people have heard before and are cross posted to net.jokes anyway.

>       If you are going to kill groups, I think there are better 
>places to start. Or do you consider that net.flame and net.abortion 
>have redeeming social value?

net.flame will die with a few weeks.  about half the backbone has decided
to stop transmitting it already.  within weeks, most of the rest will
make their decisions.  i would not be optimistic about it if you read it.
as for net.abortion, it does have a redeeming social value, but the
people seem to forget that it's a highly emotional issue and that is
how they are responding.  i don't think there can ever be a rational
solution to net.abortion.

>I also failed to see any notice in net.bizarre that it was being 
>considered for deletion. Surely you net fascists are not going to 
>continue to maintain that such a posting was made?

i'm surprised that, avid reader that you are, you missed it.  it was 
announced that it would go away at least twice.

Herb Chong...

I'm still user-friendly -- I don't byte, I nybble....

VNET,BITNET,NETNORTH,EARN: HERBIE AT YKTVMH
UUCP:  {allegra|cbosgd|cmcl2|decvax|ihnp4|seismo}!philabs!polaris!herbie
CSNET: herbie.yktvmh@ibm-sj.csnet
ARPA:  herbie.yktvmh.ibm-sj.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa
========================================================================
DISCLAIMER:  what you just read was produced by pouring lukewarm
tea for 42 seconds onto 9 people chained to 6 Ouiji boards.