Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!decvax!bellcore!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxn!ihnp4!inuxc!mwhhlaw!bob
From: bob@mwhhlaw.UUCP (Bob Hartley)
Newsgroups: net.news.group,net.abortion,net.misc,net.motss,net.origins,net.philosophy,net.politics
Subject: Re: reorganization of soapbox newsgroups
Message-ID: <155@mwhhlaw.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 19-May-86 22:46:18 EDT
Article-I.D.: mwhhlaw.155
Posted: Mon May 19 22:46:18 1986
Date-Received: Thu, 22-May-86 01:25:54 EDT
References: <2139@cbosgd.UUCP>
Distribution: na
Organization: MARTIN WADE HARTLEY & HOLLINGSWORTH, Indpls., IN
Lines: 57
Xref: ihnp4 net.news.group:4955 net.abortion:2846 net.misc:9436 net.motss:1532 net.origins:2955 net.philosophy:4307 net.politics:9961

The idea of moving the soapbox newsgroups into "talk" is a good one.  
I was going to list others for inclusion.  Then I realized my list
would only represent my value judgment on what is important.  I 
surmise that at present, there are two selection criteria for "talk".  
1) high volume of traffic and 2) lots of flaming and noise in group.  

I understand that the problem is cost.  But the proposal is to 
separate out discussions on women, politics and philosophy, and leave 
in discussions of hockey, gardening and folk music.  Yes, the former are
abused and probably out of control.  But abuse, like beauty, is in the
eye of the beholder.  Presumably the latter get to stay because they 
generate less traffic and are seen as better behaved than the former 
and not because the latter are deemed more socially redeeming or 
important.  

If volume of traffic were the sole criteria, jokes and sources would
go too.

It seems to me that the backbone sites have to define why they support 
the net.  If it so that people in the "computer community" can share 
ideas about hard science, computers and computer related subjects, 
then I suggest that all other groups should go into talk.  It may be 
that net will have to retain some groups, such as rumor, jokes and 
jobs, etc, which people are going to talk about if they are alive and 
have access to the net.  Otherwise these will clutter the computer and 
computer related groups.  

I guess what I am saying is that because of the cost factor, I agree
some things have to be dumped.  Any decision on what goes is going to 
be arbitrary.  If there is going to be an arbitrary line, make it a 
bright, straight line that everybody can see which is in someway 
related to a stated purpose or reason that the backbone sites support 
the net.

It should not be an obscure, wavy line that cuts a group with
a lot of traffic (i.e. interest) just because those in control don't
see the value of the group.  I personally believe that he who pays the
piper gets to call the tune, and that is fair.  So, there is really
nothing unfair about an obscure, wavy line.  The problem is that most
people do not think like I do, and so the obscure, wavy line is
perceived as unfair or unjust, and that generates ill will.  People
will grumble, but live with an unpopular decision that is perceived as
fair.  People will try to find (and usually will find) a way to 
circumvent an unpopular decision that is seen as unfair.  When that
happens the problem just reappears and is harder to deal with.

OK.  I've run the Graham-Rudman-Hollings proposal up the flag pole.
Let's see some workable, fair proposals for a more surgical approach 
to budget (oops I mean net) cutting.  Remember, we are not discussing 
whether to cut.  If I understood the original article, that decision 
has been made and will not be changed.  Also, please, let's not lapse 
into special interest in-fighting (my special interest group is 
important, let's cut yours).
-- 
Bob Hartley
ihnp4!inuxc!mwhhlaw!bob
Indianapolis