Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 4.3bsd-beta 6/6/85; site ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!ucbvax!brahms!gsmith
From: gsmith@brahms.BERKELEY.EDU (Gene Ward Smith)
Newsgroups: net.news,net.news.group
Subject: Re: Which newsgroups are "useless", and what is a soapbox.
Message-ID: <13913@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU>
Date: Wed, 21-May-86 01:47:11 EDT
Article-I.D.: ucbvax.13913
Posted: Wed May 21 01:47:11 1986
Date-Received: Fri, 23-May-86 06:36:14 EDT
References: <222@epimass.UUCP> <3679@sun.uucp> <226@epimass.UUCP> <3709@sun.uucp> <13886@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> <2082@hao.UUCP>
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Reply-To: gsmith@brahms.UUCP (Gene Ward Smith)
Distribution: net
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
Lines: 49
Xref: watmath net.news:4882 net.news.group:5631

In article <2082@hao.UUCP> woods@hao.UUCP (Greg Woods) writes:

>>   Can you or anyone define "soapbox group" in a way which makes sense?
[Gene Smith]

>However, the working
>definition of a soapbox group is one which has a relatively high cost
>per reader, a high volume overall, a relatively high posters-to-readers
>ratio, and does not contain work-related information for most net sites. 

    By this "working definition" net.music, net.games.frp, net.religion.jewish,
net.singles, net.comics, net.tv, net.sf-lovers, mod.mag.otherrealms, 
net.sports.hoop and most of the microcoputer groups qualify. Net.motss just as
clearly does not qualify. You manifestly *did not* use the definition you
claim you are using. You owe it to the USENET community, it seems to me, to
give the real definition.

>The stereotypical soapbox group would consist of a few people posting
>multi-hundred-line flames to each other (which should be sent by mail if at
>all). The now-mostly-defunct net.flame was a textbook example. Most of the 
>current "soapbox" groups do not look as "bad" as net.flame in this regard, but 
>the above-mentioned ratios generally hold true for them, and (and this is the
>part that is more judgment than fact) they seem to be mostly made up of
>people stating their opinions and beliefs as though they were facts,
>typically accompanied by disparaging remarks about those who do not agree
>with them. Admittedly, some of the groups classified as soapbox fit this

   As far as I can see, only net.abortion and net.origins of the so-called
"soapbox" groups come close to fitting this stereotype (net.politics if 
you really stretch the point). This is not just more judgement than fact, it
is plainly false.

   Once again, fairness would seem to dictate you give the real criteria and 
true definition of "soapbox" group. I suspect it means those high-volume
groups which the backbone administrators, more or less by the vagaries of
chance, happen not to like. Why they like the discussion of under-arm
hair in net.singles better than the discussion of what physicality means
in net.philosophy is not clear a priori, after all. Nor is the preference
for flames and opinions stated as facts in net.music over the same things
in net.politics at all clear. Finally, the choice of the run-on puns in
net.jokes over anything else whatever is hard to justify.

   Try again. Your "definition" would be a bad joke except that you plan
on using it.

P.S.: If I keep on flamming, will you move net.news.group to talk.news.group?

ucbvax!brahms!gsmith    Gene Ward Smith/UCB Math Dept/Berkeley CA 94720
 This posting was made possible by a grant from the Mobil Corporation.