Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!bellcore!decvax!decwrl!ucbvax!cartan!gsmith
From: gsmith@cartan.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.news.group,net.news.adm
Subject: Re: Suggestions for talk.* groups follows
Message-ID: <13941@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU>
Date: Thu, 22-May-86 07:59:55 EDT
Article-I.D.: ucbvax.13941
Posted: Thu May 22 07:59:55 1986
Date-Received: Sat, 24-May-86 21:29:26 EDT
References: <5500@alice.uUCp>
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Reply-To: gsmith@cartan.UUCP (Gene Ward Smith)
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
Lines: 152
Xref: watmath net.news.group:5664 net.news.adm:736

In article <5500@alice.uUCp> jj@alice.UUCP writes:

>I've read Mark's list of newsgroups that are going (it's not
>a proposal, it's a typical fait-accompli) to be moved to talk.*.

>I'd like to propose an expanded list, based on my own experience
>with netnews.  To put it bluntly, anyone who wants to keep any of
>these groups should be able to explain WHY my company should
>pay for it, and so on.

     I think "jj" has the right idea in questioning the almighty wisdom of
those who concocted the "talk" list. My own idea is that the list should
include groups whose intention is not too serious, and also the "more heat
than light" groups. The latter category is misapplied at times, however.
Clearly it does not fit net.motss. It doesn't fit net.philosophy too well
either; nor in my opinion, net.religion.* for the most part.

     My own comments follow.

>net.abortion
>	This is probably the most dogmatic soapbox group on the net.
Ditto.

>net.books
>	Perhaps it should be restricted to "work related" books?
Net.books is a pretty good newsgroup, much more serious than many others.

>net.college
>	I've never understood the audience for this group.  If I'm
>wrong, somebody (politely) explain this to me.
I can't. It seems like an awfully silly group to me too.

>net.flame
>	Clearly an example of a group that shouldn't be, and
>a behavior that isn't part of civilization, much less a volunteer
>service!
We are both flamming, so I don't take your point. The group is dead, anyway;
and talk.flame sounds pointless.

>net.jokes
>	Jokes?  How much money are jokes worth?
Not much. The puns are worse. It is almost a crime for corporations to axe
net.philosophy and net.motss in favor of run-on puns.

>net.jokes.d
>	Argue about them?
On talk.jokes.d.

>net.movies
>	This is arguable.  I think it's much the same as "books"
Net.movies isn't quite as tony as net.books. Both are OK groups, but not
of overwhelming significance.

>net.music
>	A clear soapbox group.
Ditto, ditto. 

>net.music.classical,net.music.folk, net.music.gdead, net.music.synth
>	Better, but...
Net.music.gdead is awfully silly. The rest are good groups.

>net.origins
>	Soapbox, if I've ever stood on one.
Ditto.

>net.politics
>	See net.origiins
This has good stuff in it. Sadly, the volume is high, and this looks like a
likely candidate for budget axing, since so much of it is soapbox.
    What about net.politics.*, though?


>net.rec
>	rec == recreation.  That says it all, if you're short on cash.
Ditto. Absolutely.

>net.rec.birds,net.rec.boat,net.rec.bridge,net.rec.nude,net.rec.photo,net.rec.scuba, net.rec.ski,net.rec.skydive,net.rec.wood
>	As sub-catagories of net.rec.  Perhaps a few could be moved
>	out
Why?

>net.religion
>	Religion is a serious subject, both for believers and (by its
>effects on the real world) unbelievers. Net.religion isn't the place
>that serious discussions take place, for the most part.
Quite a lot do, in fact. This is a pretty good group, by and large. I
would say the same for net.religion.*. These are serious topics, and the
flames are not so bad -- at least recently (I ought to know, I write them).

>net.sf-lovers
>	As much as I like SF, it's hardly work related, and there's
>a lot of traffic.
Ditto. Sigh.

>net.singles
>	Enough said.
Unless you think underarm hair *is* important? This group should be talk.

>net.social
>	Enough said.
Ditto.

>net.startrek
>	Gimmee a break.
Ditto.

>net.suicide
>	This group appears to exist only for abuse. Nuke it, I say!
Talk it.

>net.tv
>	See movies, sf
>net.tv.drwho,net.tv.soaps
>	See movies.
Net.movies makes a lot more sense. Net.tv.soaps, indeed! And you forgot
net.wobegone.

>net.women
>	Unfortunately the hostility on both sides makes this
>a soap box, AND a soap opera.
Ditto.

   You forgot some:

net.space
       Some good stuff, but a lot of nonsense. A lot of soapbox, too.

net.sci
       Like net.space, but not as bad.

net.games, net.games.*
       Like net.rec, net.rec.*

net.puzzle
       As above.

mod.mag.otherrealms
       Like net.sf-lovers.

net.comics
       Keep this, and axe net.books? Come off it.

net.garden, net.pets, net.kids, net.wines, net.poems, net.audio, net.cycle,
net.bicycle, net.auto, net.micro.{all home computers}, net.roots, net.veg.
       This is work related?

    The proposal by the backbone administrators is arbitrary. They should
think it through more carefully.

ucbvax!brahms!gsmith    Gene Ward Smith/UCB Math Dept/Berkeley CA 94720
        Fifty flippant frogs / Walked by on flippered feet
    And with their slime they made the time / Unnaturally fleet.