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.group,net.news.adm
Subject: Re: Suggestions for talk.* groups follows
Message-ID: <13948@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU>
Date: Thu, 22-May-86 20:00:28 EDT
Article-I.D.: ucbvax.13948
Posted: Thu May 22 20:00:28 1986
Date-Received: Sat, 24-May-86 21:39:17 EDT
References: <5500@alice.uUCp> <2157@cbosgd.UUCP>
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Reply-To: gsmith@brahms.UUCP (Gene Ward Smith)
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
Lines: 17
Xref: watmath net.news.group:5665 net.news.adm:737

In article <2157@cbosgd.UUCP> mark@cbosgd.UUCP (Mark Horton) writes:

>One question it's clear we're going to have to wrestle with is "what do
>we do with high cost, high readership, low content groups?" net.jokes
>and net.singles both fit this category.  

   Once again I should like to say that I think the *content* of the high
volume newsgroups should be the criterion. Net.singles, net.jokes and a
number of other newsgroups are worthless and stupid in comparison to some 
of the groups on the proposed "talk" list. I propose putting these (along
with net.music, etc. etc.) *on* the talk list and taking net.philosophy
(at least) and hopefully net.religion.* off. Keep the "highbrow" groups 
and those with a serious purpose, as long as they are mostly successful.
Ax the trash/babble groups instead. 

ucbvax!brahms!gsmith    Gene Ward Smith/UCB Math Dept/Berkeley CA 94720
ucbvax!weyl!gsmith                  Dazed Dupe of the Damager