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!cbosgd!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: <13964@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU>
Date: Sat, 24-May-86 02:45:31 EDT
Article-I.D.: ucbvax.13964
Posted: Sat May 24 02:45:31 1986
Date-Received: Sun, 25-May-86 14:13:27 EDT
References: <5500@alice.uUCp> <5806@sri-spam.ARPA>
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Reply-To: gsmith@brahms.UUCP (Gene Ward Smith)
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
Lines: 80
Xref: watmath net.news.group:5691 net.news.adm:743

In article <5806@sri-spam.ARPA> gds@sri-spam.ARPA (Greg Skinner) writes:

>I won't argue the merits of the obvious (by Brian Reid's statistics)
>soapbox groups, but there are a few that I would like to comment on.

   How do statistics prove what is "soapbox"? "Soapbox" has never been
defined in a satisfactory way. Thus postings like that of "jj".

>> net.college
>> 	I've never understood the audience for this group.  If I'm
>> wrong, somebody (politely) explain this to me. [jj]

>I only read this part-time, but it seems that the audience is anyone who
>is interested in what sorts of things are going on at colleges (this
>could be academic, social, political ...).  I don't see this group as a
>problem if it does not consume too many resources.  I would think
>companies might even want to know what people think of certain college
>environments, especially if they recruit from colleges.

   The point is, this is a silly newsgroup judged by its contents, and
some sites want to cut costs. Why is this *not* on the talk list, when
other groups are?

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

>If you're not, then I fail to see the problem.

    The *whole point* is a cash shortage!

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

>Agreed.  However, there are a lot of computer professionals with strong
>interests in sf.  I have yet to see a call for removal of sf-lovers from
>the net -- from the looks of things most sites will continue to pay for
>it.  Besides, by admitting your liking for sf, you have provided
>justification for it, as long as you are willing to use the resources.

    But why sf rather than some of the other groups? Last time, it came
out #16 in size, #11 in per-reader cost (if you believe the statistics).
What makes it non-"soapbox"?

>I have always held, and will continue to do so, that it is up to
>individual sites what they will and won't carry.  If they want to carry
>the talk.* groups, fine, if not, fine, we'll just have to get them
>elsewhere.  I will continue to carry talk.* groups as long as they do

     I am glad you are going to carry the talk.* groups. But the point is
which groups are going to be on the talk.* list, and why. This is the point
which you keep missing.

>not use too much of my resources, and I expect other sites will do
>similarly (those who elect to carry talk.* groups).  So naturally, there
>is no way I or anyone else could convince you to carry these groups, nor
>is there a need to.  I really don't see the point of your posting -- you
>are free to do what you want, and I imagine you will.  It seems as if
>you are saying that netnews should carry technical work-related groups
>only, but in reality you are saying that is the only thing you feel your
>company (or site) should carry.

    "JJ" can speak for himself, but I must say I don't see *your* point.
The discussion is over what goes on the talk list. You seem to think this
is obvious. It isn't. You should try to give clearly argued reasons if
you think the list has been decided on correctly.

>Others have made similar arguments against the various sources and micro
>groups, that I won't repeat here.  Rather than fill net.news.* with
>arguments for or against certain groups, individual sites should
>just carry what they are able, and get what they can.

    This position is not really consistent with supporting the creation of
the "talk" category. Do you support it? What are you trying to say?

ucbvax!brahms!gsmith    Gene Ward Smith/UCB Math Dept/Berkeley CA 94720
"The *evident* character of this defective cognition of which mathematics
is proud, and on which it plumes itself before philosophy, rests solely on
the poverty of its purpose and the defectiveness of its stuff, and is therefore
of a kind that philosophy must spurn." -- G. W. F. Hegel