Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!bellcore!decvax!decwrl!pyramid!hplabs!tektronix!tekig5!chrisa
From: chrisa@tekig5.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.news,net.news.group
Subject: Re: Which newsgroups are "useless", and what is a soapbox.
Message-ID: <722@tekig5.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 28-May-86 13:19:09 EDT
Article-I.D.: tekig5.722
Posted: Wed May 28 13:19:09 1986
Date-Received: Fri, 30-May-86 20:16:57 EDT
References: <2082@hao.UUCP> <13913@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> <259@dmcnh.UUCP> <3758@sun.uucp>
Reply-To: chrisa@tekig5.UUCP (Chris Andersen)
Distribution: net
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton, OR.
Lines: 24
Xref: watmath net.news:4927 net.news.group:5795

In article <3758@sun.uucp> chuq@sun.uucp (Chuq Von Rospach) writes:
>> Some people just miss the point entirely. If we do away with "soapbox"
>> groups, whatever they are, all (most of?)  the traffic currently channeled 
>> into these "useless" groups will end up in other ("usefull") groups.
>
>This is an argument that was used to keep from zapping net.flame for years.
>When net.flame finally did go away, if was proven wrong. The fact is that
>MOST of the volume associated with that group goes away. It doesn't
>transport itself into another group.

But is the example of what happened in net.flame a good one?  Most of what was
there were just random flames that didn't fit anywhere else.  However, if you
kill a group like net.startrek, most of it's volume will most likely move to
net.tv (or maybe net.movie) where people will start to complain about all the
trekkies take over the newsgroup.  I can think of many other examples of how
discussions would just move to another newsgroup also.


-- 
My mailbox is always willing to accept letters.

			Life, Love, Laughter, and Hope,
			Chris Andersen
			...tektronix!tekig5!chrisa