Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!cmcl2!rutgers!topaz.rutgers.edu!brandx.rutgers.edu!webber
From: webber@brandx.rutgers.edu (Webber)
Newsgroups: news.sysadmin,news.groups,alt.flame
Subject: Re: new newsgroups?
Message-ID: <454@brandx.rutgers.edu>
Date: Thu, 8-Oct-87 22:20:14 EDT
Article-I.D.: brandx.454
Posted: Thu Oct  8 22:20:14 1987
Date-Received: Sun, 11-Oct-87 10:20:49 EDT
References: <30206@sun.uucp> <2687@xanth.UUCP>
Followup-To: alt.flame
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.
Lines: 19
Summary: leave them where they are
Xref: mnetor news.sysadmin:396 news.groups:1669 alt.flame:206

In article <2687@xanth.UUCP>, kyle@xanth.UUCP (Kyle Jones) writes:
> Here we go again.  I ask again: Can these groups be excised from the
> "official" USENET tree?  Putting the inet groups under comp, sci, rec
> etc. has thoroughly confused users and programs alike.  Why aren't the
> "inet" groups is distributed in the same manner as the alt groups?

It didn't confuse users or programs.  Who it did confuse were system
administrators.  If they had just said ``what the heck'' and created
the groups locally, they wouldn't be having the problems they have now.

The last great renaming was totally ludicrous, but at least there was
method in the madness, i.e., set up a turn-of-the-century library
cataloging system for newsgroups.  Creating a bunch of side groups
like alt, bionet, ca, ru, org, etc., totally undermines that and wastes all
the suffering that the survivors of the last renaming endured.  NEVER
AGAIN.  There is no one on this net that knows enough about what they are 
doing to justify changing the name of a group once it has been created!

------- BOB (webber@aramis.rutgers.edu ; rutgers!aramis.rutgers.edu!webber)