Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!wayback!cap
From: cap@wayback.UUCP (Cindy)
Newsgroups: news.admin
Subject: Re: The death of USENET
Message-ID: <1355@wayback.UUCP>
Date: 20 Jun 88 14:14:32 GMT
References: <2645@rpp386.UUCP> <56228@sun.uucp> <2350@inco.UUCP> <56250@sun.uucp> <2117@sugar.UUCP>
Organization: The Beach
Lines: 17

In article <2117@sugar.UUCP>, peter@sugar.UUCP (Peter da Silva) writes:
> 	(4) Give every group in rec, soc, talk a going over. Flame groups
> 	    like talk.bizzarre or whatever the evolution group is this week
> 	    can go.

   You really should read a group before you suggest that it "can go"
   It is called talk.bizarre btw, and it is *not* a flame group.
   It shows a definite lack of character to criticize that which you
   know nothing about.

   And just who is suppose to do this going over?  How can anyone
   judge any rec, soc or talk group to be better than any other?
   Either get rid of all of them or keep all of them, no one
   should impose their own personal tastes on anyone else. 

   Anyway, I like the idea of splitting USENET up into COMPNET, 
   RECNET and SOCNET.