Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!husc6!mailrus!ames!killer!vector!rpp386!pigs!haugj From: haugj@pigs.UUCP (Joe Bob Willie) Newsgroups: news.admin Subject: Re: talk.* =? net.* Summary: opposition to the great renaming fiasco? Keywords: Usenet, newsgroup, moderate Message-ID: <231@pigs.UUCP> Date: 1 Jul 88 13:21:17 GMT References: <3220@s.cc.purdue.edu> <690@spectrix.UUCP> Reply-To: haugj@pigs.UUCP (Joe Bob Willie) Distribution: na Organization: Big "D" Oil and Gas Lines: 30 In article webber@porthos.rutgers.edu (Bob Webber) writes: ]In article <690@spectrix.UUCP>, John_M@spectrix.UUCP (John Macdonald) writes: ][ Specifically, I think that all groups outside of talk should be ][ moderated. The talk hierarchy should be expanded to include at least ][ talk.comp.misc, talk.rec.misc, talk.soc.misc, and talk.sci.misc. ] ]Just out of curiousity, do you realize that your proposal means that talk.* ]would de facto be the old net.* and the rest of the net would be various ]descendants of mod.*. I guess we can add you to the list of people who ]opposed the ``Great Renaming Fiasco.'' ] ]---- BOB (webber@athos.rutgers.edu ; rutgers!athos.rutgers.edu!webber) i agree with John_M, if there isn't someone willing to keep the S/N ratio high, why bother wasting money shipping it around? i think this is alot like the 100 vote rule, if 100 people aren't willing to participate in a group, why bother? as for putting the groups in talk.all, why not? where else would you have them moved? personally, i think there should be a ninety day waiting period, and if the group doesn't find a moderator, rmgroup it. - john. ps - would someone tell mel to make those article id's a little longer ;-) -- Joe Bob Willie Big "D" Oil and Gas UUCP: ...!killer!rpp386!jfh jfh@rpp386.uucp :DOMAIN **** Trivia question of the day: VYARZERZIMANIMORORSEZASSEZANSERAREORSES? **** "You are in a twisty little maze of UUCP connections, all alike" -- fortune