Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!husc6!bloom-beacon!bu-cs!purdue!decwrl!hplabs!ucbvax!agate!violet.berkeley.edu!skyler
From: skyler@violet.berkeley.edu
Newsgroups: news.admin
Subject: Re: Suggestion for new newsgroup creation rule.
Message-ID: <11582@agate.BERKELEY.EDU>
Date: 2 Jul 88 05:55:45 GMT
References: <960@ficc.UUCP> <11275@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> <9775@g.ms.uky.edu>
Sender: usenet@agate.BERKELEY.EDU
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
Lines: 23

In article <9775@g.ms.uky.edu> david@ms.uky.edu (David Herron -- One of the vertebrae) writes:
>In article <11275@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> skyler@violet.berkeley.edu writes:
>>Starting groups in alt won't help certain kinds of groups because alt has
>>a limited distribution and a particular (and unrepresentative) kind of
>>readership.  Serious kinds of groups would do especially badly.  Hence,
>>a group might do badly in alt which would do well in some other kind
>>of distribution and vice versa.
>
>ah well now ... that's an interesting sort of "discrimination".  That because
>a hierarchy has some bad apples that it's all bad.  I suppose that the
>recipes group over there is full of bizarre-oids? 

This article is deeply confusing.  Who mentioned discrimination?  Perhaps
someone did in a different context?  Then, pray tell, why apply those
words in this context?  

Putting a group in alt would not be discrimination.  It would, quite
simply, not give the information which a decision on a group requires.
This has nothing to do with bad or good apples.  It has to do with who
reads alt groups.  Starting a group in alt will give you an unrepresentative
sample. 

-Trish Roberts