Xref: utzoo news.groups:5849 news.sysadmin:1109 rec.arts.tv:7255
Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!att!mtuxo!rolls!terminus!nyssa
From: nyssa@terminus.UUCP (The Prime Minister)
Newsgroups: news.groups,news.sysadmin,rec.arts.tv
Subject: Re: rec.arts.tv.bbc -- just say NO
Message-ID: <12319@terminus.UUCP>
Date: 28 Oct 88 14:52:11 GMT
References: <10440@s.ms.uky.edu> <5238@medusa.cs.purdue.edu>
Reply-To: nyssa@terminus.UUCP (The Prime Minister)
Distribution: na
Organization: Terminus
Lines: 26

I must apologize for the trauma caused by this newgroup; as I feel
partially responsible.  The administrator for raphel and I were
discussing some of the groups we'd like to see, and one we hit
on was a group for British television.  I asked if he knew the
procedure to create a new group, he said he did, so I said go for it.

Needless to say, I was quite surprised to see the newgroup!  I was
expecting a start for a discussion.  I have since clarified that 
with those responsible.

In article <5238@medusa.cs.purdue.edu> spaf@cs.purdue.edu (Gene Spafford) writes:
>1) for many site admins to suddenly recompile news with the NONEWGROUPS
>option set (I've personally heard from 5 such individuals, including
>admins at decwrl, rutgers & hao).

Actually, I am surprised that they weren't compiled that way anyway,
terminus is certainly compiled so that I have to manually create
each group.  I've always viewed it as part of administering.

>Once there is some discussion on the group and some kind of indicator
>of consensus as to its need (as in a poll/vote or excessive
>volume of postings in inappropriate groups), then I think many of
>us will honor a newgroup request.  Until then, don't bet the farm on
>it staying around.

This will be addressed in another posting to more appropriate groups.