Xref: utzoo news.groups:8689 news.admin:5394
Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!pasteur!ames!xanth!nic.MR.NET!umn-d-ub!uwvax!puff!gumby!cooke
From: cooke@gumby.cs.wisc.edu (David Cooke=)
Newsgroups: news.groups,news.admin
Subject: Re: Proposed OFFICIAL Newsgroup Creation/Deletion Guidelines
Message-ID: <2498@puff.cs.wisc.edu>
Date: 3 Apr 89 06:59:33 GMT
References: <1634@ncar.ucar.edu> <11326@s.ms.uky.edu>
Sender: news@puff.cs.wisc.edu
Reply-To: cooke@gumby.cs.wisc.edu (GP)
Followup-To: news.groups
Distribution: na
Organization: Just Another Secret Society
Lines: 24

In article <11326@s.ms.uky.edu> david@ms.uky.edu (David Herron -- One of the vertebrae) writes:
>
>And in case anybody thinks that such high numbers of votes aren't
>possible, all you need is one volatile subject (like comp.women)
>to set it off and you'll get lots of votes.
>
>My feeling is that in such a case, even though a lot of people have
>indicated favourably, that a *LOT* of people have *ALSO* indicated
>unfavorably.  And that group of people is large enough that they
>should be given attention.  That there must be something fundamentally
>wrong with the proposal if it's generating that much negative feelings.
>*REGARDLESS* of the amount of positive feelings.

Why is it relevant that a lot of people have voted no? No one is *forced* to
read a group. What gives a very vocal group the right to suppress the interests
of others on the net? If there is sufficient interest in forming a new group,
one that will be highly active and reduce the noise on other groups, what's
the problem? There are a lot of groups on the net that I will never be 
interested in reading, but I don't dispute the rights of those who wish to to
read them regularly.

Dave

Disclaimer: I don't do disclaimers.