🚀 go-pugleaf

John Higdon <no-spam@amadeus.kome.com> writes:

> > 1) It's an "OK" idea, not a great idea, and it bothers me that
> >    it seems to have been motivated more by virtue of a personal
> >    crusade (Habash's vis-a-vis John Navas, mostly) than anything
> >    else.

> In my fifteen years experience on Usenet, that's often the sole reason 
> for group name-change proposals.

You mean ala comp.dcom.telecom and comp.dcom.telecom.tech?  I voted
for that one only because I got sick of the moderator (Pat ?, can't
even recall his last name now) scrbbling all over the group.  This
is a similar situation, but I don't know if a similar solution will
accomplish the same thing here.

The way ba.internet currently operates is everyone picks a thread
and hammers away it with pretty much anything and everything.  Then
it eventually dies a slow death, and then the next thread comes along
and the same thing happens over again.

I personally don't care to slog through quite that much off-charter
crud, and I think something which deals that would be good to do.

But then having been at this since the 1980s I know trying to move
anything like this is damn near impossible - unless, I suppose, the
group gets nuked and others are created to replace it.

I expect there will be too much opposition to get that done... so it
is probably wise to comtemplate some other solution(s) to the problems
some have with some of the goings on here...

Billy Y..