🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <MPG.1962a528c2a5570b989e04@corp.supernews.com>, Philip J Koenig wrote:
> My thoughts as follows:
> 
> 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.  Habash himself hardly ever posts a message in ba.internet 
>    these days if it isn't to snipe at either Navas or myself.  
>    This is for starters.

Yeah, even before my propsal (as incomplete as it was, according
to Ken) I wasn't entirely sold on the idea myself.  Which is probably
enough reason to kill it, considering nobody has yet expressed any
enthusiasm for it (I wasn't really expecting much, to be honest)

Your characterization is probably not entirely inaccurate, but it 
*is* certainly true that many of the messages posted in ba.internet 
aren't on-topic for that newsgroup, making it difficult to participate
in any meaningful sense.  You reserve the right to be bothered by 
this, which is perfectly fair.  I will make no bones about having 
little interest in ba.technology.misc (or whatever we call it), 
which is why I really haven't participated much besides to snipe.  
But I would really like to participate in the "proper" group, if 
you know what I mean.  

> 2) ba.internet is a relatively high-traffic group, such decisions
>    as removal of such a group should not be taken lightly.

No removal should ever be.  Even ba.jobs.offered (considered a
cesspool) wasn't.

> 3) Personally while I can see some rationalization for the change,
>    I'm afraid that the fragmentation of the group from 1 to 3
>    will reduce the quantity of posting into any particular group
>    to a point below "critical mass" and result in a die-off of
>    activity and participation.

That's a valid concern.  Maybe a better idea would be to more actively 
encourage folks to remain on-topic in the current newsgroup.  However,
that also could be construed to reduce the quantity (dunno about quality)
of posts, due to the possible chilling effect any conforming suggestion
tends to have.

> (Since most of the affected parties, including myself, don't make
> a habit of reading ba.config, I have restored ba.internet to the
> group list)

That's fine.  I don't think ba.config was seeing very much activity,
though clearly it has watchful eyes from above.

--Sam 

---------------------------------------------------------------------
"Of course, there are limits to diversity, earth is a single point of 
        failure for the foreseeable future."   -- Sean Donelan
---------------------------------------------------------------------