🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Apr11.031855.4843@macc.wisc.edu> anderson@macc.wisc.edu (Jess  
Anderson) writes:
|> We should know the results of the voting in a few hours, as
|> the deadline is under four hours away as I write.  I had the
|> *very* strong impression, however, that there was a
|> near-unanimous consensus that RTF postings would appear
|> *only* in the csn.rtf newsgroup, which was the primary
|> reason for proposing that group and a major factor in
|> expanding the CSN hierarchy at all.
|> 
|> If the new groups pass (I'll be surprised and disappointed
|> if they don't), then I think it very likely the appearance
|> of RTF postings here will be met with near-universal
|> opprobrium.  Nothing (other than good citizenship) would
|> *prevent* such postings, but that's true of any form of
|> irresponsibility on Usenet.
What/who is giving you this "*very* strong impression"? Have you been
hacking the voting computer??!!??

Frankly I see this RTF group as a mistake. When SEF doesn't have any
actual RTF postings to bounce he'll move on to bouncing the re-director
postings telling people about postings in the RTF groups.

And I dare say that the major factor leading to the desire to split
up csn wasn't RTF postings, but rather the desire to bury the
inane postings from those with nothing else better to do than
attempt to supress other people. Remember the OD wars? Do you think they
added to the breakup spirit? csn needed spliting up for reasons other
than to give RTF postings a SEF-free zone. Far too many topics were being
jumbled together in csnm.

As for control, what will keep ASCII posters out of the RTF group??? Will
SEF decide the best way to continue his campaign will be to post ASCII 
messages in csn.rtf? Nothing in the mandate says you can't post ASCII there.
And nothing said you couldn't post small RTF's in csnm either, this whole
thing is bull shit.

Scotty