🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Apr30.211836.28020@sura.net> lidl@sura.net (Kurt J. Lidl) writes:
>In article <1992Apr29.163925.27486@access.digex.com> jamie@access.digex.com (James Treworgy) writes:
>>
>>Why not? It's certainly pertinent to DC.
>
>Pertinent to DC, yes.  Pertinent to dc.general, no.  There is a place
>for advertising.  The dc.general newsgroup is *not* it.  Why not just
>kill the cross-post to dc.general, and just post it to alt.bbs.ads?  It
>exists for this type of things.  If Mike *had* to post it, why the heck
>not to dc.forsale?  They are selling a service (in a for-profit
>manner), USENET and E-Mail access.  Therefore, it should be regulated
>to the *correct channels*.  dc.general is *not* the correct channel.
[lots more along same lines deleted]

Please, then, explain for the usenet community what the exact boundaries
of discussion for dc.*GENERAL* are. My interperetation: DC = topics of
interest to the Washington, DC community. GENERAL = general topics
of discussion, information, or interest which do not directly fall
under another category.

As for dc.forsale, that's more "items" for sale.  This is a service.
What if digex was free? There are some free public access services.. what
if one of them had responded? Certainly dc.forsale is inappropriate.
Yet the service is exactly the same. So should we allow only free services
to post information to dc.general, but require that those that charge a fee
only be allowed to post to dc.forsale, and not to dc.general?

I think that information about public access services in the DC area are
perfectly appropriate for dc.general. And I think that it is very hard
to say anything at ALL which pertains to DC doesn't belong in dc.general.
(Unless you are going to tell me that "general" stands for military
generals, and we should only talk about Custer here).
-- 
James A. Treworgy    "And it all would be so crystal clear, if it wasn't for
jamie@digex.com         the foam..."          (jamie@sun.astro.wesleyan.edu)