🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1cgm7iINN79t@ef2007.efhd.ford.com> mjo@slee01.srl.ford.com (Mike O'Connor) writes:
>:Yes, and that's exactly the problem. Newsgroups should _not_ be "timely";
>:rather, they should be designed so they won't be obsolete in a few years.
>
>I don't agree.  There should be topical newsgroups in much the same
>manner that there are topical sections in newspapers.  In fact, I
>consider that one of the more useful purposes of the alt groups.  When
>people want to hear about Clinton, Bush, or Ross Perot, for example, I
>feel that Usenet groups should manifest to deal with that.  The
>"campaign" groups will probably fade in a few months.  So what?

The problem is that newsgroups do not die of starvation. Old newsgroups
just lurk around forever. The Ross Perot conference will probably still
be with us by the time the _next_ US election comes around! This results
in a network even more bloated than it needs to be. 

Even worse, perhaps, are the newsgroups that carry perhaps one message a 
month (mostly of the 'is there intelligent life out there?' variety). What
a waste of resources!

We need to be more ruthless about killing groups that have outlived their
usefulness or that have never really got off the ground after a suitably long
time.
%%%%     Geva Patz
 Geva    Wits University
  %%%%   050GEVA@witsvma.wits.ac.za