🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Oct15.090408@mccall.com> tp@mccall.com (Terry Poot) writes:

>In article <719058360.F00055@monly.wlink.nl.wlink.nl>,
>Tim.Pierce@f1.n100.z60.wlink.nl (Tim Pierce) writes:
>
>>There is an understanding (granted, a very general and loosely defined
>>one) among news administrators regarding which alt groups are
>>"properly" created and which ones are not.  
>
>Maybe among some admins, but my understanding (and apparently at least a few
>others) is that there is no such thing as an improper alt group, by definition.

I'm happy to point to alt.music.enya.puke.puke.pukeSender: though that
is an extreme example (and I think not what you're discussing).

My point is that *total* anarchy makes alt close to unusable.  One of
the reasons I remain so strong on this issue is that I perceive a
tremendous amount of potential good in the concept of the altnet, but
few people seem to take alt seriously.  That seems to be largely
because of the tremendous number of "joke" groups, which give people
the impression of "nobody cares about alt."  People don't carry alt
because it's a "cesspool."  And that, I think, is a crying shame.

Does alt need to turn into another Usenet in order to reverse that
situation?  I don't think so.  I have created every group previously
discussed in alt.config without strenuous objections.  I think that a
large number of those are either poorly conceived or misleadingly
named, but so be it.  It's not for me to decide.  I *do*, however,
categorically reject newgroups that come in without a prior
announcement in alt.config.  I need *some* yardstick for deciding
which groups to consider "proper," and this seems like a pretty
accurate way to measure it.

-- 
____ Tim Pierce                / "You are just naive and repressed because
\  / twpierce@unix.amherst.edu /  penis envy is here and it's now and it's
 \/ (BITnet: TWPIERCE@AMHERST) /  all around you." -- Neal C. Wickham