🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <Bw6s19.Kur@unix.amherst.edu>, twpierce@unix.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce)
writes:
>My point is that *total* anarchy makes alt close to unusable.  

That was not the feeling when alt was created. They didn't ask my opinion,
either, as I'd have agreed with you, but there it is. 

>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

But that concept is total anarchy, which you reject. So in effect, you are
trying to reform altnet, which I personally think is impossible. You can't make
anything "stick". Poskanzer and Becker are good illustrations of this. There's
nothing "wrong" about what they are doing. How can you change that fact, when
there is nobody to say what is right and wrong.

>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.  

A reasonable policy to apply at your site.

>I need *some* yardstick for deciding
>which groups to consider "proper," and this seems like a pretty
>accurate way to measure it.

Some people obviously disagree. The point is you are no more or less correct
than anyone else. The flip side of "anyone can create any group at any time" is
that "nobody has to carry it if they don't want to". Unfortunately, anyone can
also send a rmgroup, and that isn't "wrong" either.
--
Terry Poot <tp@mccall.com>                   The McCall Pattern Company
(uucp: ...!rutgers!depot!mccall!tp)          615 McCall Road
(800)255-2762, in KS (913)776-4041           Manhattan, KS 66502, USA