🚀 go-pugleaf

lisbon@vpnet.chi.il.us (Gerry Swetsky) writes:

> taz%momad@infoserv.com writes:
>
> >I would like to propose a new heirarchy:
> 
>     Oh no, not again.
> 
> >The groups within this heirarchy would last througout the lifetime of
> >the topic itself, and then would be cancelled.
> 
>     Then Bruce Becker would newgroup them again.  Isn't this fun?
> 
> >Of course, there would
> >have to be new guidelines for proposing a new topic within this heirarchy,
> >as a long voting period would defeat the purpose of 'timely' topical
> >newsgroups.
> 
>     And what good are guidelines when you have jerks that have no
>     respect for the net?

That's not quite correct. Bruce, deranged as he is, actually believes he's
doing things correctly according to the "guidelines" of alt. The proposal
here for a new bottom-level heirarchy would have a completely different set
of guidelines.

It's possible that not enough people will support such a heirarchy for it
to succeed, but that's an entirely different issue. 

						- k
-- 
Craig Harding            kilroy@acme.gen.nz             ACME BBS +64 6 3551342
"Jub'er lbh pnyyvat n obmb?"