🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Oct29.022926.2422@vpnet.chi.il.us> lisbon@vpnet.chi.il.us (Gerry Swetsky) writes:
>In article <LIa7qAJNBh107h@momad.UUCP> taz%momad@infoserv.com writes:
>>
>>I would like to propose a new heirarchy:
>
>    Oh no, not again.

This starts out well.  Obviously this will be a level headed,
thoughtful, reply.

>>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?

Put a Becker filter on your new group script.

>>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?

There are always jerks.  You find jerks all over the highways, does
that stop you from driving?

>>I would appreciate any comments about this proposal, and would not
>>appreciate flames. :-)
>
>    Please - leave us alone.

Yes, please do.  Unless you have some actual REASONS that this proposal
might not be a good idea.  Snide remarks have little informational
content.


		-Richard Hartman
		hartman@ulogic.COM

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
"Fosters!  It's Australian for beer, mate!"