🚀 go-pugleaf

Colin Douthwaite (Colin_Douthwaite@equinox.gen.nz) wrote:
: The CFV ( Call for Votes ) has now been issued for the proposed new 
: subgroup "sci.chem.analytical".  
: This CFV also contains a proposal to remove the existing parent 
: newsgroup "sci.chem" and replace it with the subgroup "sci.chem.misc" 

I agree that this is wrong.  Who or what gives anyone the right to remove a 
group that is successful?  This proposal makes it seem as if the proposer 
understands very little about Usenet.  Go ahead and add all your little 
fragmented, tightly focused, underused, ego driven newsgroups, but leave 
the useful part of Usenet alone.  

Take a look through the *big* list of Usenet groups.  Can you notice 
anything about the ones with low traffic?  Do you even know how to 
check the traffic?  Usenet is not a listserver.  

Please try and understand what Usenet is about.  Uncontrolled 
information...some of it old, but some of it new.  New ideas are good.  
New ideas are good.  New ideas are good.  New ideas are good.  Stretch 
your mind...think about something you don't work with all day!

Rick (who takes a week off from this group and regulation takes over!)
--
T. Rick Fletcher   -   http://www.chem.uidaho.edu/~fletcher/
Assistant professor of chemistry  |  That's Idaho, not Iowa.    |  These
University of Idaho               |  Upper Left Hand Corner.    |  opinions
Moscow, ID 83844-2343             |  No, I don't grow potatoes. |  are mine.