[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> That's his perogative. His server, his rules (or whoever's he set the > groups up on). We don't have the right to dictate what groups he puts > on his news server. If someone else decides to take a feed from him > and allow the group on their server, same story, their server, their > rules. That kind of independence is at the foundation of usenet. > While I may be displeased that the bogus groups exist, I'm similarly > not going to be supportive of moves to dictate what groups he puts > on his server. Those groups are propagated to *other* servers, and they confuse lots of people into thinking that they are bonafide Big-8 groups. Even Google is either confused or careless about the status of those groups. If the NAN team announces a reversal of the rec.woodworking.all-ages result in the next few days, would you have any problem with the proponents sending out a control message anyway? Archiving the rogue group in Google Groups? If nothing else, taking no steps toward action sets a bad example, and might encourage others to skip the RFD and create more rogue groups. -- Bill ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
