ru.igarashi@usask.ca wrote in news:cmr97f$t29$1@tribune.usask.ca:
> 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
