Re: Recommendation: Creation of "alt.cypherpunks"

[janke@unixg.ubc.ca (Leonard Janke)]

ichudov@algebra.com (Igor Chudov @ home) writes:

> 
> Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM wrote:
> > [...] 
> > Timmy has a valid point: the reason why a comp.* newsgroup might have less
> > cross-posted and "off-topic" crap is because net.cops would be more
> > likely to complain to posters' sysadmins. [...]
> 
> As for net.cops, check out what Scott Nudds does in comp.lang.c++
> [...]

Yes, Scott Nudds is a good example of how dedicated flamers
(or maybe he is just a flamee trying to defend himself, I came
too late to say for sure), and those who fuel them on, can cause even 
a comp.* newsgroup to be as noisy as this list. (Btw, if you think
comp.lang.c++ is bad, check out comp.lang.asm.x86, sometime!).

I think it is, thus, important to distinguish between
noise from "outsiders", and noise caused by "insiders" who 
actually read the newsgroup but disrupt it for fun or
grudges, or what not. A comp.* newsgroup will help reduce the
former noise, for the reasons Dr. Vulis cites, but not so much the 
latter, since many insider trouble-makers  are often their own 
adminstraters or providers, or who have found providers or who
now have admins who will not cut them off.

That being said, I fully support the idea of a comp.* newgroup, 
over an alt.* group. The important advantages are the greater
propogation many have described, and the reduction in "outsider"
noise. I also think that people interested in computing
in general might be more likely to stumble onto the newsgroup,
since the comp.* hierachy is so much smaller than the alt.*
hierachy.

I do worry, however, that some of the more mischevious people 
around this list might try to disrupt the voting process with forged e-mail,
or turn the discussion over creation into a less than civil debate. 
In this unlinkely worst case scenario, however, not much would be lost
since we could still fall back to alt.cypherpunks, and it
would, later, make for good net.legends. :)

To be fair, though, I doubt that anyone would seriously try to
disrupt the creation, given the dedication I am seeing people putting 
into finding a new home (or homes!) for the list, and that there does not 
seem to be anyone dedicated to distrupting that process as John Gilmore 
worried there would be. (And I am on the unedited list, too!) 

Let's give it a shot!

Leonard