Twin Peaks Usenet Archive
Subject: Re: FINAL CALL FOR DISCUSSION: rec.arts.tv.twin-peaks
From: firstname.lastname@example.org (Kip J. Guinn)
Date: 1990-11-15, 11:21
In article <5901@rtech.Ingres.COM> email@example.com (Eric G. Elvira) writes:
> >My vote is a YES to create rec.arts.tv.twin-peaks.
> >I know there is an alt group but as many people have said a lot of sites do
> >not get the alt groups. Why should we discriminate against those sites?
We shouldn't. Those sites (hopefully) are receiving rec.arts.tv. They
can read about TP there. If they don't receive rec.arts.tv, they should
petition their admin(s) for access to it.
Yes, TP traffic increases the load on rec.arts.tv, but I guess I just
don't understand the problem with using kill files, thread-killing tools,
etc., or (heaven forbid) just skipping to the next article when a TP one
shows up. Even if you have an old/bad newsreader package, is it _really_
that hard? Seems like every time someone gets a little lazy, the call to
split the group goes out.
Also, as it has been pointed out here, the rec* hierarchy is not for tran-
sitory groups. Specific TV shows are transitory (or better yet--too
specific for the rec* hierarchy).