Where is c.u.wizards ?

[Marcus J. Ranum]

 laird at chinet.chi.il.us (Laird J. Heal) writes:

>This is one reason to follow the meta-discussions that take place
>in news.groups: [reason follows]

	Good to see there's one - other than improving your reading
skills by browsing all those zillions of pointless censorship/biff/etc
flames. Therein is the main fallacy of this pseudo-democratic approach
to "running" USENET: those whose opinions we're intersted in hearing
don't waste their time with news.groups, either. Some of them maybe
*used* to read c.u.w., but I'm sure the reorganization, subsequent
flame wars, and the endless repetitive jargon file discussions have
probably taken care of that.

	How do we start a call for discussion about pitching the whole
groups voting procedure, and returning to anarchy, letting each site
determine its propagation policy based on the law of the jungle?

mjr, aristocrat.
-- 
	Selling tomorrow's software today is on a par with selling junk bonds,
yet people are willing to buy it. Barnum was understating his case.
			[From the programming notebooks of a heretic, 1990]