[continued from previous message]   
      
   > not, to tell us why it can't or shouldn't happen.   
      
   Hold on a sec, I need to get a new diaper.........ok   
      
   >   
   > Because I *GUARANTEE* you there is a market for it   
   > out there.  If they know they aren't going to have any   
   > netkkop nonsense from the likes of you, and can get   
   > their group in a hierarachy designed for that, they'll   
   > be in there in an instant.   
   >   
      
   Who is they.  You and your Mom?  If you are there, the place will be a   
   ghost town.....crickets   
      
   > owned.bradtempleton.*   
   >   
   > If Brad had that now he wouldn't be considering   
   > which of many not-quite-right groups to continue   
   > this discussion at.   
   >   
   > owned.usenet-classic.*   
   >   
   > You can create your own virtual world in there,   
      
   What's wrong with the real world?   
      
   >the   
   > original First Cycle of Usenet, develop whatever rules   
   > or control mechanisms you want.  Leather, handcuffs,   
   > the whole nine yards.  Whatever floats your boat.   
   > If it's not that, then whatever it is because it's your   
   > group.   
   >   
   > Think about the web board version of this.  You have   
   > to set up the domain, then the board, then people   
   > have to register, then there's the clunky interface...   
   > this is much more condusive to subscribing to a list   
   > of groups, i.e. posters or groups of posters, and   
   > just clicking over to get an update on the discussion   
   > and add your post.  The trolls and such will be far   
   > less likely to see much upside trying to attack it,   
   > especially when the inevitable new features arrive   
   > allowing whitelisting without elaborate moderation   
   > software.   
   >   
   > Genius.  Just... genius.   
      
   Make it happen then.  People want action, not words.   
   We all grew tired of you about a hundred posts ago.   
      
      
   >   
   > Since the last post it did occur to me that some   
   > limits on number of sub-groups and traffic may be   
   > needed.  So maybe"   
   >   
   > owned.janedoe.h1.s1   
   >   
   > Then four more s2 to s5, and repeat for h2 to h5.   
   > So 25 groups at the fourth level, five at the second   
   > level and one at the top for 30 in total.  Initially I   
   > think it should be text-only so existing users lock   
   > up that.  I can think of many good lapsed posters   
   > who might be drawn back by this concept.   
   >   
   > It basically gives everyone their own personal   
   > discussion board, because the sub-hierarchies   
   > don't even have to be set up.  Those could just   
   > be a feature added later, the ability to do that.   
   >   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)