Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!wuarchive!gem.mps.ohio-state.edu!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!ark1!dsill
From: dsill@ark1.nswc.navy.mil (Dave Sill)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: While we're talking about global changes in newsgroups...
Message-ID: <178@ark1.nswc.navy.mil>
Date: 15 Oct 89 15:49:36 GMT
References: <6532@ficc.uu.net> <1989Oct15.020043.12669@rpi.edu> <35660@apple.Apple.COM>
Reply-To: dsill@relay.nswc.navy.mil (Dave Sill)
Organization: Naval Surface Warfare Center, Dahlgren VA
Lines: 24

In article <35660@apple.Apple.COM> chuq@Apple.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) writes:
>Actually, the whole idea of the *.misc groups was to get the traffic out of
>the base name, the idea being that all of the subgroups should be at the
>same level in the heirarchy.

I wonder why that was considered A Good Thing.  It seems kind of
contradictory to a hierarchical structure.  Logically, the function
served by .misc groups is more general that that of a subgroup.

>I don't remember who brought it up, but I've
>always felt it was overkill, except at the top level (you don't want someone
>posting to comp, you want them posting to comp.misc). 

Here you've lost me, Chuq.  What makes the top level different from
any other level?  Why *not* use comp instead of comp.misc?

>Anyone who thinks that the argument over {sci,rec}.fishies is about
>group names doesn't understand the system.

Right, and who does "understand the system"?  The way you understand
it and the way others understand differ, in general.  Who's to say
which is "right"?
-- 
Dave Sill (dsill@relay.nswc.navy.mil)