Xref: utzoo rec.arts.tv.soaps:9978 news.groups:13214
Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!wuarchive!gem.mps.ohio-state.edu!usc!csun!mx!mst
From: mx!mst@csun.edu
Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv.soaps,news.groups
Subject: Re: Newsgroup split
Message-ID: <2419@csun.edu>
Date: 15 Oct 89 17:30:42 GMT
References: <40178@bu-cs.BU.EDU> <4107.253633eb@zeus.unl.edu>
Sender: news@csun.edu
Reply-To: mst@mx.csun.edu (Michael Temkin)
Distribution: na
Organization: CSU, Northridge School of Engineering & Computer Science
Lines: 28

In article <4107.253633eb@zeus.unl.edu> oneil@zeus.unl.edu (Sharon O'Neil) writes:
>In article <40178@bu-cs.BU.EDU>, pam@bu-cs.BU.EDU (Pam Pletz) writes:
>> I think it would be
>> inconvenient for the majority to have to suscribe to 6+ more groups to
>> keep up with the soaps.  I like to keep up a bit with most of them.
>> And what about general soap news?  Where does that go?
>> 
>> Just *my* opinion!
>
>  I agree!  I think that splitting the newsgroup by show is about the
>most ludicrous idea I have heard in a long time.  
>
> Sharon Lindsey O'Neil              | Internet: oneil@zeus.unl.edu

Is it so awful to hit tthe 'y' key when asked if you want to subscribe
to 'rec.arts.tv.soaps.oltl'?  You need to say yes, and then one more key
to say where in your .newsrc file to put it.  If they are just
one-after-the-other in the .newsrc file, you will hardly notice any
difference.

I say 'YES' to the split.  Both sides have had some pretty good reasons
for the way they want it, but the arrogance (and I do mean arrogance) of
the no'ers is pretty strong.  If wewant to take their view of 'but it 
takes up soooooo much disk space', why split the system up at all.  Why not
just have 'news'.  One BIG directory with everything in it.  Why, you 
could always use your KILL files,  EVERYONE has kill files. :-)

Mike .