Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!ateng!chip From: chip@ateng.com (Chip Salzenberg) Newsgroups: news.groups Subject: Re: Give it up, folks Message-ID: <255F14A9.16035@ateng.com> Date: 13 Nov 89 19:23:20 GMT References: <36339@apple.Apple.COM> <10119@stag.math.lsa.umich.edu> <36343@apple.Apple.COM> <1989Nov11.002535.21243@world.std.com> Organization: A T Engineering, Tampa, FL Lines: 30 According to bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein): >About three years ago I remember asking this group *exactly* what the >reason was that we need to put so much resistance into the group >creation process? Why bother? > >About the closest thing I got to a cogent answer last time was that if >we had a lot of groups it would break some limit on PDP-11's. Apparently Barry forgets all the answers about cluttered name spaces making the discovery of The Appropriate Group For An Article even more difficult. Memory loss can be such a tragedy. >One problem I did see, and also I don't think has ever been rationally >addressed, is that there is no method for REMOVING a group once >properly created (or just consolidating N groups when their individual >reasons for creation, traffic, cease to exist.) This problem does still exist. I think it's about time to try. Rmgroup soc.human-nets, anyone? >There's something so idiotic going on here that it defies explanation, >some kind of cargo-cult or fetish worship with group creation its >dime-store diety. Groupthink at its worst. There is some wisdom here; but multiplying group creations until they become worthless is *not* the answer. -- You may redistribute this article only to those who may freely do likewise. Chip Salzenberg at A T Engineering; or