Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!gem.mps.ohio-state.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!snorkelwacker!spdcc!merk!xylogics!cloud9!jjmhome!m2c!umvlsi!vishwana
From: vishwana@umvlsi.ecs.umass.edu (Chidambaram Vishwanath)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: CALL FOR VOTES - rec.sport.soccer
Message-ID: <528@umvlsi.ecs.umass.edu>
Date: 18 Nov 89 23:48:08 GMT
References: <1100@castle.ed.ac.uk>
Reply-To: vishwana@umvlsi.ecs.umass.edu (Chidambaram Vishwanath)
Organization: University of Massachusetts, Amherst
Lines: 33


	It was my impression that before calling for votes for creating
rec.sport.soccer, some discussion on its necessity or otherwise should
have occured on the net.  Anyway, this is my tuppence-worth of argument
as to why such a newsgroup should *not* be voted for.  

1)  While the soccer-related traffic seems to have increased quite a 
bit in the last couple of months, there is still not enough to warrant
a separate newsgroup for soccer. (An average of hardly ten articles or
so arrive in a day, in all of rec.sport.misc, which hardly justifies
further subdivision of the contents into new newsgroups.)

2)  A lot of the contributors of articles on soccer seem to come from
the nations of the Commonwealth.  (This is my personal observation; if
wrong I'll stand corrected).  The point is:  I am sure there is interest
among them in reading articles on both soccer and that maverick, ana-
chronistic game of cricket. (I am going by my own interests and the fact
that quite a few netters posts articles on both games.)  And it is so
much more convenient to read about everything of interest within one
newsgroup.

3)  Lastly, why change the status-quo without having excellent reasons
for doing so?  I haven't seen many complaints about the existing setup,
so far.

						- Vishwanath,
						Umass at Amherst.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

        "Boards don't hit back." - Bruce Lee, Fist of Fury.

----------------------------------------------------------------------