Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!wuarchive!uwm.edu!uwvax!umn-d-ub!umn-cs!kanefsky
From: kanefsky@umn-cs.CS.UMN.EDU (Steve Kanefsky)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: ***Call for discussion:  Rec.video.software***
Message-ID: <17243@umn-cs.CS.UMN.EDU>
Date: 24 Nov 89 00:40:02 GMT
References: <17100@umn-cs.CS.UMN.EDU> <1632@shuksan.UUCP>
Reply-To: kanefsky@umn-cs.cs.umn.edu (Steve Kanefsky)
Organization: CSci Dept., University of Minnesota, Mpls.
Lines: 25

In article <1632@shuksan.UUCP> scott@shuksan.UUCP (Scott Moody) writes:
>
>I don't think this group gets enough volume to
>create any new groups. Look at rec.bicycles (which does 
>get a lot of volumn) and they don't want to split either.
>
>The 'n' key works great.

I already replied to this artice, but one thing I forgot to mention,
which clearly distinguishes this case from a case like rec.bicycles,
is that the video software discussion is presently taking place in
at least two newsgroups, and maybe more.  Do you agree that as long
as none of these newsgroups has excessive volume that these people
should not be able to form a separate newsgroup where all of the
discussion can take place?  Even if you do, rec.arts.movies certainly
qualifies as having excessive volume, and would benefit just as greatly
as rec.video if the articles discussing video software could be moved
into a new newsgroup.  Your fundamental misunderstanding is that somehow
all of this video software discussion is neatly packaged into rec.video,
and everyone who should be contributing is already reading rec.video, when
in fact the discussion is scattered all over the place.

-- 
Steve Kanefsky
kanefsky@umn-cs.cs.umn.edu