Xref: utzoo rec.birds:2636 news.groups:23080
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!math.lsa.umich.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!unmvax!nmt.edu!john
From: john@nmt.edu (John Shipman)
Newsgroups: rec.birds,news.groups
Subject: Re: CALL FOR DISCUSSION: REC.PETS, REC.BIRDS division.
Message-ID: <1990Aug17.173217.27746@nmt.edu>
Date: 17 Aug 90 17:32:17 GMT
References: <32320004@hprmokg.HP.COM> <90228.201718JAHAYES@MIAMIU.BITNET> <1990Aug17.115823.865@agate.berkeley.edu>
Organization: Zoological Data Processing
Lines: 21
Followups-to: news.groups

Boris Chen (boris@tornado.Berkeley.EDU) writes:
+--
| Frankly, this group does not have a great amount of
| traffic, and I don't think that any split is necessary....
| It isn't that hard to hit 'n' or 'k.'
+--

I think that one's perception of the volume in a group
depends on the baud rate at which one reads it.  With a
38,400 baud hardwired connection, it doesn't take very long
to put an article on the screen.  But I often read rec.birds
at 1200 baud, and at that rate it takes a while just to get
to the point where you *can* type `n' or `k'.

I feel that another strong argument in favor of the split is
that it would eliminate the large volume of articles from
people arguing---like this one, and the one to which it is a
followup.
-- 
John Shipman/Zoological Data Processing/Socorro, NM/john@jupiter.nmt.edu
``Let's go outside and commiserate with nature.''  --Dave Farber