Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site umcp-cs.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!seismo!rlgvax!cvl!umcp-cs!fred
From: fred@umcp-cs.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.news.group
Subject: Re: net.music.jazz and subgroups in general
Message-ID: <1994@umcp-cs.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 19-Aug-83 17:19:55 EDT
Article-I.D.: umcp-cs.1994
Posted: Fri Aug 19 17:19:55 1983
Date-Received: Sun, 21-Aug-83 02:56:26 EDT
References: <557@cvl.UUCP>, <138@pyuxn.UUCP>
Organization: Univ. of Maryland, Computer Science Dept.
Lines: 31


	From: rlr@pyuxn.UUCP

	. . . we don't need a subgroup for every piddling subtopic
	that comes along, even if it has a large (though in the
	minority) following.

Why, may I ask, not? As long as a potential subgroup has the
readership to support it, I see no reason it shouldn't exist just
because its topic is subsumed by some other newsgroup. I prefer
having more newsgroups rather than fewer, so that both news posters
and readers can be more selective in specifying topics.

	I prefer the concept of keywords to the concept of newsgroups.
	. . . Instead of a list of 'groups' that one wants/doesn't
	want to see, how about a list of keywords. . . .  General
	usage would actually define acceptable keywords.

So do I. I'd much prefer the K-news system which was described (I
think in net.news) a few months ago. But we don't have it (yet),
and until we do we're going to have to do the best we can with what
we have, namely subgroups.

(begin flame)
I fail to see what you're annoyed about. If there is a new newsgroup,
you have the freedom to either subscribe or not. How does this
impinge on your freedom? It doesn't force anyone to read more
articles than they would have otherwise, and gives everyone the
option of reading less (Which I feel is desirable considering the
volume of news.).
(end flame)

					Fred Blonder
					harpo!seismo!umcp-cs!fred