Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!security!genrad!decvax!harpo!ihnp4!inuxc!pur-ee!uiucdcs!uicsl!wombat
From: wombat@uicsl.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.news.group
Subject: Re: Re: net.biology - (nf)
Message-ID: <4663@uiucdcs.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 21-Dec-83 04:35:45 EST
Article-I.D.: uiucdcs.4663
Posted: Wed Dec 21 04:35:45 1983
Date-Received: Fri, 6-Jan-84 02:04:09 EST
Lines: 32

#R:elsie:-15100:uicsl:8200002:000:1557
uicsl!wombat    Dec 20 21:36:00 1983

Have any of you ever considered using net.med for biology discussions?
It's not like net.med has a lot of traffic, and I thought that part
of the reason it was created was so that various medical-type sites
on the net would have a niche to call their own.

Second point: How about a minimum of three weeks discussion before
creating/removing any group? If a subject deserves its own group,
it isn't going to go away (except in special cases like "The
Day After"), it will give a lot of people time to hear that a
group has been proposed/is about to be disposed of and give them
time to make their feelings known, and it will give discussions that
really are short-lived time to die, as well as giving the meta-
discussions about whether to put all that garbage some people
don't want to read into another group time to die out, also.
I think Dr. Who probably ought to stay in net.sf-lovers; after all
it's been running in the US for several years, and nobody wanted
a group for it until the special (note the word special, as in
event not happening often) ran.

Third point: People just can't bring themselves to get rid of
a group once it's been created. I wouldn't have the heart to
kill net.wobegon, even if I weren't too shy to ask people
for permission to kill it. Having lots of dead groups makes
things even harder for the newcomer to the net, since they
have to figure out where to send something after they get flamed
at for writing in net.general. A list several miles long can be
a bit discouraging.
						Wombat
						ihnp4!uiucdcs!uicsl!wombat