Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site brl-vgr.ARPA
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!harpo!decvax!ittvax!dcdwest!sdcsvax!sdcrdcf!hplabs!hao!seismo!brl-tgr!brl-vgr!wmartin
From: wmartin@brl-vgr.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.news
Subject: New Groups -- Why All The Fuss?
Message-ID: <1598@brl-vgr.ARPA>
Date: Tue, 8-May-84 13:49:03 EDT
Article-I.D.: brl-vgr.1598
Posted: Tue May  8 13:49:03 1984
Date-Received: Sat, 12-May-84 08:34:45 EDT
Organization: Ballistics Research Lab
Lines: 25

Every time I see a flurry of articles about why there should or shouldn't be
a new subgroup, like "net.music.classical" or "net.tv.soaps", I am
amazed that there should be such vehement discussion. Once the group
itself is established (in these cases, "net.music" and "net.tv"), why
shouldn't there be any subgroups desired? Let them spring up, wither
away, or continue as chance (and current interest) dictates. After all,
if it is OK to have a "net.tv.drwho", how can you argue against any
other subgroup? 

There isn't THAT much overhead involved in a subgroup's existence,
is there? If the powers-that-be allow "net.tv" on their segments
of USENET, and don't restrict traffic to "work-related" news, adding
"net.tv.something" subgroups means little. If "net.tv" itself isn't
allowed, "net.tv.anything" won't be either, right? So that has NO
effect is this case.

I can see much more justifiability in arguments about new GROUPS.
Subgroups don't have the same weight.

(I do recall discussions from over a year ago about how the .newsrc file
could only be so long, or a line in it had to be under a certain length.
These are all moot now, due to better software, right? Otherwise,
that could be a valid argument limiting the number of subgroups.)

Will