Xref: utzoo news.groups:2226 comp.cog-eng:390 comp.ai:1217 sci.misc:725 sci.research:301
Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!rutgers!topaz.rutgers.edu!brandx.rutgers.edu!webber
From: webber@brandx.rutgers.edu (Webber)
Newsgroups: news.groups,comp.cog-eng,comp.ai,sci.misc,sci.research
Subject: Re: Another vote for comp.cog-sci (was Re: time for sci.psych???)
Keywords: Cognitive Science newsgroup
Message-ID: <733@brandx.rutgers.edu>
Date: 20 Jan 88 04:35:03 GMT
References: <1416@uhccux.UUCP> <4215@utai.UUCP> <2990@arthur.cs.purdue.edu>
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.
Lines: 22

In article <2990@arthur.cs.purdue.edu>, spaf@cs.purdue.EDU (Gene Spafford) writes:
> There is already a "comp.cog-eng" for cognitive science and engineering.
> Why don't you use the groups already in existence rather than
> ask for a new one?
> 
> This is an example of why we want to limit the number of newsgroups:
> users don't realize what groups already exist when there are so many.

Not a very good example.  The message 4215@utai to which you refer indicates
that the readers of comp.cog-eng have already rejected the conversation
that the new news group wishes to collect.  Perhaps a better description
of the group is in order, since apparently they view themselves as human
factors people in a narrower sense than you read the name.  What this really
indicates is that news groups are more clubs than library categories
and, in general, take greatly varying views of their own scope.  Of
course, this is hard to keep track of from a one line description that
is seldom consulted by the actual group members.  Indeed, in many groups,
there is not even much consensus on just what they are there for (resulting
in random flammage on such things as the degree of technical training 
expected of a poster to a technical group).

--- BOB (webber@athos.rutgers.edu ; rutgers!athos.rutgers.edu!webber)