Xref: utzoo news.groups:9836 news.admin:5813
Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!att!cbnewsc!nichols
From: nichols@cbnewsc.ATT.COM (robert.k.nichols)
Newsgroups: news.groups,news.admin
Subject: Re: CALL FOR DISCUSSION:  Creation of news.groups.d
Summary: I would always be reading both groups anyway
Message-ID: <1042@cbnewsc.ATT.COM>
Date: 29 May 89 00:07:16 GMT
Reply-To: nichols@cbnewsc.ATT.COM (robert.k.nichols)
Followup-To: news.groups
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Lines: 20

I see no benefit (for me, at least) in a separate news.groups.d.  There
is almost always SOME discussion that I am following at the moment, so
I would have to wade through news.groups.d anyway, and in addition to
reading news.groups itself.

There may be people out there for whom news.groups.d would be a big
benefit, but I suspect that many of those favoring the idea will find
that it doesn't help them as much as they thought it would.  I'd like
to hear from people who really feel that they would usually only read
news.groups if news.groups.d were created.

Now the original proposal (a separate, temporary group for each
proposal) WOULD be a big benefit, but this is probably unworkable given
the present organization(?) of the net.  Almost the same benefit would
be obtained just by using consistent "Subject:" lines for each thread,
but that doesn't seem very likely either.
-- 
.sig included at no extra charge.          |  Disclaimer: My mind is my own.
Cute quote: `` ''                          |
>> Bob Nichols   nichols@iexist.att.com << |