Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!apple!bbn!bbn.com!rshapiro From: rshapiro@bbn.com (Richard Shapiro) Newsgroups: news.groups Subject: Re: CALL FOR DISCUSSION: rec.music.pfloyd Message-ID: <50484@bbn.COM> Date: 6 Jan 90 00:16:08 GMT References: <9001031655.AA04473@snowmass.scd.ucar.EDU> <50425@bbn.COM> <50457@bbn.COM> <927@philmtl.philips.ca> Sender: news@bbn.COM Reply-To: rshapiro@BBN.COM (Richard Shapiro) Organization: Bolt Beranek and Newman Inc., Cambridge MA Lines: 20 In article <927@philmtl.philips.ca> ray@philmtl.philips.ca (Ray Dunn) writes: >In article <50457@bbn.COM> rshapiro@BBN.COM (Richard Shapiro) writes: > >By consolidating yourselves into > >your own group, you leave behind all the people with casual interest. > >The logical extension of this argument is that USENET should be structured >for things in which one only has a casual interest - can you say >net.tabloid? This is nonsense. My point is that .misc groups have advantages of their own, and that subgroups should *only* be created if a need can be demonstrated. Is there a need for r.m.pfloyd? What is that need? The proposer of the group suggested that he's been flamed for posting Pink Floyd articles to alt.rock-n-roll. Fine; that demonstrates a need. On the other hand, the "[il]logical extension" above has nothing to do with the r.m.pf question one way or the other.