🚀 go-pugleaf

Thomas Moll (fnord@odyssee.net) wrote:
>In article <53kupm$q4m@orm.southern.co.nz>, cfbd@southern.co.nz (Colin
>Douthwaite) wrote:
>
>> NHHY81A@prodigy.com wrote:
>> >I encourage any student nurse to participate in this group.....
>> >It presents issues of current interest in the real world of nursing.
>> >And I don't mind answering their questions... 
>> >Surely we all remember from whence we came....
>> >Tony Killian, RN, CEN
>> >New Jersey
>> 
>> You miss the whole point. 
>> 
>> No one will be able to read the existing newsgroup, "sci.med.nursing" 
>> any longer because it will be removed ( rmgrouped in Usenet language ) 
>> and will become a Bogus Newsgroup and therefore inaccessible !  


>   Not true. Please, do not try and scare people into thinking that 
> sci.med.nursing will no longer exist - it will. The only 
> difference is that it will have '*.misc' tagged on the end of it.  
> It's the same group -same messages, and same subscribers.  


None of that is correct...

First, I have no need to scare people, they can see for themselves 
although they may not have understood exactly what is involved.

Many people think that the existing parent/root newsgroup MUST
be removed/renamed and accept it's removal without question.

If your proposal to rename/rmgroup "sci.med.nursing" is successful 
it _will_ in fact cease to exist...it will be rmgrouped = removed !  

And sorry...a  *.misc subgroup is _not_ the equivalent of the 
existing root/parent newsgroup "sci.med.nursing". It is not the same 
group and will not have the same messages or the same 
readers/posters.  This has been argued and demonstrated several 
times over the past 3 years.  

The *.misc subgroups are for the leftovers, i.e. anything else that 
does not fit into the other subgroups. How can you possibly claim 
that that is the same as the original root/parent newsgroup ?  
It is, by definition, a _subgroup_ for miscellaneous material _not_ 
a broad spectrum root/parent newsgroup like sci.med.nursing.


>> The point of the RFD ( Request for Discussion ) is the 
>> _reorganisation_ of sci.med.nursing which calls for the 
>> _removal/rmgrouping_ of the existing newsgroup "sci.med.nursing.misc"
>> whilst forming two new subgroups.

>   The group is renamed - not removed. 

Renaming is a misleading misnomer for what actually happens:

If the renaming proposal is successful a new subgroup *.misc is 
first created, and then, at a later date, an rmgroup ( remove newsgroup ) 
control message is sent out asking that the root/parent group be 
_removed_. For a limited period both the parent newsgroup and the 
*.misc subgroup co-exist, then the existing parent group is _removed_ 
and classed as a Bogus Newsgroup.  

I repeat, it is not a renaming, it is removal of the root/parent
newsgroup and its supposed replacement by a *.misc subgroup which is
not its equivalent.


> From your statement it appears that sci.med.nursing is being 
> replaced by one group for students amd another for emergency 
> nursing. And that's not true.  

That is exactly what is occurring in fact. Those two new subgroups 
take precedence and any other nursing topics become miscellaneous
i.e. the "anything else material" destined for the *.misc subgroup 
and that certainly is not the character of the existing broad 
spectrum newsgroup, sci.med.nursing.


> It is not mandatory that the existing newsgroup "sci.med.nursing" 
> _must_ to be renamed to *.misc subgroup...it can remain and the two 
> new subgroups can simply be added and the list would then be: 

>   I've said this before, and I'll explain it again. The RFD was 
> created to fully comply with the documents available ('How to 
> Create a New Newsgroup', etc..).  

To fully comply with the newsgroup creation guidelines it is NOT
required to call for rmgrouping/renaming of the existing root/parent
newsgroup. That choice and responsibility is left to the RFD 
author/proponent. You have evidently chosen to include the 
renaming/rmgrouping clause. It is not clear why you would want to do 
that unless your personal work interests are focused on "emergency 
nursing" or "students" rather than nursing as a whole.

The specialised subgroups you proposed can still be voted for and 
created whilst leaving the existing group in place to create the 
following logical structure:

         sci.med.nursing
         sci.med.nursing.emergency
         sci.med.nursing.students
   
That particular structure is logical and sensible because 
"sci.med.nursing" is for the general overall subject not the 
miscellaneous leftovers.  


The proposed structure below is a confusing distortion...

         sci.med.nursing.emergency
         sci.med.nursing.misc
         sci.med.nursing.students


Bye,