🚀 go-pugleaf

davidb@zeus.ce.washington.edu (David W. Barts) writes:

   In article <1992Aug30.211125.946@jazzie.com>, sds@jazzie.com (Sean Shapira) writes:
   > [ edited ]
   > Some might say, "Isn't that what seattle.general is used for?"
   > Yes, but if seattle.misc existed, the content of seattle.general
   > might focus just a bit more on topics of "general" interest to
   > the Seattle community....  Crossposts would be fine, especially
   > if the followups were directed to seattle.misc.  Personally, I
   > would put seattle.misc to use quite regularly.
   > 
   > Comments, anyone?
   
   I think that this naming strategy would just confuse people.  It would
   result in a lot of crossposted material (or incorrectly posted stuff).
   
   If the traffic volume on seattle.general gets large enough, I think it
   is a better idea to create groups pertaining to the topic(s) that are
   responsible for most of the volume.  Currently, the only topic I can
   think of that would fit this description would be "seattle.politics".
   
   --
   David Barts  N5JRN                      UW Civil Engineering, FX-10
   davidb@ce.washington.edu                Seattle, WA  98195

I wholeheartedly agree with David. Just scattering the postings to
multiple groups would result in a lot of incorrect postings. The creation
of seattle.politics would be the obvious volume cutter. I don't agree that
the volume is large enough to warrant any new groups, but the increasing
volume of politic'n in seattle.general might be a generating factor for
seattle.politics.
-- 
-Kevin L. Gross          klg@statsci.com           Disclaim THIS: 
 This message is protected under the 1st Amendment to the Constitution
 of the United States of America. I'm protected under the 4th, 5th and
 9th Amendments among others, or at least I used to be.