Re: Re[2]: STC'S Electronic Bulletin Board

[Bill Konrad <konrad -at- SAGE -dot- CC -dot- PURDUE -dot- EDU>]

Eric Ray writes:

> I don't think I would agree with having multiple
> technical communication newsgroups simply because of the
> convenience of having everything together. We are averaging
> 10 messages/day and have 360 subscribers (plus all of the
> USENET community), and I doubt that our current volume
> reflects enough demand to put much traffic on several
> parallel newsgroups.

> BTW, this list was formed for precisely the reasons Greg outlined.
> Why would we do it again? This isn't necessarily a rhetorical question--
> if anyone thinks we should have multiple newsgroups or different groups,
> I would be interested in hearing about it.

But the bit.* newsgroups do not have as wide a distribution as other
newsgroups. I don't know why this is, but it is a fact. Frankly, I
would prefer to be able to read these messages in a newsgroup rather
than constantly having an overflowing mailbox (from this and several
other lists).

I agree that there probably wouldn't be justification for multiple
newsgroups at this time. But I think it would be a good idea to have a
newsgroup in the regular Usenet hierarchy simply because of the wider
distribution those groups tend to have.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bill Konrad                     | What am I doing at a level of
konrad -at- sage -dot- cc -dot- purdue -dot- edu       | consciousness where this is real?
                                |               --Thaddeus Golas
                                | The Lazy Man's Guide to Enlightenment
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------