From: rccarm00@nx19.mik.uky.edu (ron c carman)
Subject: Re: do we need rec.arts.startrek.dsn?
    <1992Dec16.003303.27376@leland.Stanford.EDU> 
    <92350.202248NHT@psuvm.psu.edu> <1992Dec18.115132.6658@uumeme.chi.il.us>
Organization: University Of Kentucky, Dept. of Math Sciences
X-Path: nx19.mik.uky.edu!rccarm00
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 16:55:31 GMT

rwmech@uumeme.chi.il.us (Robert W. Mech) writes:

>Personaly, I have to say that I think a DSN subgroup would be good.  Granted
>that DSN is part of startrek, but there *is* a higher than normal volume.
>There is as much about DSN as there is about STTNG and STTOS.  TOS has
>limited discussion in here, and TNG seems to be the main topic.  Splitting
>DSN off I think would eliminate alot of the noise from DSN readers.

   It is true that DSN is currently creating what seems to be a large
volume of traffic.  That traffic, however, will decline and then stabilize
once the series actually begins airing.  The main thrust of the DSN traffic
so far is people pleading for information ... (i.e. DSN on LocalStation,
City, State?? HELP please?)... After January these postings will cease.

   It is true that postings about the actual series will then begin,
but the volume of postings, while initially high, will also decline
and solidify at manageable levels.  

>It seems to be about 1/2 of the messages now in this groups is about DSN.
>I would like to read about both groups, but I would also like the ability
>to one group, then go to the other, having it all in one is becoming obnoxious.

   Well, since there are now two ST series which qualify as *current*,
that would seem to be a reasonable ratio; 1/2 TNG and 1/2 DSN.
If we make a new subgroup for DSN now, it could cause a couple poor
consequences:

          1) DSN is cancelled soon after its premiere
                -- while this is unlikely, it could happen,
                   and we would be left with a useless new newsgroup.
          2) When TNG is cancelled a year or two from now,
                we will then have *two* newsgroups for 
                discussion of one topic, a proposal which
                should be obvious to all is a ridiculous
                waste of space/bandwidth...

   TNG has been around for 6 years, and doesn't warrant creation of
rec.arts.startrek.TNG; how can you justify creation of a whole
subgroup (rec.arts.startrek.DSN) for a show which hasn't even
premiered yet?

>>
>>A final word.  For some time I have been posting and emailing about
>>what I consider misuse of rec.arts.startrek.current, as defined by
>>the charter of the newsgroup.  I cannot impress upon everybody who
>>reads and posts to the rec.arts.startrek.* newsgroups that they *must*
>>post to the correct newsgroup.  r.a.s.current *can* work if we follow
>>the rules laid down by the designers of the r.a.s.* hierarchy.  It
>>*can* support discussion of two different Star Trek television shows,
>>if we get rid of the chaff that does not belong in
>>rec.arts.startrek.current.

   And there is plenty of chaff to go around, too.  I'd estimate
that 25% of the traffic on .current does not belong there...

RC Carman

--
/=======================================================================\ 
|     Ron C. Carman          ||  Quantum physicists get all the girls.  |
| rccarm00@mik.uky.edu       ||  Al.  Is he live, or is he a hologram?  | 
 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Xref: sparky rec.arts.startrek.misc:13166 news.answers:4802