From: forb0004@student.tc.umn.edu (Eric Forbis )
Subject: Re: PROPOSAL: alt.fan.anne-rice
Organization: University of Minnesota
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 08:13:17 GMT

In article <Bz481H.F3L@unix.amherst.edu> twpierce@unix.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce) writes:
>In article <forb0004.133.724104671@student.tc.umn.edu> forb0004@student.tc.umn.edu (Eric Forbis ) writes:
>>In article <Bz2KFG.DCn@unix.amherst.edu> twpierce@unix.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce) writes:
[catch-22 comments deleted]

>>Also, 
>>rec.arts.books is a general, low level discussion group. I could as easily 
>>knock out all the soc.culture.* groups by pointing out there was a soc.
>>culture, and thus no need to form another group; I doubt that they'd be 
>>impressed with your logic.

>Especially since there is no such group.

Eh? Please try our nntp host at news.cis.umn.edu (128.101.135.1), where 
you'll definitely find soc.culture.

Even if I'd made a mistake here, the general point is valid.



>
>>Basic Fact #1 is that I, and probably quite a few others, don't _want_ to 
>>read rec.arts.books. That alone is reason enough. Rec.arts.books is a 
>>relatively busy group, and sifting through posts for relevent messages can 
>>be a royal pain; some things invariably are missed, a frustrating 
>>experience.
>
>Actually, I can believe that.  Rec.arts.books *is* a pretty chaotic
>place.
>

Hurrah! You've seen the light; welcome, friend....  :)

>>You criticized it as not being able to support a list group; how did you get 
>>that bee in your bonnet? To begin with, you have no grounds for asserting 
>>that a list mail group is untenable, as you did in another post; no one has 
>>tried it.
>
>I quote from an article which not only appeared in this thread, but
>one to which *you* responded:
>
>| From: C96@vm.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (Alexander EICHENER)
>| Subject: Re: PROPOSAL: alt.fan.anne-rice
>| Message-ID: <168B8FB26.C96@vm.urz.uni-heidelberg.de>
>| Date: Wed, 09 Dec 92 17:51:31 CET
>|
>| But please remeber, there was, once
>| upon a time, but still in this year, an Anne Rice mailing list - and it
>| died for lack of traffic.
>
>>No one _wants_ to try it; they're a pain in the duff! I subscribe 
>>to 4 listservers; my mailbox is a tangled mess from hell even with periodic 
>>housekeeping. Adding another group this way is the last thing in the world 
>>I want to do.
>
>Well, that's funny.  There are literally thousands of mailing lists
>out there which are flourishing.  There seems to be nothing about the
>*concept* of a mailing list which is driving people away; people just
>aren't interested enough in Anne Rice to warrant a mailing list on
>that topic.

My error concerning the existence of a mailing list points directly to a 
chronic complaint of list users: the average casual user doesn't know they 
exist. He/she fires up a news reader program, points it at a news server, 
and gets information arranged by groups. Nothing about the organization of 
usenet suggests that mail-list activity should be sought after. Even when 
the average user is aware of their existence, seeking out other lists may be 
beyond their desire or ability. Some of them aren't fortunate enough to have 
been born with the computer geek gene, and see this as a major hassle.

Where is it written, "Thou wilt maintain a mailing list else thou wilt 
not enter the gates of altheaven" ? I haven't come across a single post from 
a user either here or in alt.vampyr supporting a mailing list; thusfar all 
comments have been for the creation of an alt group. Our discussion can get 
beyond the intended bounds of alt.vampyr, and rec.arts.books is a mess. No 
one wants a mailing list.

Alt.fan.anne-rice; sounds good. 


---------

Eric Forbis      forb0004@student.tc.umn.edu