From: rawdon@colby.cs.wisc.edu (Michael Rawdon)
Subject: Re: do we need rec.arts.startrek.dsn?
Reply-To: rawdon@colby.cs.wisc.edu
Organization: University of Wisconsin Computer Sciences Dept., Madison, WI
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 17:54:02 GMT

In <92350.202248NHT@psuvm.psu.edu> Windsor A. Morgan <NHT@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
>>In article <gp2001-151292181733@m248-106.bgsu.edu> gp2001@andy.bgsu.edu (Greg
>Pallenik) asks:
>>>This newsgroup is becomminh cluttered with discussion of Deep Space Nine.
>>>I'm not complaining, but IMHO I think a separate group will be needed to
>>>keep things organized.  Does anyone else agree or disagree?

I disagree VERY VERY STRONGLY.

>In article <1992Dec16.003303.27376@leland.Stanford.EDU>
>firestar@leland.Stanford.EDU (Lipton Ann Meredith) responds:

>>I agree.  I'm not usually one for group splitting, but doesn't
>>rec.arts.startrek.current get more traffic than any other group except
>>alt.sex or something like that?  When DSN starts, it's going to be chaos!

First of all, you're wrong.  r.a.s.current isn't even in the top 25 groups on
USENET in terms of traffic!  Second, what if DS9 is a failure?  Why would we
need another newsgroup, then?  Third, there REALLY ISN'T very much DS9 traffic
around right now.  Wait until there's a proven need for a new group to start
crying for it.  Fourth, a lot of the traffic on r.a.s.c is really stuff like
people asking questions for the nth time (rather than looking at the FAQ) and
other people answering those questions n*m times, rather than looking ahead to
see if anyone else has answered the question already (or answering via
e-mail).  Fifth, a lot of the volume problem can be alleviated by using an
advanced (read: "real") newsreader such as nn, instead of brain-damaged rn.
(I use nn and don't notice any volume problems!)

>I disagree.  The charter for rec.arts.startrek.current says that it is
>for discussion of current (i.e. appearing for the first time in the
>last four months) ST episodes, movies, and books, and the questions
>arising from those episodes, movies, and books.  r.a.s.current is *not*
>only for discussion of recent TNG episodes.  We currently distinguish
>what TNG episode we are discussing by mentioning the title of the
>episodes in the subjects of our postings.  We can do the same when we
>discuss two new episodes a week of Star Trek: one from TNG and one
>from Deep Space Nine.

Moreover, if a DS9 newsgroup were created, then UNLESS R.A.S.C WERE DESTROYED
OUTRIGHT, articles could and probably would be posted to BOTH newsgroups,
since r.a.s.c and r.a.s.ds9 would NOT be disjoint sets.

>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.

Since I did and do strongly oppose the very existence of the r.a.s *hierarchy*
(as opposed to the existence of a single newsgroup), my own guidelines for
posting to the hierarchy are:

1) Post my own original articles to the proper group, and
2) Post follow-ups to the articles of others to wherever the Followup-To: line
   is set to send them.

I don't advocate that others do this as well, but this is what I do, since
sending articles to the wrong group doesn't bother me a bit.

(I do remove threads that belong nowhere in the hierarchy, though, such as the
recent Doctor Who thread over in misc.)

-- 
Michael Rawdon				  rawdon@colby.cs.wisc.edu
University of Wisconsin Computer Sciences Department,  Madison, WI
( Coming soon to a Massachusetts near you! )

"I think that (one of) TNG's problems is that it considers lacking action,
 humor and character interplay to be interchangable with cerebral (just like
 it often considers civility and lack of conflict interchangable with
 friendship)."
			- Atsushi Kanamori on rec.arts.startrek, 7 July 1991