Sub-dividing [dissecting?] bionet.general

George W Chacko gchacko at
Sun Dec 15 00:59:58 EST 1991

I don't think that dividing bionet.general is a good idea. Increasing
the number of newsgroups one reads just makes things unwieldy and there 
isn't enough traffic to warrant the creation of new groups. I don't
agree with Plan A and I think that Plan B would increase the level
of complexity. Multiple newsgroups will encourage crossposting or
worse, repeated posting of the same message to different newsgroups
which is not going to be suppressed by news reading sofware.

Even at the risk of being labelled a 'streamofconsciousnessthinker' or 
something equivalent I'd like to say that I don't believe that there
is a need to moderate any of the bionet groups. Speaking for myself
I would be unwilling to decide for a large globally distributed
poulation what they should or shouldn't read. Why not let them decide
for themselves? In addition, moderating a newsgroup is a lot of work 
because it entails reading every article that is posted to it and if 
one is to have four or five such newsgroups the amount of work increases 
proportionately. That's my argument against Plan D. 

Barring a few eruptions now and then things have chugged along nicely
and in my opinion these probably excited more interest and feedback 
than the majority  of other postings. :)

It isn't unreasonable to expect biologists to be capable of editing Kill 
files or scanning subject lines to select what they want to read. These
aren't intellectually demanding tasks.

Lastly. if anyone is finds my opinions offensive then I apologise
because no offence is meant.


More information about the Bioforum mailing list