I was going to be quiet and not say anything about
this issue of gating to rec.pets, but I guess I
hit the point where I feel I would like to add my
.02 worth.  I must agree with those who feel a
sense of family here, but I don't necessarily
agree with the notion that it is just because of
the mailing list format.  I must also agree with
Matthew Stock that we can hardly call anything
private when anyone can join, and there are so
many of us here already.
 
I have not always had access to news groups so the
mailing format was a necessity for me.  I now have
my own SLIP connection at home on another account,
and find that I PERSONALLY prefer the digest
format, but I can see where others may not.  Now
that I have access to news, I have a small group
of newsgroups I participate in.
 
My experience is that the important issues are
that the group is moderated and that the charter
of the group is specific enough that browsers are
not likely to stay long if they don't like the
subject.  One specific example for me is the
rec.audio.high-end new group.  It is moderated,
and gated to a digest format.  I have found that
the flaming problems are specifically related to
the diligence of the moderator.  There is almost
no flame baiting, but there always seems to be a
few in the group that are pig headed and think
that the only two options are theirs and the wrong
one, and they will fight to the death until the
moderator steps in.  This happens in any group:
witness our recent MF, and totally ferret food
debate.
 
If someone wants to gate this out to a USENET
group, fine.  It is just important that we do not
do anything that causes us to lose the fine
moderators we have and the wonderful work by Dr.
Williams and any other vets who are willing to
give of their time here.
 
One final note from Matthew D Stock.
>The reason USENET exists is because mailing lists
>became too cumbersome.
I would like some more detail on this.  I was
using the original ARPA net heavily 15 years ago
when the only access was because you had contracts
with the government, and the total USENET news
hierarchy was less than 200 groups.  I remember
USENET, BITNET and ARPANET, the three main nets at
the time, as being quite separate entities
connected through true gateways.  There was no
domain naming in common usage and each network
existed for very different reasons.  ARPANET had
mailing lists that usually required permission to
be on. BITNET had nothing and existed in parallel
to ARPANET for those site who did not have
government permission to be on ARPANET, and USENET
ran using UUCP and was heavily dedicated to the
newsgroups.  I don't remember USENET coming into
existence because ARPANET lists were to
cumbersome.
 
Rod & Debby Schiffman
[Posted in FML issue 1081]