hoffman@hdsvx1.UUCP (Richard Hoffman) (09/09/86)
[In the discussion below, I use net.kids as an example, but I think what we are talking about applies to any newsgroup.] In article <5129@decwrl.DEC.COM> Ken Arndt (arndt@lymph.dec.com) writes: >Granted no topic is of interest to all on a given net, even when there is no >question that it falls within the basic subject matter of the net. And granted >some postings generate much traffic of little interest to some readers. But it >seems to me that 'education' issues, as are being debated in our society at >large, specifically religion and public instruction ARE a suitable topic for >net.kids. Many parents on both sides of the issue ARE interested in the >debate and the outcome. The trouble is, almost *any* issue is of some interest to parents. After all, I am concerned with my child's religious education -- should everything posted to net.religion be cross-posted to net.kids? And I want him to get a good job when he graduates -- how about cross-posting everything from net.jobs? And I occasionally tell him little jokes -- most of the things I read in net.jokes are at the six-year old level, so maybe they should be cross- posted too? The thing is, I am completely capable of reading those groups if their subject matter interests me. net.kids should be reserved for postings about parenting which are *not* appropriate to other groups. >I see 'some' of the calls for moving the >discussion to net.religion, etc. coming from those who have demonstrated a >'closed mind', to my way of thinking. That's like saying that people who don't want see movie reviews in the "Wall Street Journal", or those who don't want to see stock market reports in "Sight and Sound", have a closed mind. Not at all -- but we all want to read what we want when we want to read it. If I'm in the mood for kidstuff, I turn to net.kids. When I do so, it's because I want information, or the vicarious joy of seeing other people talk about the pleasure their kids give them. I'm usually not in the mood to read Ray's tenth witty rebuttal to someone who made the mistake of replying to him. >As for cross posting, well, there are are various constituencies of the topic >who do not all read the same single net group. Cross posting extends the >audience, for both reading and contributing. One of the things technology >is supposed to do for us! If there really is something earth-shaking for parents going on in net.politics, or net.abortion, or net.whatever, a simple note to net.kids -- something like "Hey, parents -- check out article # in net.rec.drugs to find out what your kids *really* do after school" -- would be more than adequate notification. That way, followups can go to the correct place. After all, I don't think anyone objects to occasional cross-posting from net.controversy -- it's the endless rejoinders that get to us. [On that subject, I recently "discovered" kill files. It was such a pleasure to see it work today: "35 articles in net.kids ... /religious heritage/j ... junk ... junk ... junk ... 22 articles in net.kids" I'm sure I won't have any trouble finding those articles somewhere else on the net.] -- Richard Hoffman | "Oh life is a wonderful cycle of song, Schlumberger Well Services | A medley of extemporanea. hoffman%hdsvx1@slb-doll.csnet | And Love is a thing that can never go wrong PO Box 2175, Houston, TX 77252 | ... And I am Marie of Roumania." --D. PARKER