rocker@eve.wright.edu (Ronnie Peugh) (02/27/90)
Index Number: 6956 I believe that it would be easier for people to gain information from this news group if it were broken up into something like... misc.handicap.hearing-impared .visually-impared .mobilily-impared .legeal-developments .mics .cronic-pain .newprod There are probably better names and some that I have missed and some that aren't needed. I know that there is always the 'k' key, but sometimes the subject really doesn't say the type of handicap it is about... and a kill file it not much help either. ronne _______________________________________________________________________ _ rocker@eve.wright.edu | Al Bundy for President _ Wright State U. Dayton, Oh | (he'd have to be better than ...) _______________________________________________________________________
moth@dartmouth.edu (Tom Leathrum) (02/28/90)
Index Number: 6997
rocker@eve.wright.edu (Ronnie Peugh) writes:
RP> I believe that it would be easier for people to gain information from
RP> this news group if it were broken up into something like...
RP>
RP> misc.handicap.hearing-impared
RP> .visually-impared
RP> .mobilily-impared
RP> .legeal-developments
RP> .mics
RP> .cronic-pain
RP> .newprod
RP>
RP> There are probably better names and some that I have missed and some
RP> that aren't needed. I know that there is always the 'k' key, but
RP> sometimes the subject really doesn't say the type of handicap it is
RP> about... and a kill file it not much help either.
The only ones of these suggestions I support are the .legal-developments and
the .newprod subgroups. (My views on product announcements in the group are
fairly well-known by now, so I won't repeat them here. Suffice it to say, if
that were a new subgroup, I would ignore it myself and advise most newcomers
to avoid it until they have already seen a review in the main group. On the
other hand, if I knew where I will be next year, I'd volunteer to moderate it,
just to clear up the clutter on the main group. No offense, Bill, you're still
doing a great job, but you saw the discussion after my last note on this topic.)
I think the .legal subgroup would provide a lively new arena of discussion, and
I would watch it closely myself.
Now for my soapbox speech: segmenting the group on the basis of particular
handicap is *NOT* a good idea. The important and enlightening thing for me
about this group is that it allows people to post and get feedback *without*
being labeled or otherwise categorized on the basis of their particular
handicap(s). I think segmenting the group this way would stifle this sort of
discussion.