creation of new newsgroups

[Ian A. York]

In article <3qb3fb$l88 at ixnews2.ix.netcom.com> tichysr at ix.netcom.com (steve tichy) writes:
>     I have found out where to go to get new newsgroups created.  I
>would like to know if there is any other newsgroups that I should put
>in a request to create besides those that follow:
>
>          bionet.virology.ebola
>          bionet.virology.hepatitis

My own suggestion is (1) there are no extra newsgroups needed and (2) the 
groups you mention are also not needed.  The traffic on bionet.virology 
(except for the brief ebola frenzy, which has already pretty much burnt 
itself out) is small enough already.  

For those who wish to create new groups - particularly hepatitis - please 
realize that the existance of a separate group should not be based on the 
importance of a virus.  It should be based on volume of posts.  Ask 
yourself these questions: (1) Are there enough posts on hepatits viruses 
already to justify a new group?  (2)  Would you unsubscribe to 
bionet.virology if b.v.hepatitis was formed?  If you wouldn't 
unsubscribe, then you're not reducing your reading time at all, are you?  

As far as the b.v.ebola is concerned, that is a group that will die a sad 
death in about a month.  It's a disease-of-the-month.  What you'll get on 
it are all the people asking questions; but you won't have anyone 
answering them, because no serious virologist is going to bother 
subscribing.  

Much better would be a group called something like *.*.emerging-diseases;
that way it will remain topical.  And I believe if you take a look on the
newgroup lists, you'll find that such groups are already under dicussion,
I think. 

Just my opinion.  
Ian
-- 
Ian York   (york at mbcrr.harvard.edu)
Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, 44 Binney St., Boston MA 02115
Phone (617)-632-3921     Fax  (617)-632-2627