Nigel Perry  wrote: 
  
 >ru.igarashi@usask.ca wrote in message news:... 
 >> are concerned).  What indicates to the proponents that 
 >> non-standards discussion won't move in, at least not in 
 >> significant quantity?  Is that the concern here? 
  
 >The success of the other fora. We don't see it as a highly likely 
 >problem. 
  
 Usenet activity does not behave the same as non-usenet fora in 
 this regard.  Because readers here can select from multiple 
 categorized discussion areas from a list with very little 
 effort, the tendency to pick something with a name sufficiently 
 resembling their point of interest is higher than with something 
 like a mailing list, or web board where you have to think 
 about where the different fora reside (by application or 
 by address).  It may also be easier for people to find a 
 newsgroup on the related topic than a mailing list or a 
 web board.  Or are you saying non-standards readers will 
 stay with the non-usenet fora? 
  
 Often readers of other fora don't make the move to usenet (e.g. 
 control issues, volume issues, politics, politeness levels). 
 I can't remember if you indicated this in the RFD, but have you 
 checked with readers in those fora if they will read the group? 
 Otherwise, you end up relying on existing usenet readers, which 
 apparently are not that abundant. 
  
 ru 
  
 -- 
 My standard proposals rant: 
 Quality, usefulness, merit, or non-newsgroups popularity of a topic 
 is more or less irrelevant in creating a new Big-8 newsgroup. 
 Usenet popularity is the primary consideration. 
  
 --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05 
  * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)