Creation of newsgroup uk.rec.lepidoptera

[Chris Raper]

On Tue, 24 Nov 1998 18:48:21 +0000, Graham Leatherbarrow
<graham at maigold.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>It seems the Usenet police are alive and well here, what happened to
>choice and democracy!?  

Hey - hang on a minute Graham - are you labelling all opponents of the
group as 'Usenet police' now? 

The creation of groups on Usenet is usually put out to debate and
uk.rec.lepidoptera is no exception. In this case there seems to be
around 2/3rds against 1/3rd for - but I haven't been counting. 

So far the arguments against seem to be far more persuasive, dealing
as they do with the LEPS-L issue, the low volume of traffic and the
fact that there is an existing group where such posts are welcomed.

>Someone makes a perfectly reasonable suggestion
>and is immediately accused of 'rocking the boat'!

Sure, the suggestion is _reasonable_ on the face of it but there
should be a very good reasons for creating a group - not just the
"create it and see if someone uses it" argument.

>As a butterfly enthusiast living in the UK but an infrequent poster
>here, I would welcome an attempt to start the UK group.

Why? Or to be more accurate, why don't you already post to s.b.e.l?

If it is just because you don't think that your UK posts are relevant
to a group where US readers contribute then think again. If you have
something to say that is within the current charter - post it. If
someone complains that they don't want UK posts then we can start to
think about a UK group then.

>Ian J. Waller explained it perfectly for me, that is, some of us in the
>UK *do* hesitate to post to this group due to perceived relevance.

In this case I say post and see what the reaction is. There are plenty
of UK contributors to s.b.e.l who post their 'back-garden' moth or
butterfly sightings, just as there are plenty of US contributors doing
the same.

>Someone said they would read the posts.  They might, but would they be
>interested?

Who cares? :-)  I read many groups and on most of them only about 10%
is _interesting_ but I still read them anyway. You cannot create
groups that are too specific to a tiny, minority audience.

I am also interested in Diptera and, on the face of it I would like to
see a Diptera news group. But the problem is that there would be too
few contributors and so I am happy to use the sci.bio.ent.misc group
instead.

Sorry to rant a bit there but it is something I feel quite strongly
about :-)

Best wishes,
Chris R.