Summary-line: 17-Jan n, wilcox@cis.ohio-state. #The disscusion for a permanant group *** EOOH *** Return-Path: Date: Thu, 17 Jan 91 08:55:49 pst From: cnorman (Cynthia Norman) To: cnorman, wilcox@cis.ohio-state.edu, luna@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu, ames!chinet.chi.il.us!chaz@ucsd.edu, anasaz!john@asuvax.eas.asu.edu, dwyer@nosc.mil, jgautier@ads.com, b-davis@cai.utah.edu, richter@triton.unm.edu, hxkpy@slacvm.slac.stanford.edu, botteron@bu-it.bu.edu, rollo@xylogics.com, proud@ihlpy.att.com, bill@picard.att.com, jsparkes@bnr.ca, island!green@uunet.uu.net, ann@snow-white.merit-tech.com, iex!neptune.iex.com!bert@uunet.uu.net, siang@biochem.umass.edu, smalley@pilot.njin.net, king@reasoning.com, mnetor!perle!kevin@cs.toronto.edu, afc@shibaya.lonestar.org, mark.ochsankehl@p2.f175.n120.z1.fidonet.org, abc@brl.mil, pjz@ceres.physics.uiowa.edu, ardyk@tc.fluke.com, cyn@mdaali.cancer.utexas.edu, ogicse!sequent!roseal@ucsd.edu, paulxxxx@portia.stanford.edu, andrea@sdd.hp.com, mvac23!thomas@udel.edu, ames!claris!netcom!shelamer@ucsd.edu, nick@icad.com, marks@ocfmail.ocf.llnl.gov, schillin@scl.cwru.edu, 880039a@acadiau.ca, lbrueck@wpi.wpi.edu Subject: The disscusion for a permanant group Reply-To: cnorman@ucsd.edu Return-Path: Date: Wed, 16 Jan 91 11:34:13 pst From: cnorman (Cynthia Norman) To: Michael_Marks.NSD@lccmail.ocf.llnl.gov Cc: cnorman, bjones In-Reply-To: Michael Marks's message of 15 Jan 91 17:22:10 <9101160112.AA02992@ucsd.edu> Subject: A news group? Reply-To: cnorman@ucsd.edu I'm not sure what message about this you received but I will try to explain what I want. I have organized a group of people who have or are interested in immune systems breakdowns, allergies, Chronic Fautigue Syndrome, etc. I saw the need because some of us were trying to discuss these issues on sci.med and rec.food.veg and the oppitision was incredible. There is a very vocal minority, especially on sci.med, that insists that any discussion of these issues, beyond standard (inadequate) medical responses is "unscientific" and "para-religious" (I quote). So, it is impossible to conduct such a discussion on sci.med (which is anyway more suited to medical discussions, not a support group for those that have the problems) and rec.food.veg is, of course, inappropriate beyond a couple food-related questions. I wanted a forum to discuss immune systems problems with people who would understand and not argue about whether or not these problems existed (go look up the argument if you doubt the intensity of the medical purists). I thought about creating a newsgroup (sci.med.immune? talk.immune?) but didn't think there would be enough people and I thought people there would say, why don't you just start a mailing list? There is ample precedence; many mailing lists exist with the numbers of people and range of topics that mine has. Also, I wanted to avoid the debate that would undoubtedly occur by just mentioning the possibility of a group (look up the debate on sci.med on whether or not the mailing list should take all the other "unscientific" discussions away "as well"). So, I have a very nice mailing list group. There are about 35 of us (I expect we might have about 50 after I post again, now that students and University staff/faculty are back from vacation). We have had discussions on several topics for almost a month now. We have had 22 postings so far, an average of about one per day. I have not written most of these and they are mainly long and of varied content. Currently, people send postings to me and I sent them to everyone who has written asking to be on the list (via an alias, of course). This is a burden for me since the list shuts down if I ever take some time off, and I have missed a message or two. I don't mind maintaining the list of names and doing whatever other administrative work is nesscessary. There's got to be a good reason why we can't just make the immune discussion an Internet news group, and your mailing address a gateway for submissions. I am confused by this. Do you mean it would be a moderated group? This is exactly what I am trying to avoid. I don't want to be responisble for sending other peoples' messages out. And I certainly don't want to edit them. An unmoderated group on usenet would be a disaster, since much of it would be pointless discussion as I've indicated above. That's not what I want. Also, an advantage of a contained (though open to anyone who asks) group is that people feel freer to share their experiences. They know no one is going to tell them it's all in their head and they know the distribution is limited to a small group of people who understand. Since this is partly a support group, it is important that people feel comfortable talking about themselves, instead of the disembodied "patient" that sci.med inspires. Having a newsgroup instead of having to deal with lots of mail seems a lot more convenient. Is there some restriction that prevents this? Frankly, I am surprised at your comments. I expected oppistion to creating a newsgroup and I expected I would have to prove my list had enough traffic to justify a mail forward. But we are not talking about a huge group with enough mail to inconvience anyone (except me or anyone else who has to hand forward it). I would guess, once we settle in and expand a little, that we would average 1-3 postings a day. This seems small for usenet. But isn't it just right for a mailing list? Please let me know if I can provide you with more information. Since I am not familiar with policy regarding this issue, please let me know what I need to do. Thanks, Cyndi