Hank Burchard ([log in to unmask]) writes:
> On Tue, 23 Jan 1996, Christopher D. Geist wrote:
>
>>   I think we need a comprehensive list such as this one.  In any event, as
>> many recent postings have indicated, there are highly specialized lists
>> already available which relate to the various "splinters" that have been
>> suggested.  Let's not re-invent the wheel.
>
>      Hear, hear. My sentiments exactly.

        Mine as well.  In addition, the following thoughts have not
surfaced here yet:
        If M-L splinters, those interested in many of the topics may
receive fewer posts in their mailboxes PER GROUP---but the TOTAL VOLUME will
be just as great.  From experience, EACH splinter group will gradually get
just as busy as the original, so the volume will be many times the original.
        Another downside is the fact that many, especially those new to
the groups, will post the same requests to EACH splinter group, in the
hopes of "catching everybody."  This results in much repetition of content.
        Dennis Lloyd.

--
Dennis Lloyd, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.