Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site pur-phy.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!floyd!harpo!ihnp4!inuxc!pur-ee!CS-Mordred!Pucc-H:Physics:suitti From: suitti@pur-phy.UUCP (Stephen K. Uitti) Newsgroups: net.news Subject: Re: Notesfile vs. USENET (flame) Message-ID: <1206@pur-phy.UUCP> Date: Wed, 15-Feb-84 13:55:57 EST Article-I.D.: pur-phy.1206 Posted: Wed Feb 15 13:55:57 1984 Date-Received: Fri, 17-Feb-84 02:39:01 EST References: <884@druxt.UUCP> <17800001@hp-dcd.UUCP> <255@hou3c.UUCP> Organization: Purdue University Physics Dept. Lines: 24 First: Orphaned responses are in general a symptom of news' occasional unreliability, not any problem of notes directly; you see the Reply: The problem is that I may have very well seen something on the topic before, but because a notesfile system somewhere hadn't seen anything on the topic before it gave the article an "Orphaned response" title. My Reply: The problem with notes "orphaned response" has nothing to do (really) with grouping. Grouping is only good so that if you only bother reading news once a week then you can skip whole discussions and read with context (having just read something on the same subject). These are convenient. If an article doesn't contain enough context for what it replys to, it is unreadable anyway. I'm not about to try hunting down it's parent. The real problem with notes "orphaned response" is that you loose the subject line. GONE. You HAVE to read the article. I've run notes, it was no better for the guy who ran it than for the guy who ran news. Stephen Uitti (Purdue physics site manager) UUCP: pur-ee!Physics:suitti, purdue!Physics:suitti INTERNET: suitti @ pur-phy.UUCP