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