Newsgroups: comp.robotics
Path: brunix!news.Brown.EDU!noc.near.net!howland.reston.ans.net!ux1.cso.uiuc.edu!uwm.edu!caen!batcomputer!munnari.oz.au!newsroom.utas.edu.au!hilbert!piggy
From: piggy@hilbert.maths.utas.edu.au (La Monte Yarroll)
Subject: Re: It's time to split comp.robotics
Message-ID: <piggy.739614215@newsroom.utas.edu.au>
Sender: news@newsroom.utas.edu.au
Organization: University of Tasmania, Australia.
References: <1993Jun8.150149@cs.bham.ac.uk> <1993Jun8.150008.25144@raid.dell.com>
Date: Wed, 9 Jun 1993 08:23:35 GMT
Lines: 31

timd@fenian.dell.com (Tim Deagan) writes:

>>In article <C81yIs.JF5@ecf.toronto.edu>, hertz@ecf.toronto.edu (HERTZ ROGER BARRY) writes:
>> Hi,
>> 
>> I've noticed that the postings on comp.robotics often belong to one of
>> two threads:
>> 		1. mobile robots
>> 		2. manipulators
>> 
>> Although there is the some cross over between the two, it may be more
>> efficient to split comp.robotics into the two groups.

>I vote NO.  

>I find most of the postings to be questions not specifically
>related to either mobiles or manipulators.  And my mobiles have
>manipualtors on them.  This is a relatively low traffic group, splitting
>it is overkill.  I also appreciate the cross fertilization of learning
>about eye-tracking, ultrasonics, stepper motors, servos, etc..

Meetoo.  There is no need to split comp.robotics.  I would go so far
as to say that it would be detrimental.  A certain critical mass of
readers and posters is needed to keep a news group healthy.  It is not
at all difficult to keep up with sci.robotics, even if you read every
article every day.
--
La Monte H. Yarroll	Home:		piggy@baqaqi.chi.il.us
   Work:		piggy@hilbert.maths.utas.edu.au
   AKA:			piggy@gargoyle.uchicago.edu
   Once upon a time:	postmaster@clout.chi.il.us
