On Mon, 13 Apr 1992 15:20:21 EDT Stevan Harnad <[log in to unmask]> said:
 
>> Date:         Mon, 13 Apr 1992 11:33:00 EDT
>> Sender: "Publishing E-Journals : Publishing, Archiving,
>>               and Access" <[log in to unmask]>
>> From: Bill Drew -- Serials Librarian <[log in to unmask]>
>>
>> Is there any reason why the discussion of referreeing of ejournal must
>> be carried out on four different lists?
 
Four?
 
>Comments: To: Assoc El Sch Jnls <[log in to unmask]>,
>              "Arachnet, EJ list" <[log in to unmask]>,
>              cni list ej <[log in to unmask]>,
>              Bitnet List Owners <lst*[log in to unmask]>,
>              [log in to unmask], Pacls-l list <[log in to unmask]>,
>              Lib Serials list <[log in to unmask]>,
>              Pub-EJournals <[log in to unmask]>
 
That's EIGHT lists. Almost as  much cross-posting as your average Kurdish
oppression article  on usenet. And,  speaking only for myself,  about the
same value.
 
>If one has information on a topic  that is of interest to several lists,
>one can either post only to one of  the lists, so as not to risk sending
>multiple postings  to the  same individual  -- but then  that is  at the
>expense of NOT reaching the non-overlapping  portions of the lists -- or
>one can  post to them all,  and then risk drawing  complaints from those
>who received the message more than once.
 
Granted.  But if  one is  going to  post, on  a regular  basis, to  eight
different lists with a high potential for overlapping, and if furthermore
the articles may  only have marginal relevance to some  of the lists, one
clearly has a case for choosing  one list for the discussion and inviting
people who are interested in this topic  to join the list in question. If
all else fails, creating a new list takes about 15 minutes at most.
 
  Eric