Lynn said, in part .. > As for splitting the lists, I also subscribe to several soccer >mailing lists. The one for Scotland has been split into 2 lists, one for >results and one for discussion. Since I get both, I don't even notice >what is posted to what list. I think I've seen that suggestion during the >short life of HOCKEY, but I wonder how many people would only subscribe >to a discussion list and not a results list? I can see two uses for splitting the list. (1) Some people, using their local software (mail user agent), could more easily separate results from discussion and thus read the messages in a timely order. (2) Some people could subscribe to results without listening to discussion. Are there other reasons? Is the benefit enough to offset the complications of 2 lists? If only scores, rankings and ratings are included in "results", and the timeliness of these summaries is sufficient, then perhaps the "results" should be simply in the archive. If "results" include box scores and very timely one-game scores, then the archive doesn't do it. IMHO, the best game reports have a lot of discussion in them. Are all descriptions of games "results" or are some "discussion"? Here is a problem with splitting HOCKEY-L or using LISTSERV TOPICS. Whenever I ask anyone if they will *use* the suggested split, they say no, but maybe *someone* will. I lose interest rapidly. Let's not fool ourselves into thinking a split in the list will mean less mail in our mail box each day. I don't mean to stop discussion of a list split ... maybe it should be ... but I haven't seen evidence that it will accomplish any goal. On the other hand, maybe there is another list that solves some problem for a significant number of people. (If there is, I don't know what it is!). Maybe it is a moderated version of HOCKEY-L or HOCKEY-D. Maybe it is some sort of elitist list where anyone might listen, but only a relatively small number of people write). Maybe ...?