NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/rec/arts/books/23426

Text File | 1992-12-29 | 1.7 KB | 37 lines

Newsgroups: rec.arts.books
Path: sparky!uunet!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!usc!rpi!newsserver.pixel.kodak.com!kodak!clpd.kodak.com!ca!staffan
From: [e-mail] (Kenneth Staffan (x37507))
Subject: Is the discussion over?  (Was Re: *Any* kind of r.a.b split...)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Nntp-Posting-Host: ca
Organization: Clinical Products Division, Eastman Kodak Company
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 15:33:26 GMT
Lines: 24

>>I don't understand where these people come off. They enter a room and
>>decide that because they don't like it there, so the rest of us just have
>>to stop whatever we were doing and pick up what they want to do.
>
>EXCUSE ME?
>     'these people'?  'guests'?  Who died and made you king?

This argument misses the point.  Nobody is saying that anybody has to
stop what they are doing (or at least, not everyone is saying that :-).
The gist of the original posts (before it deteriorated into yet another
spat) was to suggest possible ways to improve the organization of the
r.a.b so that all could benefit.  It's a high-volume newsgroup, and
people are just looking for ways to filter out what they do and don't
want to follow.  Not everybody has hours to weed through tons of messages.
Kill files are only of marginal use - subject lines continually change,
and the kill parsing itself takes time, which is one of the problems in
the first place.

Don't pay any attention to these tangential arguments.  Does anyone
else have constructive suggestions for organizing the group?

Ken
---
[e-mail]