Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cs.utexas.edu!wuarchive!udel!haven!adm!smoke!gwyn
From: gwyn@smoke.BRL.MIL (Doug Gwyn)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.apple
Subject: Re: Call for discussion: comp.sys.apple2.tech
Message-ID: <11595@smoke.BRL.MIL>
Date: 14 Nov 89 15:02:23 GMT
References: <5100@internal.Apple.COM> <11583@smoke.BRL.MIL> <5168@internal.Apple.COM>
Reply-To: gwyn@brl.arpa (Doug Gwyn)
Organization: Ballistic Research Lab (BRL), APG, MD.
Lines: 23

In article <5168@internal.Apple.COM> farrier@Apple.COM (Cary Farrier) writes:
> Perhaps comp.sys.apple was originally intended
>as a technical forum, but now the needs have grown along with the needs
>of the Apple II users: not all the users are interested in the same
>information.

Well gee, welcome to the real world.  It's always been that way,
and the rest of us just discard messages that don't interest us.
If you have a decent news system interface, this is easy to do.

Short of moderation, you're just going to move the "problem" (as
you perceive it) into another newsgroup, and cause the existing
audience to have to subscribe to two newsgroups instead of one.

We tried this years ago with the INFO-UNIX and UNIX-WIZARDS
Internet mailing lists (gatewayed as USENET comp.unix.questions
and comp.unix.wizards) and found that technical discussion could
spring up in the novice list while silly discussions continued
to spring up in the wizard list.  Nearly everyone either
subscribes to both newsgroups or to neither.

So why add complexity in a system that is already creaking at
the seams?