Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!UNCVX1.BITNET!UNESTJ From: UNESTJ@UNCVX1.BITNET (Tamara) Newsgroups: comp.sys.apple Subject: Re: Call For Discussion Message-ID: <8912130332.AA06476@apple.com> Date: 13 Dec 89 02:33:00 GMT Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU Organization: The Internet Lines: 37 Time : 12-DEC-1989 22:26 > (Rich Sims) says: > > > >btw- I don't think the comp.sys.apple2.tech group would gain us a lot, but > >it's certainly worth a shot. I base that on my readings of the comp.sys.amig a Why is it worth a shot? > >and amiga.tech groups, where most articles are cross-posted to both, which > >just increases the density instead of splitting it into more manageable > >chunks. It seems to me you are agreeing to the split when you have cause to believe it is not a good idea. > > I don't see how crossposting really is that big of a problem. Most news > systems/readers only store/forward crossposted articles once and you only have > to see them once. Doesn't really increase volume at all. Perhaps this is not a problem for people who read this newsgroup from a newsreader, but for folks (like me) who only can get this newsgroup via mail it means a great deal of duplication and more mail to sift through. Posting to both groups is going to increase my mail volume considerably, or at least that is my fear. In order to ease another fear (that of missing something important) I will have to subscribe to both groups. So just say no to the two groups. P.S. From all I read it seems that everyone is leaning toward the split (except me). What if it doesn't really work? What if it causes duplication, or some unknown, unforeseen other problem? Can the split be undone? > is having to read them at all, and there would still be a substantial > savings there, i.e. not ALL articles would be crossposted. But what about all the articles that will be crossposted? -------- "Keep On Rocking in a Free World" UNESTJ@uncvx1.bitnet