Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!wuarchive!usc!samsung!crackers!fang!jeff
From: jeff@fang.clearpoint.com (Jeffrey J. Griglack)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga
Subject: Re: CALL FOR LOCAL DISCUSSION: Split the c.s.a group more?
Message-ID: <1375@crackers.clearpoint.com>
Date: 15 Oct 90 12:47:57 GMT
References: <1990Oct6.051722.7143@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG> <7809@ucdavis.ucdavis.edu> <13218@sdcc6.ucsd.edu>
Sender: usenet@crackers.clearpoint.com
Organization: Clearpoint Inc., Hopkinton, MA
Lines: 26


I do not feel that c.s.a should be split at all.  I only get 100 to 150 
articles a day now.  Over the weekend (Friday morning to Monday morning) I
had only about 490 total.  Now, it may be a little cumbersom to have to 
wade through that many articles, but it is not all that bad.  That is what
the k (kill in 'rn') is for.

Every once in a while I find something of interest in a thread that I would
not normally follow.  If those threads where shuffled off to other to other
groups I would never see them.  I have to beleive that I am like many other
readers in this reguard.  I never read c.s.a.games.

Another reason why not to break up the group is indecision.  How do you know
where your particular thread belongs?  Does a discussion about word
processors belong in the general group of multimedia?  If the word processor
can handle pictures, isn't that multimedia?

If it comes to a vote, I will vote 'no' unless someone can convince me 
otherwise.  I feel that splitting the group will just add to the confusion
and will probably not slow the traffic on c.s.a.

Jeff
--

Jeff Griglack             |  Now I quess I have to tell 'em that I 
jeff@fang.clearpoint.com  |  have no cerebellum -- The Ramones