lphillips@lpami.wimsey.bc.ca (Larry Phillips) (12/21/89)
In <5699@orca.wv.tek.com>, whansen@vsgft1.WV.TEK.COM (Bill Hansen;;63-171;;vsgft1) writes: >Actually I've always wanted comp.sys.amiga.a2000 comp.sys.amiga.a500 etc. >While I'm sympathetic to 500 owners who have bad power supplies or such, >I'd really rather not see a zillion postings about it. In the same light, >do you 500 owners really care about the latest whiz bang card for the 2000? Two things... it sort of leaves the 1000 owners out in the cold, and divides the Amiga groups along completely unnatural lines. Since software for the two machines is the same, and since there are many more similarities than differences between the two, this split would be completely inappropriate. Sure, a 500 owner might not be interested in 2000 peripherals, and vice versa, but where do the common questions go? Does a 500 owner that is having trouble with RAD: post to the 500 group? Nope... you may as well divide it based on which room in the house the machine is kept. -larry -- " All I ask of my body is that it carry around my head." - Thomas Alva Edison - +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+ | // Larry Phillips | | \X/ lphillips@lpami.wimsey.bc.ca -or- uunet!van-bc!lpami!lphillips | | COMPUSERVE: 76703,4322 -or- 76703.4322@compuserve.com | +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
filbo@gorn.santa-cruz.ca.us (Bela Lubkin) (12/22/89)
In article <682@alias.UUCP> Kevin Picott writes: >Looking at the traffic distribution I would say that the best way to split >up c.s.a would be to create either c.s.a.d for discussions about the Amiga, >or c.s.a.questions to answer problems. (The latter probably makes the most >sense.) >What sayeth the net? The problem with these suggestions is: what is the distinction between comp.sys.amiga and comp.sys.amiga.{questions,discussion}? Questions lead to discussion, and vice versa, and what is comp.sys.amiga right now but a place for questions and discussion about the Amiga? Put it this way: what would be left in comp.sys.amiga if all the discussion about the Amiga went elsewhere? (Answer: "Xerox sues Apple!!!", unfortunately...) Adding a .discussion or .questions group would have the effect of splitting the current traffic into two groups, between which threads would be >randomly< distributed; with lots of cross-posting between the two. I don't think this is desirable. A spin-off group should have an unambiguous topic area. Note: followups directed to news.groups. Also a reminder that the discussion period regarding comp.sys.amiga.hardware is in progress in news.groups (with, however, hardly any traffic on the topic). The vote is tentatively scheduled for Jan. 1 through 15, 1990. DO NOT SEND VOTES UNTIL/UNLESS THE VOTE IS CALLED. Bela Lubkin * * // filbo@gorn.santa-cruz.ca.us CI$: 73047,1112 (slow) @ * * // belal@sco.com ..ucbvax!ucscc!{gorn!filbo,sco!belal} R Pentomino * \X/ Filbo @ Pyrzqxgl +408-476-4633 and XBBS +408-476-4945
sparks@corpane.UUCP (John Sparks) (12/27/89)
[suggestions for comp.sys.amiga.discussions, c.s.a.hardware,c.s.a.games, and others deleted] I got it! why not have a different group created for each subject discussed and then have the group deleted when the subject dies out? comp.sys.amiga.place-subject-here That way everyone is happy! :-) Personally I like the set up the way it is now. c.s.a and c.s.a.t , and I think some people are getting a wee bit carried away with all this new group nonsense. I like c.s.a because it has a variety of subjects, from games to hardware to new operating systems and more. I don't think there is enough posting of any one subject to warrant splitting it off to it's own group. -- John Sparks | D.I.S.K. 24hrs 1200bps. Accessable thru Starlink (Louisville KY) sparks@corpane.UUCP <><><><><><><><><><><> D.I.S.K. ph:502/968-5401 thru -5406 I'm the person your mother warned you about.