Date: Sat, 16 Dec 1995 06:49:33 -1000 From: dgomberg@ednet1.osl.or.gov (David Gomberg) Message-Id: <4autat$6fs@ednet1.osl.or.gov> Organization: Eastern Oregon State College Subject: Splitting - a different approach There has been plenty of discussion already on the idea of splitting rec.kites. So let me apologize at the outset for starting still *another* thread on the subject. It seems to me that the one place we had a small consensus - or at least little resistance - was the notion of a separate area for business and trade announcements. This would provide an area to post more "for sale" ads, and get the pervasive and thinly disguised advertisements and product announcements out of the main reading area. It would also provide an opportunity for genuine announcements from the industry, which would not be such a bad thing as long as they were segregated. Right now, we only hear from people willing to stretch the rules. Comments anyone? Thanks! -- David Gomberg phone 503-996-3083 Box 113, Neotsu Oregon 97364 USA fax 503-994-9692 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Date: Sun, 17 Dec 1995 03:50:40 -1000 From: bluekites@inmind.com (James Ervin) Message-Id: <4b144a$uo_001@everything.inmind.com> Organization: In Mind, Inc. Subject: Re: Splitting - a different approach I agree with David, this is not "splitting" as much as it is growing and adding a new part of the group. A venue for such commercial activity would be appreiciated by many. James Ervin/Blue Ridge Kites/Check out the new kite page at bluekites@inmind.com/ http://www.inmind.com/people/jervin/kites.html (540) 586-9590 And the new Benjamin Kite Cartoon at http://www.inmind.com/people/jervin/ben.html ____________________________________________________________________ Can I go home now? My brain is full. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Date: Sun, 17 Dec 1995 09:34:26 -1000 From: Dan Whitney Message-Id: Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice) Subject: Re: Splitting - a different approach Hi David This would work for me. Dan gwtw = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Date: Sun, 17 Dec 1995 12:31:18 -1000 From: kevaa@aol.com (Kev A A) Message-Id: <4b25nm$mhj@newsbf02.news.aol.com> Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Subject: Re: Splitting - a different approach Gets my vote that is if we're voting. Kevin = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Date: Sun, 17 Dec 1995 14:23:43 -1000 From: andrew@tug.com (Andrew Beattie) Message-Id: Organization: /usr/lib/news/organisation Subject: Re: Splitting - a different approach dgomberg@ednet1.osl.or.gov (David Gomberg) writes: >It seems to me that the one place we had a small consensus - >or at least little resistance - was the notion of a separate >area for business and trade announcements. OK, having talked to a couple of the people in this particular thread, I'm going to take this and run with it. I'll read up on the pre-requisites that we need to cover, put together a carefuly considered proposal, run a proper Request For Discussion (RFD) and then conduct a Call For Votes (CFV), to see if it'll fly. In the meantime, please consider this thread dead. There is no proposal to argue about and nothing to vote on. If you feel stongly about this idea, in either way, please bite your tongue until I put something together (right now, I gotta get to bed...). There will be plently of opportunity for discussion in due course. Andrew -- http://www.kfs.org/kites is having some reliability problems. We will shortly be upgrading CPU, disk and OS to address this. Don't post about splitting rec.kites. Wait for the RFD and CFV. Fancy stitches are for girls. Real men use 5mm straight stitch only. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Date: Mon, 18 Dec 1995 09:59:21 -1000 From: samef@shout.net (Sam Francis) Message-Id: <4b4a9r$vbj@treflan.shout.net> Organization: Shouting Ground Technologies Subject: Re: Splitting - a different approach dgomberg@ednet1.osl.or.gov (David Gomberg) wrote: >It seems to me that the one place we had a small consensus - >or at least little resistance - was the notion of a separate >area for business and trade announcements. This would provide >an area to post more "for sale" ads, and get the pervasive and thinly >disguised advertisements and product announcements out of the >main reading area. Dave, I did suggest this new area myself. I recommend rec.kites marketplace be added. I know Dodd has gone down in flames as well as Dan right now, and others who advertised here. It works...see rec.photo.marketplace. All the manufacturers can tell us about their wonderful new kites and maybe we'll have dealers' price wars here too ;-) And if I want to get rid of a kite I don't want anymore, I'll have a place to do it. I support this 100 Sam = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Date: Wed, 20 Dec 1995 11:39:25 -1000 From: coh@i-2000.com (Chuck Henderson) Message-Id: Organization: I-2000 Inc. - Internet Services Subject: Re: Splitting - a different approach Why fragment the community? I might be stupid, but I like the idea of having everything in one place. We'll only have people cross-posting a notice about the ad they have in the new spot, so what's the difference? And newbies are going to come in here and ask "where can I get this or that" and we'll have to tell them to go over to the other place. Just modify the rules for this group and require that commercial posts be labeled as such. Then, if ya' don't want to read it, ya' don't have to. Bandwidth? Baloney! There's more bandwidth available than we know what to do with. And it's getting wider every day. This community won't grow as fast or as much as we would like if we won't let enterprising people sell kites whenever and *wherever* they find kite fliers or potential kite fliers. I don't see anything wrong with having a centralized source for any and *all* information concerning kites. Seems to me, this is a good place for it. For instance: Does anyone know if the overseas company named EXCEL, who makes cool spar retainers, has a U.S. distributor? If so, how can I contact them? Now, that question would be acceptable in this group, right? But if someone came in here to announce that they were the sole distributor in the U.S. for EXCEL products, and we could e-mail them for a price list, somebody would complain about it. Everyone must have noticed that the Silent Auction threads in this group were some of the largest and most-responded-to in the entire group. And I mean the bids and counter bids, not the complaints. It looked like fun to me! But still, we had some ill-mannered, bad-tempered, disrespectful complaints about people who were doing what comes naturally and just plain havin' fun. Free trade is good for the entire community. Don't stifle it, or shove it into some other place where we won't be "bothered" by it. Why keep track of multiple newsgroups when one will suffice for all our needs? --Chuck Henderson P.S. I don't sell kites. I only buy 'em and fly 'em. And try to make 'em. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Date: Thu, 21 Dec 1995 17:39:58 -1000 From: johnsen@eskimo.com (Brian Johnsen) Message-Id: Organization: Tethered Airfoil R&D Pty. Ltd.(C)(R)(TM) CD CASS Subject: Re: Splitting - a different approach In article <4autat$6fs@ednet1.osl.or.gov>, David Gomberg wrote: [ ] >It seems to me that the one place we had a small consensus - >or at least little resistance - was the notion of a separate >area for business and trade announcements. That's what the 'biz.xxx' heirarchy is for. Please do run a CFD for biz.kites. But not under rec.xxx forum; We're non-commersh here (believe it or not!). -- Gnome Sees Mary Poppins In A Burrito -- Brian Johnsen johnsen@eskimo.com Seattle, Washington USA = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Date: Thu, 21 Dec 1995 10:42:00 -1000 From: larry.peters@compudata.com (LARRY PETERS) Message-Id: <8B753EA.02A7003AD0.uuout@compudata.com> Organization: Compu-Data BBS -=- Turnersville, NJ -=- 609-232-1245 Subject: Re: Splitting - a different approach LP>From:>larry -> Newsgroups: rec.kites -> I did suggest this new area myself. I recommend rec.kites marketplace be -> added. I know Dodd has gone down in flames as well as Dan right LP>Thats an interestimg thought. -> All the manufacturers can tell us about their wonderful new kites and maybe -> we'll have dealers' price wars here too ;-) And if I want to LP> Ya. -> get rid of a kite I don't want anymore, I'll have a place to do it. -> I support this 100 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Date: Thu, 21 Dec 1995 17:39:58 -1000 From: johnsen@eskimo.com (Brian Johnsen) Message-Id: Organization: Tethered Airfoil R&D Pty. Ltd.(C)(R)(TM) CD CASS Subject: Re: Splitting - a different approach In article <4autat$6fs@ednet1.osl.or.gov>, David Gomberg wrote: [ ] >It seems to me that the one place we had a small consensus - >or at least little resistance - was the notion of a separate >area for business and trade announcements. That's what the 'biz.xxx' heirarchy is for. Please do run a CFD for biz.kites. But not under rec.xxx forum; We're non-commersh here (believe it or not!). -- Gnome Sees Mary Poppins In A Burrito -- Brian Johnsen johnsen@eskimo.com Seattle, Washington USA = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Date: Thu, 21 Dec 1995 21:00:34 -1000 From: cfbd@southern.co.nz (Colin Douthwaite) Message-Id: <4bdl2i$bsb@orm.southern.co.nz> Organization: Southern InterNet Services Subject: Re: Splitting - a different approach Andrew Beattie (andrew@tug.com) wrote: : dgomberg@ednet1.osl.or.gov (David Gomberg) writes: : >It seems to me that the one place we had a small consensus - : >or at least little resistance - was the notion of a separate : >area for business and trade announcements. : OK, having talked to a couple of the people in this particular : thread, I'm going to take this and run with it. You've talked with "a _COUPLE_ of people" ? What about the rest of the folks here in rec.kites ? Do they not count ? Just a couple of people ? Hrrrmph ! : I'll read up on the pre-requisites that we need to cover, put : together a carefuly considered proposal, run a proper Request For : Discussion (RFD) and then conduct a Call For Votes (CFV), to see if : it'll fly. : In the meantime, please consider this thread dead. There is no : proposal to argue about and nothing to vote on. No ! Please consider this thread very much alive. And please, Andrew, refrain from telling us all what the situation is thanks - we all know full well what the situation is. : If you feel stongly about this idea, in either way, please bite : your tongue until I put something together (right now, I gotta get : to bed...). There will be plently of opportunity for discussion : in due course. Bite my tongue ? My oath, Andrew you've really got a nerve ! This time you've really made me see red. You are neither the Owner nor the Moderator of this newsgroup and the readership of rec.kites has given you no invitation to do anything concerning this newsgroup. Please don't tell us how to behave. You have absolutely no mandate to go ahead with an RFD annd CFV on the basis of the pre-RFD discussion which has appeared here in rec.kites so far and I for one strongly object to your proposed action. There has been strong opposition so far to this splitting idea which was proposed, on 5 December, by someone we have never before seen in this newsgroup, namely "albert@beowulf.gamp.hacom.nl (Albert Mietus)" who has stirred up a hornet's nest. I think I have saved all the messages which have been posted to date in these threads and the majority are against changing rec.kites which is a very good newsgroup enjoyed by many. Quite frankly, Andrew, I do not want you, or anyone else, going off to put to put anything together. Please leave rec.kites alone - it ain't broken so please stop trying to fix it. Enough people have already said that in these threads. Please post about kites and kiting - not reorganising, splitting and fragmentation of the rec.kites newsgroup which has relatively low volume and a high signal to noise ratio. I realise it is not kiting weather in the Northern Hemisphere but please find something better to do than splitting rec.kites to suit the whims of a few misguided ( IMHO ) people here. Effect of adding a "marketplace" subgroup to rec.kites: If you try to add a new subgroup to rec.kites then "Usenet Group- Advice" will strongly recommend that you rename/rmgroup the parent newsgroup "rec.kites" replacing it with "rec.kites.misc". The rec.kites.* hierarchy would then become: rec.kites.marketplace rec.kites.misc rec.kites newsgroup as we now know it will disappear completely. I am certain rec.kites readers do NOT want that to happen. An example: Earlier this year we had a battle to save rec.antiques from being renamed rec.antiques.misc just because some readers wanted to create a new subgroup "rec.antiques.marketplace" to get the Wanted/For Sale adverts out of the main group "rec.antiques". We saved rec.antiques from destruction and the rec.antiques.marketplace subgroup was created and is highly successful. But...did it stop people from posting adverts in rec.antiques ? Did it blazes ! So the next move was to try to create rec.antiques.moderated, once again the proposal was to remove the parent group rec.antiques and replace it yet again with rec.antiques.misc. The opposition from the readership was so strong that the moderation proposal was withdrawn. We are now trying some other methods to persuade people not to post WTD/FS to the main newsgroup. Sorry to go on at some length on this one but I have had a full year in the political newsgroup "news.groups" opposing this modern fetish for splitting, fragmentation and re-organising newsgroups. Almost exclusively the desire is to split up the existing well- established healthy parent groups into subgroups so that some users CAN AVOID reading those subgroups. Splitting is an attempt to solve problems. Very seldom is the motivation to create a new specialist subgroup for which there will be active participation and interest. This splitting idea for rec.kites has negative not positive motivations. It is an attempt to solve various problems. -------------------------------------------------------------------- " I was to learn later in life that we tend to meet any new situation by reorganizing; and a wonderful method it can be for creating the illusion of progress while producing confusion, inefficiency, and demoralization. " - Petronius Arbiter (circa A.D. 60) -------------------------------------------------------------------- Bye, = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Date: Thu, 21 Dec 1995 15:08:46 -1000 From: Richard Bettis Message-Id: <79396499wnr@fats.demon.co.uk> Organization: Health & Safety Lab Subject: Re: Splitting - a different approach In article: <4bdl2i$bsb@orm.southern.co.nz> cfbd@southern.co.nz (Colin Douthwaite) writes: (To Andrew Beattie...) > You have absolutely no mandate to go ahead with an RFD annd CFV on > the basis of the pre-RFD discussion which has appeared here in > rec.kites so far and I for one strongly object to your proposed > action. > Actually, you don't need a 'mandate' for an RFD. All that it means is that the present discussion, should it agree to a split, would actually count for something with the 'hardware' administrators for the 'net. For my 2p: I don't think we need a split. I don't think a split would be good for rec.kites. If there is a 'business' split then the 'biz.' groups seem like the place for it. -- +=============================================================================+ | Richard Bettis | "I make no warranty with respect to this | | | statement and disclaim any implied/explicit | | | suggestions of usefulness for any purpose" | +=============================================================================+ = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Date: Fri, 22 Dec 1995 13:35:45 -1000 From: kevin@island.kites.com (Kevin Mayeshiro) Message-Id: <4bffch$kdj@malasada.lava.net> Organization: Island Kites Subject: Re: Splitting - a different approach Colin Douthwaite (cfbd@southern.co.nz) wrote: : There has been strong opposition so far to this splitting idea which : was proposed, on 5 December, by someone we have never before seen in : this newsgroup, namely "albert@beowulf.gamp.hacom.nl (Albert Mietus)" : who has stirred up a hornet's nest. : : I think I have saved all the messages which have been posted to date : in these threads and the majority are against changing rec.kites : which is a very good newsgroup enjoyed by many. We can go on aruging forever, continue going nowhere, and have people pay to see all of this. The way to resolve this issue is to formalize the process and get a solid count of who is for/against creating or splitting a newsgroup. That is why the RFD and CVF was designed. The process allows people to voice their opinions, others to listen to the pros and cons, and then everyone has an opportunity to vote on the issue. This will be a true indicator to see if people want to keep the group as-is, or spliting/creating a new group. - Kevin -- Kevin Mayeshiro | rec.kites archive: kevin@island.kites.com | ftp://kites.its.Hawaii.Edu/pub/kites = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Date: Fri, 22 Dec 1995 08:26:41 -1000 From: dgomberg@ednet1.osl.or.gov (David Gomberg) Message-Id: <4bet91$pcq@ednet1.osl.or.gov> Organization: Eastern Oregon State College Subject: Re: Splitting - a different approach Thanks for an informative post. I learned quite a bit about the process after reading your remarks and of your experience in other news groups. I have to tell you that I am a kiteflier, not a net expert. FWIW - I don't think Andrew is trying to shove his ideas down everyone's throat, but rather, organize a democratic vote on the issue. That's what you usually do in a debate when discussion has gone on long enough and is becomming redundant. Everyone will get an equal say. Your position is clearly that we don't need a vote. I respect that, although I'm not sure I agree. I *am* glad to see some new information in the discussion about how "marketplace" would be arranged in a directory. The one comment I do take issue with is where you say, "This splitting idea for rec.kites has negative not positive motivations." You may believe that the RESULTS will be negative. But I assure you that the motivation is simply to provide an additional outlet for information which is discouraged in our current format - commercial announcements and private for-sale postings. Thanks! -- David Gomberg phone 503-996-3083 Box 113, Neotsu Oregon 97364 USA fax 503-994-9692 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Date: Sat, 23 Dec 1995 17:54:24 -1000 From: birdofplay@aol.com (BirdofPlay) Message-Id: <4biitg$l6h@newsbf02.news.aol.com> Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Subject: Re: Splitting - a different approach If we can stop the "auctions" and ... STOP this discussion then it won't take me 10 - 15 minutes of aol time to get rec.kites. Not that I really care about the time. It's all the carpel clicking to delete this rubbish. I do acknowledge all the time spent brain storming this thread but please take a step back and a deep breath and reconsider the real merit - is it worth all this discussion? Don't we really want to talk about kites, kiting and kiters, sewing techniques, appropriate art work for kites, the advancment of kiting in the community, kite history, museums, new newsletters et al. No auction and no split would be 20 - 40 less postings. There are those with the techy expertise to keep this thread alive and to follow thru with it. So I suppose we'll all have to endure it until it comes to a vote. My guess is that it will be put down and some of us/you will have wasted lots of time for nothing. Hey it was 25 F yesterday and I found time to fly my new Box o Trix and test a Jam Session with a customer. No time to worry about splitz ! Having fun ! Bob birdofplay@aol.com = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Date: Sat, 23 Dec 1995 19:01:54 -1000 From: fsiegel@linet02.li.net (Frank Siegel) Message-Id: <4bims2$net@linet02.li.net> Organization: LI Net (Long Island Network) Subject: Re: Splitting - a different approach : It seems to me that the one place we had a small consensus - : or at least little resistance - was the notion of a separate : area for business and trade announcements. This would provide David, This makes the most sense to me. While I did get a bit cross-eyed reading all about pfaff vs. whatever (I never will sew), I'd hate to have to go to all the multiple areas and multiple posts proposed. But I'd like to see ads and industry commentary also. Frank = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Date: Tue, 26 Dec 1995 20:13:56 -1000 From: cfbd@southern.co.nz (Colin Douthwaite) Message-Id: <4bqo74$p4d@orm.southern.co.nz> Organization: Southern InterNet Services Subject: Re: Splitting - a different approach Kevin Mayeshiro (kevin@island.kites.com) wrote: : Colin Douthwaite (cfbd@southern.co.nz) wrote: : : There has been strong opposition so far to this splitting idea which : : was proposed, on 5 December, by someone we have never before seen in : : this newsgroup, namely "albert@beowulf.gamp.hacom.nl (Albert Mietus)" : : who has stirred up a hornet's nest. : : : : I think I have saved all the messages which have been posted to date : : in these threads and the majority are against changing rec.kites : : which is a very good newsgroup enjoyed by many. : : We can go on aruging forever, continue going nowhere, and have : people pay to see all of this. The way to resolve this issue : is to formalize the process and get a solid count of who is : for/against creating or splitting a newsgroup. That is why the : RFD and CVF was designed. : : The process allows people to voice their opinions, others to : listen to the pros and cons, and then everyone has an opportunity : to vote on the issue. This will be a true indicator to see if : people want to keep the group as-is, or spliting/creating a new : group. Unfortunately the pre-RFD/RFD/CFV process is not as simple as that. It engages net.politics and Usenet policies. Rushing into an RFD too soon will not be a true indicator of the rec.kites readership's views and RFD/CFV procedures can remove discussion elsewhere out of sight of rec.kites readers over in news.groups. The correct procedure is to have a pre-RFD discussion within the affected newsgroup and if there is a fair degree of consensus on what should go into an RFD ( Request For Discussion ) then one or two people will draft a formal RFD and submit it to the n.a.n. moderator. Usenet Group-Advice on receipt of a draft RFD will almost certainly respond by strongly recommending that the present newsgroup "rec.kites" be renamed to "rec.kites.misc" and after 3 months a control message will be issued removing the existing "rec.kites" newsgroup. It will be declared a "Bogus Newsgroup" and is virtually impossible to re-instate it. I, for one, do not want that to happen and I don't think a lot of other readers of "rec.kites" do either. Furthermore, when the RFD is issued, the discussion is directed to the newsgroup "news.groups" and many readers of "rec.kites" will no longer see the vital and important discussion because it will not take place here in "rec.kites". The newsgroup "news.groups" is the home of the net.politicians and they will jump into the RFD. I have spent far too much time myself over in "news.groups" this year defending newsgroups like "rec.kites" from destruction. I see I am going to have to do it for "rec.kites" too in 1996. And all this because of a Mr. Albert Mietus of the Netherlands who dropped his splitting bombshell on "rec.kites" and then disappeared. Before any RFD is constructed if you want to get a measure of the splitting idea, a properly conducted straw poll by email should be done of the entire rec.kites readership over a suitable period of time, say 3 or 4 weeks. This is what happened in sci.physics not too long ago and there was insufficient support for a split in the end. And...we do not need to go on arguing forever...this splitting idea, triggered by Albert Mietus, is coming from just a handful of rec.kites readers. OK if you don't think you are getting a fair shake on this one, then run a straw poll of the entire rec.kites readership. Now is the time to put on Warpaint and get out the Manja ! Looks like being a hot and feisty New Year folks. :-) Bye, = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Date: Wed, 27 Dec 1995 12:52:00 -1000 From: larry.peters@compudata.com (LARRY PETERS) Message-Id: <8B7B46C.148400002D.uuout@compudata.com> Organization: Compu-Data BBS -=- Turnersville, NJ -=- 609-232-1245 Subject: Re: Splitting - a different approach -> I'm beginning to think that Larry Peters is a Jerk, but his posts are so -> poorly presented that I've not read enough of them to form a firm opinion. LP> Gee! Thanks for the complement. So just ignore them I'm here to learn as much as possible about kites. It would be nice to see the New Years so Happy New Year to you. And I'm flying my kites and enjoying my group who also fly kites . I do hope this is clearly as my spelling and grammar are from a MBD , OBD. But I do try! And Andy I do wish you a really nice year and hope you never get the disabiliy I have - No one is imune. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Date: Tue, 26 Dec 1995 21:44:46 -1000 From: andrew@tug.com (Andrew Beattie) Message-Id: Organization: /usr/lib/news/organisation Subject: Re: Splitting - a different approach cfbd@southern.co.nz (Colin Douthwaite) writes: >The correct procedure is to have a pre-RFD discussion within the >affected newsgroup [...] A discussion about a discussion? This thread is boring enough without that. I won't argue with you here. I'm busy taking advice from the "Group Mentors" - When they are happy with my RFD, I'll post it here and we can discuss it, change it if necessary and vote on it. FYI, I strongly oppose changing rec.kites to rec.kites.misc and am discussing this very issue with the Mentors. Andrew -- http://www.kfs.org/kites is broken. Normal service will be resumed ASAP. -- I'm beginning to think that Larry Peters is a Jerk, but his posts are so poorly presented that I've not read enough of them to form a firm opinion. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Date: Wed, 27 Dec 1995 14:00:29 -1000 From: drake@cais3.cais.com (Drake Smith) Message-Id: <4bsmmt$m6l@zippy.cais.net> Organization: Capital Area Internet Service info@cais.com 703-448-4470 Subject: Re: Splitting - a different approach Just a suggestion: All this ranting just reminded me of what I find over in alt.sxx, and one way they handle splitting when splitting doesn't work, is to forcefully encourage descriptive titles. This means the TITLE describes the post, sufficiently to attract or warn folks who may not care for the contents of the post. For example, Subject: Megabag Kite (ad)/(plan)/(etc) For this thread, you could just put (noise) in the title. Unix people could instead put (n)... you get the idea. But for now, I read it all, even once in a while Mr Nasty, just in case there's been a change, and it beats the heck out of Geraldo. Cheers, -=Drake=- ob rec, ob kite: I hear there will be a New Year's Day Kite Fly at the Washington Monument (DC, North America, that is). Anyone know what time, or can we park close by?? = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Date: Thu, 28 Dec 1995 11:21:02 -1000 From: bfk@aol.com (Bfk) Message-Id: <4bv1nu$b8r@newsbf02.news.aol.com> Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Subject: Re: Splitting - a different approach drake@cais3.cais.com (Drake Smith) writes; >Just a suggestion: All this ranting just reminded me of what I find over >in alt.sxx, and one way they handle splitting when splitting doesn't >work, is to forcefully encourage descriptive titles. >This means the TITLE describes the post, sufficiently to attract or warn >folks who may not care for the contents of the post. >For example, Subject: Megabag Kite (ad)/(plan)/(etc) Excellent point. I have seen the (ad) or (pic), or whatever designations before and it works. If you are not interested in reading a "commercial" , skip it. Hoy = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Date: Thu, 28 Dec 1995 14:19:51 -1000 From: dbarnes@whidbey.net (dick barnes) Message-Id: <4bvc77$1up@whidbey.whidbey.com> Organization: Whidbey Internet Services Subject: Re: Splitting - a different approach In article <4bv1nu$b8r@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, bfk@aol.com says... > >drake@cais3.cais.com (Drake Smith) writes; >>This means the TITLE describes the post, sufficiently to attract or warn >>folks who may not care for the contents of the post. > >>For example, Subject: Megabag Kite (ad)/(plan)/(etc) I thought the *real* problem was those who have rec.kites downloaded via e-mail. It costs too much/takes too much time to download all the junk mail. Describing the contents of the post would not help there, would it? Myself, I like the idea of a rec.kite.commercial (or such) and would read it religiously. But then, I think most of the retailers know I like ads.. dick barnes coupeville wa = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Date: Fri, 29 Dec 1995 07:32:11 -1000 From: kevaa@aol.com (Kev A A) Message-Id: <4c18mr$4pl@newsbf02.news.aol.com> Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Subject: Re: Splitting - a different approach I am not a big newsgroup user I have rec.kites and a home brewing newsgroup which I just subscribed to, to compare the 2 which I read last roughly two days ago rec.kites had 28 new posts while brewing had 117 so thats almost 5 times as many. I still think a seperate business newsgroup for kites sounds good but, I don't know much about newsgroups. Anyone else in the same boat? I think we need all the information possible as to what would happen or how rec.kites would change. My two pennies worth, Kevin = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =