From: cuz@chaos.cs.brandeis.edu (Cousin It)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: "BAD" music group reorg will not be honored
Date: 9 Nov 92 22:53:34 GMT
Organization: The Castle of the Pip Master

gvh@metrosoft.com (Gordon Van Huizen) writes:
|In article <cuz.721291798@chaos.cs.brandeis.edu> cuz@chaos.cs.brandeis.edu  
|(Cousin It) writes:
|> gvh@metrosoft.com (Gordon Van Huizen) writes:
|> |In article <1992Nov8.160617.1@fnalo.fnal.gov> morrow@fnalo.fnal.gov  
|(St.  
|> |Elmo's Fire) writes:
|> 
|> |I don't think it's absurd to at least indicate the hierarchy that the  
|> |group is in. Rec.music.synth was NOT in rec.music.makers.* but it WAS  
|in  
|> |rec.music.*.
|> 
|> 	Fine, then you have to add alt.guitar.* and rec.music.makers.*
|> and you have an absurdly long subject line which tells you infinitely
|> less then the subject line used.
|> 

|What DID the subject line tell people exactly? What does "Subject: RFD:  
|rec.music.makers.* groups" mean to you? Infinitely more? Let's not get  
|hyperbolic.

	It told me that the RFD proposed new r.m.makers groups. Funny
thing is, thats exactly what it talked about too. If we went with the
proposal to list all the possibly affected groups in the subject, it
would be cluttered and wouldn't mean much to me. Thus, infinitely
better fits for me. 
 
|> |I'd be up for any suggestion that makes the process better than it is  
|and  
|> |helps inform people in a more direct fashion. Perhaps "RFD: reorg  
|> |involving rec.music.* groups" would have been a better choice.
|> 
|> 	Which addresses exactly ONE of the FIVE votes. What makes the
|> synth proposal immenently more prestigious then the rest.
|>

|Ahem. Isn't rec.music.makers.* under rec.music.*? Wouldn't the word  
|"reorg" have been good to use? Doesn't my 10 second attempt even get  
|CLOSER to stating the subject of the proposal?

	a) It was broader than a reorg
	b) It also involved alt.guitar too, which makes the entire
subject get muddled.

|> The
|> subject lines have never been a real problem in any other reorg. And
|> the subject lines were just as "vague" as this one.

|Do you have support for the claim that all subject lines in reorgs have  
|been vague and that it has never been a problem?

	No, I don't. I am going on my own opinions. I never stated
that these were facts because all of this is open to interpretation.
In my opinion, other proposals have had vague subject lines. It is my
opinion that this has not caused problems. This opinion could be
backed up by the fact that we have never (in my knowledge) had this
discussion before.

|> What you need is education.

|I'm getting one - are you? Do you feel some strong need to look superior  
|to me in an attempt to aid your argument?

	I think you was meant in a general term. It was not, in any
way, meant as an insult. I'm sorry you took it as one.

|>The system is not broken, at least not on this point.

|Maybe it is.

	Two differing opinions, somewhere in the night. 

Cousin It                                  cuz@chaos.cs.brandeis.edu
"Do you regard the restroom wall as a private meeting?  No?  Why is a
                     newsgroup any different?"
- igb@fulcrum.bt.co.uk (Ian G Batten), 27 Mar 92, alt.censorship -
Newsgroups: news.groups