From: ddd@harrier.cvs.rochester.edu (Derryl D. DePriest)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.comics
Subject: Re: META: Re: RAC SPLIT:NO!!!
Date: 8 Apr 92 17:15:57 GMT
Organization: University of Rochester, Rochester NY

In article <1992Apr7.070924.22185@usenet.ins.cwru.edu>,
bn981@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Ryan Mathews) writes:
> I guess my major complaint with this idea is that it shows a great deal
> of intolerance.  "I don't like this publisher, so I want a group without
> them in it."  Yes, I know people who want to read all the posts can read
> all the groups.  That's not the point.  The point is that I find it sad
> that some want to divide one of the best "on-line conventions" in the
> world for the sake of convenience.

In response to Ryan, I feel that if the volume is too high, readers
will be scared off or unsubscribe due to the terrific number of posts, 
the majority of which may not be of interest to everyone save a few. 
These are folks who might have some good things to say about topics they
are interested in.  I am perilously close to this; kill files are helping, 
but even then a surprising number of people ignore their usage.  I would love 
to read other groups, like r.a.movies if the volume wasn't so high.  It's
dissatisfying just skimming, not really feeling like contributing because
somebody may have already said what I wanted to say or I can't 
spare the time to read through messages looking for replies.

I think the *only* reason for not splitting along company 
lines is that too many things would be crossposted anyway.
But, I would argue that so few messages pertain to more than one company 
that this shouldn't be a concern.  (In looking at subject lines the past week, 
the only posts that cross over are questions/comments about writers and artists,
and general questions about super teams).
A split that would create rec.arts.comics.marvel and rec.arts.comics.dc, 
along with rec.arts.comics (for discussions of independants, general 
and meta topics, along with writers and artists) seems to be sensible.  
As more than one poster has commented, this seems inevitable.
I am also ignoring the arguments some have made that it would be "personally
inconvenient" to read more than one group.  

dougm@hal.com (Doug Moran) writes:
>The possible solutions that I have heard have been:
>
>a) Use the headers in the Subject line (e.g., "META: SPLIT NO!)
>Pro and con:
>a) Pro -- would make option b viable.  Con -- not everybody does it, and
   >given the influx of students every fall, there is a high probability
   >that there never will be a time that a large fraction of people do
   >it.  Aside -- perhaps a formal proposal that all articles carry a
   >header?

That's a good suggestion, and semi-formal already.  I have been sending
(friendly, I hope!) reminders to people who start a new thread to use
the headers.  They have cut my volume somewhat, but still a lot of
stuff gets through, compounded by the fact that people who reply
don't often add headers either.  All I can hope is that momentum
takes over, and new users recognize the system before they post.
The only danger is the old fogeys who can't be taught new tricks! :-)

>Questions:
>o What have I missed?

Did you pickup Magnus from Valiant?  I like it.  :-)

>o Anyone have any other potential solutions?

Well, I usually use a high Na+, low K+ bath with a concentration gradient 
of....oh, you don't mean *ionic* potential, do you? :-)

>o Should you drink red or white wine with feticcini and pesto sauce?

Ah, a serious question.  Definitely red (perhaps a nice cabernet sauvignon).

d-
 ___       
|\__\___               Derryl Dean DePriest     ddd@cvs.rochester.edu          
||  |\__\___     Neuroscience Graduate Program and Center for Visual Science  
|| D||  |\__\                      University of Rochester                     
\|__|| D||   \   
    \|__|| D |              I ground the warship you walk upon
        \|__/ 
Newsgroups: rec.arts.comics