Subject: Re: Please don't flame me

From: [email-masked] (Neil Mercer)
Date: 18 Feb 1995 20:26:31 GMT

L. R. Fortney ([email-masked]) wrote:
: In article <[email-masked]>, [email-masked] (Shelley
: Carpenter) wrote:

: > Hi all,
: > 
: > I'm fairly new to this group and have just been lurking, BUT, I have to 
: > speak out on the reorganization.
: > 
: > For me, it would be easier if there were two groups, one for vegetable 
: > gardens and one for flowers/shrubs etc.  
: > 
:    I agree completely, but the last time I tried to inject this bit of
: reason it went nowhere.

: -- 
: Lloyd Fortney ---Opinions, just opinions---

I also agree, even though I am primarily against splitting rec.gardens.  
This just makes much more sense to me.  Maybe we should be considering a 
split which would end up with larger groups than being currently 
proposed, but seems more logical.  Comments?

Tania.

---

From: [email-masked] (Fellwalker)
Date: Mon, 20 Feb 1995 00:54:05 GMT

Neil Mercer ([email-masked]) wrote:
: L. R. Fortney ([email-masked]) wrote:
: : In article <[email-masked]>, [email-masked] (Shelley
: : Carpenter) wrote:
: : > 
: : > I'm fairly new to this group and have just been lurking, BUT, I have to 
: : > speak out on the reorganization.
: : > 
: : > For me, it would be easier if there were two groups, one for vegetable 
: : > gardens and one for flowers/shrubs etc.  
: : > 
: :    I agree completely, but the last time I tried to inject this bit of
: : reason it went nowhere.
: : Lloyd Fortney ---Opinions, just opinions---

: I also agree, even though I am primarily against splitting rec.gardens.  
: This just makes much more sense to me.  Maybe we should be considering a 
: split which would end up with larger groups than being currently 
: proposed, but seems more logical.  Comments?

     (Max here, from under reams of rec.gardens reorganization paperwork)

   I definately don't want to propose a whole slew of tiny groups in 
rec.gardens....that's why I was asking for opinions. I'm trying to put 
together a proposal that would subdivide what is currently rec.gardens 
(but still retain a rec.gardens.misc as a general group) into a small 
number of basic groups, such as rec.gardens.edible (to cover veggies, 
herbs, etc) and rec.gardens.ornamental (plants grown for flowers, 
foliage, etc)...but still allow for future growth as new groups come 
along or mailing lists become newsgroups. 
   There was one poster who suggested a good breakdown of how to set up a 
rec.gardens hierarchy to take into account future groups, and someone 
immediately took him out of context and posted that someone was proposing 
20-some groups....sheesh!

--Max
-- 
--  ...with rings on her fingers and bells on her toes... <[email-masked]>

---

From: [email-masked] (teresa m. esch)
Date: Thu, 2 Mar 1995 19:53:44 GMT

The only problem with statements like "All the old-timers DON'T
want the split" is that anyone who didn't like the present
format may have left.  They may come back to a more specialized
newsgroup.

As for me, I don't really care anymore.

teresa
--

---

From: [email-masked] (Arnold Zwicky)
Date: 2 Mar 1995 10:41:50 -0800

sherry bailey has (again) stated the case against splitting
rec.gardens (other than creating a houseplants group).  i
agree entirely with what she says.  if the group were divided
into a number of specialist groups or regional groups, i
would simply stop reading.  with great regret, but i'd
give up.

actually, my favorite threads are the ones that are hardest
to pigeonhole.

arnold (who does most of his gardening in columbus, ohio)

---

From: [email-masked] (Sherry Bailey)
Date: 2 Mar 1995 00:18:22 GMT

The only change that really would be appropriate is to ADD rec.houseplants.
You will never ever ever please any large part of the readership of this group
because everybody has a different agenda.  Frankly, most of you people out
there need to go buy one or two good BOOKS -- your special interests are way
too specific! 

Someone advocated zone-specific newsgroups because they don't want to bother
learning anything not directly relevant to California or somewhere (since,
obviously, they know nobody in other zones and will never move!) This is a
splendid example of a rotton idea, since very few plants are limited to a
single zone, and information about cross-zone plants is constantly being asked
for and discussed.  (Besides, experts on that plant you are intersted in may
have moved themselves -- and they won't bother reading the zone 8 news now
that they are living in zone 4...)

I think one issue nobody seems to be discussing is this:  you may imagine that
it will be easier for YOU if there are lots of specific groups, that you won't
have to read the ones you aren't interested in.  But who do you think will be
posting stuff FOR you to read? Most of the old-timers in this group, subject
specialists and actual credentialed experts are in the don't split
contingency. A lot of real resource people, I am convinced, won't bother
messing with newsgroups of peripheral value or interest to them, so those
subject areas lose out.  Right now, if one of these people happens on a
subject where they can offer advice, they do it.  When it's not there in front
of them ---                  

If all you want are the QUESTION ASKERS and amateurs, forge ahead. But don't
be surprised if you specialize yourself into dead water -- traffic may be
lower, but the sum total of information will be as well. (Assuming those who
think crossposting won't become a BIG nuisance are right, even though the
rec.pets and rec.star-trek and who knows how many other known debacles have
already proven them wrong!)

Jim Wilson,l resident Iris expert... Which of the projected new newsgroups
would YOU read?

Kay Klier, if you have the stomach to be following this, Goddess of Gardening,
which groups would YOU bother with?

Karen? 

Just for a few off-the-top-of-my-head examples (don't feel left out, I am
losing my garden in a divorce, so I haven't had the heart to visit here much
lately to be reminded of who's who...)

Don't do it.

Rec.houseplants would eliminate the most "irrelevant" posts, and make the most
sense.  (If trends like bonsai or orchids or roses are specifically noted,
spin those off THEN, not on a contingency basis.) 

(Someone also commented on what they considered to be my erroneous
description of how tin, threaded indexed newsreader, works. Well, I'm not a
computer technician, but I think when "threads" are organized by subject
lines, saying they are organized by subjects is approximately correct and
gives a not incorrect picture.)

Sherry

---

From: [email-masked] (Shelley Carpenter)
Date: 2 Mar 1995 01:43:31 GMT

In article <[email-masked]>, [email-masked] says...
>because everybody has a different agenda.  Frankly, most of you people 
out
I say just get on with it.  We'll all get used to what ever the final 
split is.  All of these posts on the subject remind me of too many 
meetings I've been to where the boss won't make a decision and it drags 
out forever.  Why beat a dead horse? 
Shelley

---

From: [email-masked] (Richard & Marsha)
Date: 2 Mar 1995 05:13:49 GMT

>gives a not incorrect picture.)

	Thank you, Sherry for your time.  I absolutely agree.
Marsha

---

From: [email-masked] (Dale A. Campo)
Date: Sun, 5 Mar 1995 17:12:08 UNDEFINED

In article <[email-masked]> [email-masked] (Joe Kusterer) writes:
>From: [email-masked] (Joe Kusterer)
>Subject: Re: The Split (Was: Please don't flame me)
>Date: 28 Feb 1995 16:02:16 GMT

>In <[email-masked]>, [email-masked] (Fellwalker) writes:
>>     Yep, that's me! (I'm such a masochist, aren't I? ;-)
>>I'm following all threads even remotely about a) reorginization b)
>>suggested subgroups (like indoor gardening), and trying to put together
>>some sort of plan that will leave the greater amount of people happy, and
>>the lesser amount of people not inconvenienced  nor homicidal. On that
>>note I (with the help of Joe, who's last name I can't spell right...and
>>others) have been trying to put together a _minimal_ number of subgroups,

>That's C-U-S-...oops, I mean K-U-S-T-E-R-E-R-E-R-... ah, forget it :-)

>Joe Kusterer                   Loral Federal Systems - Manassas
>Team OS/2                               [email-masked]
>---------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: [email-masked] (Dale A. Campo)
Date: Sun, 5 Mar 1995 17:12:08 UNDEFINED