🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <631@umn-d-ub.D.UMN.EDU> cvonrabe@umn-d-ub.D.UMN.EDU (Chris von Rabenau) writes:
<In article <522@kosman.UUCP>, kevin@kosman.UUCP (Kevin O'Gorman) writes:
<> In article <6895@spool.cs.wisc.edu> zeiden@ai.cs.wisc.edu (Matthew Zeidenberg) writes:
<> >I like reading this group, but it has too much traffic. It is hard
<> >to read the stuff of interest between all the messages asking for
<> >advice on what hard disk and/or computer to buy. Therefore
<> >I propose that it be split into about 10 groups.
<> 
<I agree!  I think there could be three news groups coming from this one.
<One asking for recommendations on hardware or software (comp.sys.macware),
<another for general program usage information, for those who haven't the
<faintest idea what an INIT is (like me) (comp.sys.mac.gen), and one for
<those who ask questions about fixing programs and other technical
<information that just boggles the minds of those of us who haven't 
<a clue to what is being said (comp.sys.mac.tech).
 
Actually there is a comp.sys.mac.programmer on my list. I didn't subscribe
to it because I knew I wouldn't understand such technical talk. I have
wondered if this group is alive, given the amount of "what's wrong with my
program" in this group. Maybe that's one of the alternate problems: if 
there are too many little groups, not enough people participate to make it
worthwhile posting to that group.

<This does not mean that I am totally disinterested
<in how things work, but when I am looking for pertainant information
<I just get bowled over with all of the articles that mean nothing
<to me.

Same here, except I sometimes scan such an article because every once in a
while you pick up little gems that mention how the Mac in general functions.
I learned long ago that you don't have to read every word or understand
every sentence to get some value out of stuff that is over your head.
Sometimes just seeing the same thing a few times, it begins to make a little
sense, or one day you suddenly find that you do have to learn it, and then
you're glad to have at least heard some related discussion in the past.

So, if we were voting, I'd vote against a split, but if there is one, I'll
understand why the rest of you wanted it.

Shirley Kehr