🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <76160@felix.UUCP> kehr@felix.UUCP (Shirley Kehr) writes:
>In article <631@umn-d-ub.D.UMN.EDU> cvonrabe@umn-d-ub.D.UMN.EDU (Chris von Rabenau) writes:
> ( Stuff re splitting this group deleted ) ...
>
>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.
>

I have seen even stronger versions of this argument; I disagree with them, too.

Folks who want to see everything can always subscribe to all the divided
groups, and I don't see it adding to their workload.  Having to wade through
all this stuff is costing me real time every day.

Also, look at it this way: if we took such arguments to the extreme, there
would be only one newsgroup --- the "n" key is always there for you, right?

In case you can't tell, I am in favor of breaking this group up into
AT LEAST three groups and closing down comp.sys.mac.  I think functional
categories makes the most sense.  I am interested in some software and some
hardware, but not all of it.  I'm sure the same is true of most of you.