Re: Does anyone think this group needs splitting into subgroups?
Date: 1996/02/23
Message-ID: <312e4815.166625604_at_mimmon>#1/1
Stan Driggs <stan_at_ensco.com> wrote:
>Orange Software Pty Ltd wrote:
>>
>> Agree
>
>Me too. This was attempted about a year ago, and it was
>voted down. I stopped reading it about that time, since
>it is a pain to scan through the whole group. So I for one
>would welcome a second attempt.
>
>The subgroups are fairly natural: DBA, Forms (Dev2000), SQL, Pro*C,
>jobs... It still astounds me that this was voted down before.
>Perhaps most Oracle users have lots of spare time. Go figure.
>
No, it was voted down because we had a look at what actually happened to other
busy groups that were split. People then crosspost to all the groups and you
end up with followups crossposted to all groups. This increases the number of
articles you have to read through, and means you have to scan things you are not
interrested in several times instead of once.
Keeping it united is a time saver. Check:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.*
comp.os.linux.*
for a few examples, also around the
comp.sys.sun.* for more examples.
Regards, George Dau
gedau_at_mim.com.au
Received on Fri Feb 23 1996 - 00:00:00 CET