Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)
On Mon, 03 Jan 2005 23:28:46 GMT, "Tony" <tspadaro@nc.rr.com> wrote:
>Why don't you go to your little happy group and have your fun,
>instead of hanging around here cluttering this group with your neurotic
>obsessions?
Please look very carefully at the two posts I wrote in this thread and
tell me where I have advocated a new group of any kind - happy, little
or otherwise. And while you're about it please let me know what it
was I wrote that suggested to you that I was obsessed with something.
What we're doing here is discussing some ideas and maybe some simple
principles, but you seem to be one of those people who see
disagreement as a form of attack. Now the real answer is that you and
I are both right (I know it will hurt you to realise that I, obsessive
anal book-keeper as you designate me, am right but hold tight: the
pain will pass).
You're right because excessive division of groups is damaging and
pointless. I'm right because insufficient division of groups simply
doesn't work (and by the way my post of 02 Jan 2005 13:20:23 +0000 was
ironic - did you not spot it?). But plainly the actual answer in any
particular case is unclear (no simple answers, no happy ending: sorry
if that disturbs you).
It's true that rec.photo.digital is a very busy group, and there is
considerable heterogeneity in the posts, to the point where most
people are only interested in a minority of the articles. On the
other hand it's not at all clear that rec.photo.digital.slr-systems is
fulfilling its purpose: many articles seem to be cross-posted between
the two (the worst of all worlds), and there is much material in the
"mother" group that could have gone in the "daughter". In the end
only the people that use the groups will decide.
I'd like to read a thoughtful and measured reply from you but on
previous experience I doubt you're able to produce one.
--
Henry Law <>< Manchester, England
On Mon, 03 Jan 2005 23:28:46 GMT, "Tony" <tspadaro@nc.rr.com> wrote:
>Why don't you go to your little happy group and have your fun,
>instead of hanging around here cluttering this group with your neurotic
>obsessions?
Please look very carefully at the two posts I wrote in this thread and
tell me where I have advocated a new group of any kind - happy, little
or otherwise. And while you're about it please let me know what it
was I wrote that suggested to you that I was obsessed with something.
What we're doing here is discussing some ideas and maybe some simple
principles, but you seem to be one of those people who see
disagreement as a form of attack. Now the real answer is that you and
I are both right (I know it will hurt you to realise that I, obsessive
anal book-keeper as you designate me, am right but hold tight: the
pain will pass).
You're right because excessive division of groups is damaging and
pointless. I'm right because insufficient division of groups simply
doesn't work (and by the way my post of 02 Jan 2005 13:20:23 +0000 was
ironic - did you not spot it?). But plainly the actual answer in any
particular case is unclear (no simple answers, no happy ending: sorry
if that disturbs you).
It's true that rec.photo.digital is a very busy group, and there is
considerable heterogeneity in the posts, to the point where most
people are only interested in a minority of the articles. On the
other hand it's not at all clear that rec.photo.digital.slr-systems is
fulfilling its purpose: many articles seem to be cross-posted between
the two (the worst of all worlds), and there is much material in the
"mother" group that could have gone in the "daughter". In the end
only the people that use the groups will decide.
I'd like to read a thoughtful and measured reply from you but on
previous experience I doubt you're able to produce one.
--
Henry Law <>< Manchester, England
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram