IUBio Biosequences .. Software .. Molbio soft .. Network News .. FTP

newsgroup for cacti?

Tumbleweed fromnews at spamtumbleweed.freeserve.co.uk
Tue Nov 6 04:01:46 EST 2001


"Martin Brown" <martin.brown at pandora.be> wrote in message
news:3BE793F6.BE49BFA9 at pandora.be...
>
>
> Tumbleweed wrote:
>
> > I for one am not keen on mailing lists. I've tried them from time to
time
> > but end up leaving them for the reasons following;
> > With a newsgroup you can go have a look when you feel like it, and look
back
> > at old posts on google, but ignore if you want to.
> > With email lists, you sometimes get inconvenient numbers of emails,
which
> > either clog up your inbox, or need to be filtered off, and no threading,
so
> > it can be difficult/impossible to follow discussions, plus you cant
really
> > archive them in an accessible way.
>
> Most list servers offer options to control whether you get a message per
day
> containing all the traffic or individual messages as they are sent.
Cacti_etc is
> very well run and has a much higher signal to noise ratio than any usenet
group.
> So do most of the other specialist mail lists.

I belong to a mailing list that offers an individual message option, or a
weekly summary.
I moved to the weekly summary because the individual option gave me too many
messages, sometimes dozens a day, all interspersed on different
conversations. Trouble is, the weekly summary gives one huge message, non
threaded, with many and various discussions intertwined and impossible to
follow.I shall probably opt out.
Fair comment about signal to noise, I find that too, the mailing list I'm in
has no spam and very few flame wars (its moderated). In spite of that, its
more trouble and more inconvenient than, say, this news group.

>
> It is also archived so searching back for old threads is possible, just
not via
> google.

Do you mean messages or threads? A very different matter.

>
> > Newsgroups OTOH are there to be looked at when you feel like it and dont
> > otherwise bother you. You also dont get bothered by a flurry of emails
in
> > some flame war which are easy to ignore when they are in a single thread
in a
> > newsgroup.
>
> Flame wars are extremely rare on decent listservers. Their great advantage
is
> that you can have one to cover a very narrow field of specialisation quite
> easily.

I dont see why that would stop a flame war!!! <VBG>

>
> > For those who like the email lists, can't you just continue with them
and cc
> > to newgroups (or other way round)?
>
> Some listservers do reflect posts to newsgroups.
>
> > After all, a newsgroup you dont subscribe
> > to isnt going to cause you a problem is it? And 1 more out of 50,000
plus
> > isnt really an issue either. Finally, I suspect its going to be easier
to
> > find a newsgroup than an email list, I wasnt aware of the agilent one
until
> > a couple of days ago. A newsgroup would bring everyone together into one
> > place, instead of several different web forums or email lists.
>
> It's widely known by people interested in growing cacti and succulents and
many
> of the online resources for these plants point to it. I probably would not
> oppose creating a rec.gardens.cacti but I doubt it will be much frequented
by
> experts given the pre existence of an established high quality listserver
in
> "cacti_etc".


Well thats fair enough, give people the choice and let everyone decide. It
would be unreasonable to ask for more, or to try and enforce less, wouldnt
it?

>
> Usenet groups are these days are all too frequently being attacked by Java
traps
> and other hostile binaries exploiting loopholes in MS "security". (many
> listservers are set to strip all binary attachments)
>
> Proposing a new Usenet group without first canvassing for support from the
> members of the main listserver devoted to the topic does not strike me as
a
> particularly smart opening gambit.

Maybe he thought he'd get the same hostile response as from ceroid? But I
agree, I would have expected a message to that group. OTOH, maybe there are
lots of people (I'm one of them) who werent aware of that mailing list
and/or wouldnt want a mailing list approach. And *only* asking the members
of the mailing list might well be pointless, given that it *might* be a
self-selected group of people hostile to a newsgroup, such as ceroid.

>
> I can see why Cereoid* was not impressed with the original RFD.

I can't. It offers more choice and causes no problem to those on the mailing
list. They dont have to use the newsgroup, and if traffic on the mailing
list drops because people move to the newsgroup, that just shows that there
*is* a demand for one. The Ceroid approach seems to be 'we have soemthing
that does the job already so you are not allowed to have an alternative.

>
> Regards,
> Martin Brown
>
I'm not impressed with his mastery of usenet, given above this message there
are 4 messages which all appear to be replies by him from him. Or at least,
they are very strangely quoted. Maybe this is why he is hostile to it?
I'm also not impressed by his taking it so personally, stating 'is this
mailing list not good enough'. Well, maybe it isnt, so what. He makes it
sound like its a treasonable offence to suggest an alternative!

--
Tumbleweed

Remove 'spam' from email replies (but no email reply necessary to
newsgroups)








More information about the Plantbio mailing list

Send comments to us at biosci-help [At] net.bio.net