Re: Proposed group addition

[Mike Pfaiffer <pfaiffer@mts.net>]

Brian Hyer wrote:

> OK, then. Let's have a little vote-a-thon amongst ourselves. The questions
> before the readership are as follows:
>
> 1. In your opinion only, does the current traffic on Usenet support the
> creation of a non-Macintosh, non-Apple-II newsgroup within the comp.sys.*
> hierarchy?


	It could if un-supported Macs are included. As I said in an earlier 
posting, the folks in the Mac group thought a Mac plus was a PowerMac. 
By posting a Linux question with a Mac component to a Linux group I had 
my question answered. By themselves Lisa, Newton, and Apple/// users may 
not make up enough of a population to form a comp.sys newsgroup.

	There is also a hidden component which would become active if they had 
their own group.


> 2. Would you subscribe to such a group and use it? If the majority of people
> for whom the group would be a benefit won't use such a group regularly, it's
> a waste of resources to try and get it created. There's a lot of work
> involved in creating a high-level Usenet group.


	Not only would I make use of it (for my Mac plus and IIcx) but if anybody 
gets around to making the motions, you can put me down as a second. I 
think the group is an excellent idea.


> 3. What is your proposed name for such a group? So far I've seen:
>
> comp.sys.apple.discontinued
> comp.sys.apple.legacy
> comp.sys.apple.non-macintosh (my own contribution)
>
> Like one? Hate one? Got an idea of your own? Let's hear it.


	I dislike the last one. My reason is some Macs are now in the same 
category as the Apple//. The people who post questions about these 
machines get less respect from Mac people than we do here. If the 
traffic (after the group is created) is overwhelmingly Mac then another 
vote to create comp.sys.legacy.mac could be held.


> 4. Any comments/thoughts on the whole process? Let's hear those too.
> Constructive criticisms will be cheerfully accepted; flames will be just as
> cheerfully tossed in the rubbish and set ablaze, while dancing on a burning
> effigy of the potential flamer and sticking voodoo pins in it... <grin>


	Let's face it. People are generally scared of the folks in this 
newsgroup. Most of us are quite rabid about demarcation. I seem to 
recall about 10 or 15 years ago we had a couple of Mac people insisting 
THIS WAS a Mac group because all Macs are Apples. I seem to recall every 
third or fourth response to an Apple// question was "Buy a Mac". The 
result was the creation of the various Mac groups. Since then we get 
very little of this nonsense.

	The down side is between our protection of this group and the Mac groups 
snobbish attitude and ignorance of their own history, it leaves users of 
the other Apple machines in the cold. No doubt very few post here or in 
the Mac groups because they've seen the reception others have had to 
similar requests. In fact the charters of the groups forbids such posts.

	In the end the idea of putting people in touch with people who know it 
the main concern we all have. Would you send someone with an engineering 
question a cookbook on omlettes? Quite clearly a Mac or Lisa question 
without an Apple// component is out of order here. The same applies to 
the Apple/// although it is a related machine (Apple///s have been 
tolerated more than Macs or Lisas). We have been more than helpful with 
questions we can answer. It seems our stock answer of "consult the Mac 
folks" is no longer adequate. Unless we want to make this group a 
catch-all group for ALL legacy Apple machines (including 68K and 
PowerMacs) we have to be as rabid as always. The better solution is to 
keep this group rabidly for the Apple// and to create a separate group 
for the other machines where they don't have to put up with us or the 
Mac folks.

	Finally, the FAQs and solutions to problems would be more relevant to the 
people frequenting the group. Were we to make additions to our FAQs 
here, they would have to go through a large number of sections before 
they find something relevant. With their own group it would ALL be relevant.


> -----
>
> Since I started this, I'll finish it. To minimize traffic on Usenet, e-mail
> your replies to bmhyer at ameritech dot net. I'll actually keep track of
> them for... let's say two weeks? Long enough to get an idea of response?...
> and post the summary of responses on this newsgroup November 15, 2001.
>
> Brian


	Considering how much bandwidth is taken up with the binaries groups, 
people can post here just as easily. It would also save your e-mail 
account from possibly getting overloaded.

	Also, this message *IS* on topic because it relates to group business. To 
whit, the number of off topic posts we get on an almost daily basis.

	Besides, if we have a call for discussion it will have to take place in 
the newsgroups affected anyhow.

				Later
				Mike

P.S. Should we start cross-posting to some of the Mac groups as well?





--
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
|   Digital Civilization magazine: http://www.digitalcivilization.ca    |
|      http://www.mts.net/~pfaiffer = Mike Pfaiffer (B.A., B.Sc.)       |
|  See my web page before you think about spamming me. I charge cash.   |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
----- BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK -----
Version: 3.12
GCS/G/IT/PA/SS d s+:- a? C++ UL L++ W++ N++ o+ K- w(---) O+@ M++@ V PS+
PE !PGP t+ 5+ X R tv b+ DI+++ D++ G e++* h! r-- !y-- UF++
------ END GEEK CODE BLOCK ------