Too much cross-posting?

[Thad P Floryan]

In article:
	Subject: Re: Too much cross-posting?
	Message-ID: <1989Jul7.052540.7258 at eci386.uucp>
by:
	woods at eci386.UUCP (Greg A. Woods)

He states:

"	I don't see how wider distribution of unix-pc stuff will help, when
	most of those who are interested already get the unix-pc groups, and
	those who don't should.  It only serves to over-clutter comp.sys.att
	with a real mess of stuff which most comp.sys.att only readers don't
	want to see.  (I read both groups!)  Cross-posting *_IS_* inherently
	bad when it clutters up other groups.  That's why we have groups in
	the first place.

	Perhaps unix-pc.general should be renamed comp.sys.att.unix-pc, but
	remain on the "alternate newsgroups" list.  This might help prevent
	some of the useless clutter.

	PLEASE do not cross-post Unix PC related articles to comp.sys.att!
"

Bushwa!   I'll say it again: BUSHWA!

>From a cursory examination of the comp.sys.att articles arriving here at
PORTAL, it's clear that about 50% are related to the UNIXPC/3B1/7300, and
the remaining 50% are divided between the 6300/6310/6312/6386 and the other
3B2 systems.

Private email I've received clearly indicates that MOST of the people who
NEED to receive the unix-pc.* groups are not receiving them, and they're
extremely thankful FOR the cross-postings to comp.sys.att from unix-pc.*

Three cases in point:

1) the WD2010 chip group buy I'm organizing.  85% of the responses arrived
   from people who ONLY saw it on comp.sys.att

2) Most (if not all) of Europe is NOT receiving unix-pc.*; my contact in
   Brussels writes that his receipt of unix-pc material is ONLY via the
   comp.sys.att newsgroup (ref. Jim Sanchez at Sytek).

3) Clearly 90% of the "Thanks!" email I received for my recent posting of the
   new s4diag UNIXPC diagnostics came from people who ONLY could get it from
   comp.sys.att.

The volume of postings to BOTH comp.sys.att and the unix-pc.* groups do NOT
warrant further discussion of restriction/polarization/etc; there simply
aren't that many articles.  I can store more than an average weeks' worth of
postings to both groups on a single 5-1/4" floppy (400Kbytes).

I personally prefer that all UNIXPC-related material be only in the unix-pc.*
newsgroups, but the reality of the situation shows that MANY users would
unduly suffer (by being left out) if we followed Greg A. Woods' suggestion.

*MY* suggestion is that ALL unix-pc.* material be cross-posted to comp.sys.att
and for people to fix their brain-damaged mail readers.  Worst case is for
someone to simply type an "n"; are the lazy readers out there THAT calorie
conscious re: burning 1/2 calorie moving one's index finger?  :-)   Sheesh,
are people that unable to cope with the vagaries of Usenet?  We're NOT talking
about cretin-JJ "Puh-LEEZE HELP ME!" postings; we're talking about postings
and responses from people who have legitimate questions, concerns and answers
about their computing investment.

Lest we forget: the UNIXPC *IS* an AT&T product.  Activity surrounding the
UNIXPC has been growing by leaps and bounds during the past 18 months, far
more so than with the 6300 family.  As an elected officer of the Northern
California AT&T Computer Users' Group, I *SEE* the evidence.

The comp.sys.att newsgroup is for the benefit of ALL users/owners/operators
of AT&T equipment, and the evidence I've seen is that over 85% of the UNIXPC
owners/users are unable to receive the unix-pc.* newsgroups.  And for those
who don't know, there are four: unix-pc.general, unix-pc.sources, unix-pc.uucp,
and unix-pc.bugs.

Thad Floryan [ thad at cup.portal.com (OR) ..!sun!portal!cup.portal.com!thad ]