newsgroup for cacti?

Jay Denebeim denebeim at deepthot.org
Tue Nov 6 13:24:35 EST 2001


In article <kGRF7.12748$ah3.1614052459 at newssvr17.news.prodigy.com>,
Cereoid* <cereoid at prodigy.net> wrote:
>If the proposed newsgroup attracts persons who's only purpose is to
>pontificate and are not genuine Cactophiles nor have any interest in
>succulent plants, I am against it.
>
>The reason I prefer cross posting the topic is because Bruno (Psycho Cactus)
>cross posted his original proposal and I find it to be in bad taste that he
>insists on continuing the discussion in relative secrecy in a forum that
>does not include those who actually grow the plants. If this proposed
>newsgroup is supposed to be for plant enthusiasts, they particularly should
>be allowed to be an active part of the discussion or at least be made aware
>of it. If not, then its nothing more than an ego trip for Bruno (Psycho
>Cactus) and not in the best interest of plant enthusiasts after all. Bruno
>(Psycho Cactus) admitted in his original proposal that there are already too
>many forums and groups on the topic. Another one is not needed and would
>serve no useful purpose. It will not attract those who are active members of
>Cacti_etc.
>
>As I have said many times there is already a well established forum for the
>discussion of Cactus & succulents named Cacti_etc. There is no point in
>creating a newsgroup that is not needed. If the reason Bruno (Psycho Cactus)
>wanted to create a newsgroup was because he was unaware it existed, he no
>longer has that excuse. Bruno (Psycho Cactus) is not an active participant
>in the other existing succulent plant forums and groups either. The same
>especially applies to Brian, who has absolutely no genuine interest in the
>topic.
>
>Cacti_etc is an easily accessible mailing list and includes caudiciforms
>(fat plants) in the discussion. If you are a genuine Cactophile, you should
>be a subscriber. Its the best way to be up-to-date in what's going on in the
>world of succulent plants and its absolutely free.
>
>http://www2.labs.agilent.com/bot/cactus_home
>
>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>Brian Watson <brian at spheroid.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:1005034519.11456.3.nnrp-02.9e98ea3a at news.demon.co.uk...
>>
>> "Cereoid*" <cereoid at prodigy.net> wrote in message
>> news:UFEF7.894$y34.144714963 at newssvr15.news.prodigy.com...
>> > Can you read Bruno (Psycho Cactus)?
>> >
>> > You have yet to justify the need for an unnecessary newsgroup.
>> >
>> > If you reply is an example of what to expect, I am against it.
>>
>> If you're attitude is what one can expect in the existing mailing lists,
>I'm
>> for the newsgroup.
>>
>> Also, you seem to be having a problem mastering the software. Can you do
>> something about your multiple postings?
>>
>> --
>> Brian
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>

Newsgroups: rec.gardens,uk.rec.gardening,bionet.plants,news.groups
Subject: Re: newsgroup for cacti?
Summary: 
Expires: 
References: <1004587417.82061 at isc.org> <UFEF7.894$y34.144714963 at newssvr15.news.prodigy.com> <1005034519.11456.3.nnrp-02.9e98ea3a at news.demon.co.uk> <kGRF7.12748$ah3.1614052459 at newssvr17.news.prodigy.com>
Sender: 
Followup-To: news.groups
Distribution: 
Organization: Deep Thought
Keywords: 
Cc: 

In article <kGRF7.12748$ah3.1614052459 at newssvr17.news.prodigy.com>,
Cereoid* <cereoid at prodigy.net> wrote:

>The reason I prefer cross posting the topic is because Bruno (Psycho
>Cactus) cross posted his original proposal and I find it to be in bad
>taste that he insists on continuing the discussion in relative
>secrecy in a forum that does not include those who actually grow the
>plants.

What *are* you talking about?  The group being discussed is in the
Big-8, therefore it has to follow big-8 group creation rules.  One of
those rules is that the RFD is crossposted to various groups, however
it has its followups set to news.groups.

The intent here is so that people who are interested in the new
newsgroup can come over to news.groups to discuss that particular
group (we suggest that each group is discussed in one thread to make
this easy for people, although, as this message shows that doesn't
always happen).  The reason for this is traditionally people get very
upset when their group is flooded with off topic discussion about the
creation of a new newsgroup.

Nowadays there are some groups who get upset that things are being
'discussed behind their back' as if it wasn't trivial to read another
group for the diration.  So, currently what most people do is just
leave the newsgroups line intact and let the posters decide for
themselves.

I'm not going to do that in this case because the person I'm replying
to seems to be one of the froth at the mouth types.  I've set follow
ups to news.groups.  If you'd like to continue this discussion
crossposted to your home group(s) please modify the newsgroups line in
your reply.

Thanks
Jay Denebeim
-- 
I'm looking for a job, for my resume please see:
http://www.deepthot.org:2001/denebeim.html




More information about the Plantbio mailing list