[ruby-talk:14421] Re: Separating the wheat from the chaff.

>
>Subject: [ruby-talk:14416] Re: Separating the wheat from the chaff.
>   From: MJ Ray <[e-mail]>
>   Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2001 07:40:09 +0900
>     To: [e-mail] (ruby-talk ML), [e-mail]
>
>Marc Butler <[e-mail]> writes:
>
>Here is another point: do you propose to split the newsgroup too?  If
>so, it looks like you may not be successful in the vote and then you
>would have a list/news integration problem.

I don't understand the difficulties of splitting the newsgroup to reflect
two mailing lists.  However, if this is problematic then it is a 
consideration.

>
>> It is a problem for those of us who for one reason or another do not
>> have access to threaded mail readers, but who wish to participate on
>> the list and not the USENET gateway.  Filtering rules are also not
>> available on all mail readers either, and typically need to be
>> monitored for mis-fires.[...]
>
>This does seem like "personal convenience" rather than any
>philosophical point.  If your software does not provide the features
>you require, change it rather than changing the rest of the world to
>accommodate its deficiencies.

I was addressing technical assertions as work arounds which nullify my 
point.  I was simply countering that these assertions are not sufficient 
to  address my concerns.  Like Kent, you are attempting to argue by
attacking me rather than my concerns.  (At least in this post.)  I 
don't consider this a persuasive argument in and of itself.

I don't believe splitting the subject matter would be damaging.  If 
there is a strong argument against doing this, or enough people are 
opposed to the idea;  then it clearly is not in the best interest of
people in the list and my request will be justifiably disregarded.

>-- 
>MJR