(PROPOSAL): alt.support.diabetes
Jude Crouch
> Hi again,
> I have just looked at the said group again and have found 35 new
> messages. I have also looked in misc.health.diabetes and found 294
> messages. I am happy to be proved rong on this one, especially as we
> have had server problems at our end. My point is though, wouldn't the
> people from both groups benefit from just having the one group which
> carries more traffic??
The focus of the groups is different. misc.health.diabetes is focused
on the disease and its control. alt.support.diabetes is focused on
supporting those with the disease.
No, participants in a.s.d would not benefit from one large group
which carries more traffic, IMHO. What benefits us is a caring
community where we can discuss our feelings and experiences. We
have that.
Jude
--
Jude Crouch (jcr...@pobox.com) - Computing since 1967!
Crouch Enterprises - Telecom, Internet & Unix Consulting
Oak Park, IL 708-848-0134 URL: http://www.pobox.com/~jcrouch
Burton Strauss
>The focus of the groups is different. misc.health.diabetes is focused
>on the disease and its control. alt.support.diabetes is focused on
>supporting those with the disease.
>
>No, participants in a.s.d would not benefit from one large group
>which carries more traffic, IMHO. What benefits us is a caring
>community where we can discuss our feelings and experiences. We
>have that.
m.h.d has just about enough traffic to think about splitting it. The
plus of a split is that it would allow people of like interests
(pumpers, t1s, t2s, low-carb, etc.) to focus with less traffic. The
minus is that you lose the larger view.
I read 'em both and don't see it as a major issue. a.s.d tends to have
a little bit longer fuse, m.h.d can be a good 'ole scrum.
-----Burton
-----
On the 'net, everybody knows you're a cat.
AND
On the 'net, everybody knows your cat.
Jude Crouch
> On 13 May 1999 08:54:31 GMT, jcr...@pobox.com (Jude Crouch) wrote:
>>In alt.support.diabetes Andrew Hodgson <and...@hodgsons.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi again,
>>
>>> I have just looked at the said group again and have found 35 new
>>> messages. I have also looked in misc.health.diabetes and found 294
>>> messages. I am happy to be proved rong on this one, especially as we
>>> have had server problems at our end. My point is though, wouldn't the
>>> people from both groups benefit from just having the one group which
>>> carries more traffic??
>>
>>The focus of the groups is different. misc.health.diabetes is focused
>>on the disease and its control. alt.support.diabetes is focused on
>>supporting those with the disease.
>>
>>No, participants in a.s.d would not benefit from one large group
>>which carries more traffic, IMHO. What benefits us is a caring
>>community where we can discuss our feelings and experiences. We
>>have that.
>>
>>Jude
> Forgive me for saying but the post in the two said groups look prety
> simular.
They are both unmoderated. No one can control which messages actually
get into the groups. A rmgroup was already attempted. a.s.d survived.
What is it that you would propose that would merge the groups? Should
inquiries by folks with diabetes go unanswered in a.s.d? As a
participant, I see a difference, but then, I have diabetes.
joe2...@bellsouth.net
Andrew Hodgson wrote:
> In article
> <oliver1-2804...@d-ma-superpop-2-197.ici.net>,
> oli...@ici.am.still.not.a.worm.virus.net (oliver1) wrote:
>
> >In article <280419990507142888%the...@macconnect.com>,
> jimt
> ><the...@macconnect.com> wrote:
> >
> >>my reader says 86 unread messages right now. just added
> them all up
> >>and came up with 86 counting 2 filtered out. of the 84
> left i dont see
> >>any spam. that is 84 good postings in 16 hours.
> >>jimt
> >
> >ok, now mark them all as "read" and check back in 24 hours
> to see how many
> >"new" ones have arrived.
>
> I have done a few statistics with my memo news server and I
> have worked out that there have been less than 1000 messages
> per month. Taking into account that the memo news server
> deletes messages in 8 days which is the normal expiry time
> for our news server, going into this group after that period
> gets 258 messages of which 4 seem to be filtered. The
> previous time this happened I got 103 messages of which 2
> were filtered, the previous time again I got 63 new
> messages...and so on. Note that I don't always frequent
> a.s.d, I am not a diabetic, I used to have a cat suffering
> from it and stayed when these messages poped up, but it
> isn't a group I normally take.
>
> Hth.
> Andrew.
>
> --
> Andrew Hodgson | Bromyard | Herefordshire | UK.
> Personal email: and...@hodgsons.freeserve.co.uk
> ...A unix saleslady, Leonore,
> enjoys work, but likes the beach more.
> She found a good way
> to combine work and play:
> she sells c-shells on the sea shore.
Jude Crouch
> If somone wanted to find the information then wouldn't it be better to
> just have the one group? This would save ~off-topic~ messages in any
> of the two groups, as there would only be the one support group
> misc.health.diabetes, which seems to have a more wider audience than
> your group. Do you think that newsmasters would carry the group if
> there was a faq associated with it?? I cannot check for now because
> the connection is down but I haven't seen faqs posted to the group.
> Sincerely,
> Andrew.
Support groups often don't have faqs. Readers are referred
to the Diabetes FAQ, associated with m.h.d. But then you'd know
that if you were a participant.
A rmgroup was already attempted. a.s.d survived.
I ask again --
What is it that you would propose that would merge the groups?
Should inquiries by folks with diabetes go unanswered in a.s.d?
alt.config is full of folks who want everything to be "just so".
It will never be _just so_. There are no mechanisms to *force*
news admins to honour your rmgroups. So the group will continue
to exist, whether it violates your conception of order or not.
BTW, a.s.d is not "my group", I am just a participant.
Jude Crouch
>>Support groups often don't have faqs. Readers are referred
>>to the Diabetes FAQ, associated with m.h.d. But then you'd know
>>that if you were a participant.
> I am not a participant, and so rely on faqs to point me in the right
> direction. If no faq exists than what are you sopposed to think.
A diabetes FAQ exists. It's at:
http://www.faqs.org/faqs/diabetes/
I will request that the keeper of the FAQ, currently Edward Reid,
post it to both groups. Otherwise, I will post a pointer
to it regularly.
>>A rmgroup was already attempted. a.s.d survived.
> That doesn't mean though that another one will be posted. I don't
> want to rmgroup any groups, I am mearly pointing out that if certain
> criteria were met your group would have a much better chance of
> survival on more servers, and such rmgroup messages would not be
> necessary.
>>I ask again --
>>
>>What is it that you would propose that would merge the groups?
>>Should inquiries by folks with diabetes go unanswered in a.s.d?
> Read the previous post that I made. I stated quite clearly that a
> merger betweene the 2 groups could occur if the a.s.d group was
> removed. This would give you a brawder scope, and the group would be
> supported with all the misc criteria.
But *HOW* could this be accomplished. News admins cannot be forced
to remove groups. As long as one server has the group, there will
be folks who need direction to manage their disease and support
for their feelings. So how do you get a.s.d off that last server?
>>alt.config is full of folks who want everything to be "just so".
> And if it wasn't there would be all sorts of problems, people removing
> and adding groups on a touch of a button, and chaos! You obviously
> haven't visited any other *.config groups, where the rules are very
> much tighter than in this group.
We aren't talking about other *.config groups. We're talking about
alt.*. There are people removing and adding groups on a touch of a
button, and there is chaos. Don't blame me, read the FAQs.
>>It will never be _just so_. There are no mechanisms to *force*
>>news admins to honour your rmgroups. So the group will continue
>>to exist, whether it violates your conception of order or not.
> That is true, but at least it gives the participants of the group to
> do somthing about it like create a faq, and then the admins stand more
> of a chance of accepting the group, thus a more successful group.
I am only concerned that there be sufficient propagation that there
will be participants to counsel those who post.
I could imagine that somewhere under 10% of admins care whether
there is a specific FAQ for a particular alt.* newsgroup.
In this case, we have a FAQ covering the topic.