There seems to be a very common misconception out there in c.o.l land
that getting a concensus on fundamental questions is practical. In
reality, the only thing people seem to agree on is to disagree. There
are many examples to illustrate "The Disagreement Principle", but perhaps
none is more powerful than the call to split c.o.l.
Now it is readily apparent that we can not agree that this needs to be done,
but let us say for the sake of argument that we do and go ahead and split it.
Now we need to agree on what the new catagories are. Of course, this will also
turn out to be impossible and endless *y wars will be waged over what
these catagories or sub news groups should be, and ironically, the flood of
news generated will aggrevate the load on the already busy c.o.l, further
fraying nerves and chewing up vast quantities of net bandwidth.
But, let us say for the sake of argument that we can agree on the subdivisions,
and that they are voted into place. Great now, all our problems are solved
right. Well, not exactly, because although we have all agreed in this imaginary
world to the subgroups, half of the people out there will stubornly refuse to
abide by our nice divisions. They will cronically post to the wrong groups,
or worse, crosspost to all groups. But of course, we will all agree that
no one (well no one important anyways), uses newsreaders that can't handle
that right? And of course, the only people reading the comp.os.newbie are
newbies, so no help will ever be forthcoming.
So the m*of the story? If you have a post that can be couched in the
"I think everyone should ..."
Do everyone a favor and don't bother posting it. If everyone, or the majority,
wants to do that they will, but repeatedly bashing them over the head with
rationalizations about why they should, or should not do this or that, won't
even make a dent in most peoples actions. Most will continue to do exactly
what they want they way they want, and there is no Internet police force that
can be mobilized to prevent this.
Welcome to anarchy.