harryh89@yahoo.comx wrote in
news:jlkm8b5a1fvpimaklfqj33rnisk0preaoi@4ax.com:
> On Mon, 04 Jan 2016 09:40:19 -0600, Charles F Frost
> <charles@f.frost> wrote:
>
>>In article <92ak8b1bptgc5ds0e4n4nvo4aavfdivou1@4ax.com>,
>><harryh89@yahoo.comx> wrote:
>>
>>> So what I'm going to do is
>>> prepare the index files for all the stuff and post to the
>>> o-w group. I'll post the index files here and if
>>> something grabs your attention, you can simply visit the
>>> o-w group and pick your own selections.
>>
>>Thanks for all the floods!
>>
>>> Right now the volume of stuff has been so
>>> high, I just can't continue with the effort.
>>
>>Just a thought: Whenever the overload gets to be too much,
>>why not do some very quick first-level filtering, asking
>>yourself "IMO, is this in the top 50% or the bottom 50%?",
>>and just ignore the bottom half and not post it? Or it
>>could be the bottom 25% if you don't want to omit so much
>>material. Nobody's ever going to blame you for that,
>>especially since we won't see the discarded stuff anyway so
>>we won't know what we're missing.
>>
>>I imagine that every processing line that deals with high
>>volumes of material must have some such basic filtering
>>policy. Think of sorting potatoes as they come down the
>>conveyor belt ...
>>
>>Regards, and happy new year.
>
>
> Thanks for your comment. The material is highly fragmented
> with on-topic interspersed with off-topic. So I've been
> picking out the plumper stuff for this group and the
> non-plumper for the older-women group. If I cut the gals
> in half, blindly, first that would hurt them terribly <G>
> but second, the intermix'd stuff would still be off-topic
> here. I know I've not been chastised for some of my
> off-topic posting, but still at a higher volume I would
> deserve many slings and arrows (although Usenet has become
> a kinder, gentler place of late).
>
> Anyway I do appreciate comments of any kind because it
> tells me there is still an audience!
Always enjoy your posts Harry ,,keep them cumming
|
|