Xref: utzoo news.groups:11819 comp.sys.ibm.pc:33813 comp.windows.ms:882
Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!cs.utexas.edu!milano!peyote!mosley
From: mosley@peyote.cactus.org (Bob Mosley III)
Newsgroups: news.groups,comp.sys.ibm.pc,comp.windows.ms
Subject: Re: CALL for DISCUSSION: comp.sys.os2
Summary: redundancy?
Keywords: OS2, newgroup, discussion , vote
Message-ID: <85@peyote.cactus.org>
Date: 27 Aug 89 15:45:31 GMT
References: <2194@dlvax2.datlog.co.uk> <1191@tukki.jyu.fi>
Organization: Capital Area Central Texas Unix Society, Austin, TX
Lines: 12

In article <1191@tukki.jyu.fi>, tarvaine@tukki.jyu.fi (Tapani Tarvainen) writes:
> In article <2194@dlvax2.datlog.co.uk> mor@datlog.co.uk ( Mike O'Reilly ) writes:
> >This is a CALL for DISCUSSION of "comp.sys.os2" and related newsgroups.
> 
> It should be "comp.os.os2".
> 

....I dunno, but somehow "comp.os.os2" just sounds a bit redundant. Would
"comp.os2" be acceptable? How is the os/9 group handled?


						OM