Xref: utzoo comp.sys.ibm.pc:33908 comp.windows.ms:892 news.groups:11903 Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!csd4.csd.uwm.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!ssbell!mcmi!dsndata!wayne From: wayne@dsndata.uucp (Wayne Schlitt) Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc,comp.windows.ms,news.groups Subject: Re: OS/2 newsgroup and archive Message-ID: Date: 29 Aug 89 23:52:25 GMT References: <30669@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> <1133@gtx.com> <225@lotus.UUCP> <21644@hodge.UUCP> Sender: wayne@dsndata.UUCP Organization: Design Data Lines: 31 In-reply-to: jdm@hodge.UUCP's message of 24 Aug 89 18:50:08 GMT In article <21644@hodge.UUCP> jdm@hodge.UUCP (jdm) writes: > > I think it's high-time the OS/2 factions were introducted to > this network. Another vote for OS/2 newsgroups. this comment, and those people who have said that there should be a group for os/2 because they want to see more things posted about os/2 have things backwards. creating a news group for os/2 will not be introducing the os/2 factions to the net, it will be introducing the net to the os/2 factions that _are_already_on_ the net. articles will not be posted into a group just because the group exists. if there isnt much discussion in comp.sys.ibm.pc, comp.windows.ms, and comp.os.misc about os/2, then there probably wont be much discussion in comp.os.os2 either. (no, i dont read comp.sys.ibm.pc or comp.windows.ms so i have no idea if there is much discussion about os/2 or not. i just wanted to point out that these arguments are backwards.) as a good starting point, i would recommend only one os/2 group and if/when the volume gets too high, split it. creating 5 or 6 groups right from the start is probably out of line. -wayne