Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!CS.ROCHESTER.EDU!miller
From: miller@CS.ROCHESTER.EDU (Brad Miller)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ti.explorer
Subject: Re: This group, other lispms
Message-ID: <19891017003741.8.MILLER@DOUGHNUT.CS.ROCHESTER.EDU>
Date: 17 Oct 89 00:37:00 GMT
References: <65619@philabs.Philips.Com>
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Reply-To: miller@cs.rochester.edu
Distribution: inet
Organization: University of Rochester, Department of Computer Science
Lines: 18


    Date: 16 Oct 89 21:00:26 GMT
    From: philmtl!philabs!mkr@uunet.uu.net  (Michael K. Reed)

    Let me know.  Please, no "How DARE you discuss THOSE machines
    in a group for OUR machines" flames.  I'm just seeing if some
    other people feel as I do, and if so, what might be done.

I'm not directly opposed to such a thing, but I will note the reason for the
lack of existance of a comp.sys.symbolics is because of the existance of the
SLUG mailing list. (SLUG = Symbolics Lisp User's Group)

To get on it, send mail to SLUG-REQUEST@AI.SRI.COM

Also note that the majority of what is discussed on both lists has to do
with available software, configurations, etc. and therefore there really IS
very little overlap, 80% of the time. I therefore see no compelling reason
to merge groups...