Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!brutus.cs.uiuc.edu!apple!oracle!news From: pnakada@oracle.com (Paul Nakada) Newsgroups: comp.sys.apple Subject: Re: Call For Discussion Message-ID: Date: 13 Dec 89 21:20:21 GMT References: <37045@apple.Apple.COM> <37089@apple.Apple.COM> <706@batman.moravian.EDU> Sender: news@oracle.com Organization: Oracle Corperation, Belmont, CA Lines: 41 In-reply-to: nicholaA@batman.moravian.EDU's message of 13 Dec 89 03:19:26 GMT In article <706@batman.moravian.EDU> nicholaA@batman.moravian.EDU (Andy Nicholas) writes: In article <37089@apple.Apple.COM>, farrier@Apple.COM (Cary Farrier) writes: > Just because the Macintosh people did something one way, does > not mean that the Apple II people must follow suit. The name > comp.tech.apple2 is short and concise. Or, to take this to an extreme, since everyone seems to want to do something about this: comp.apple2 comp.apple2.tech Those names are short and descriptive and have a hierarchy also. Can we please stop flippin' out over the names already and decide to form the new group? geez.. Why do you need to have such a short newgroup name? the only time that you need to type it is when you post a new article? and comp.sys.apple is too long?? you haven't really taken it to it's extreme... the extreme would be apple2 apple2tech or apple2.tech (descriptive and hierarchical) that way we would not be restricted to comp type issues in these groups.. I think this shows why precedence is important in the structure of USENET... the net is already cluttered and unorganized; our adding to this disorder does no one any good. Perhaps, further postings should be cross posted to news.groups, as I think that the rules governing newsgroup creation state that discussion of this type should appear both in comp.sys.apple, and news.groups.. Cary? do you want to take the lead? -Paul Nakada nakada@oracle.com