Xref: utzoo comp.unix.xenix:11329 comp.unix.questions:21874 comp.unix.i386:4683
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!ncar!tank!gargoyle!ddsw1!olsa99!oct1!mason
From: mason@oct1.UUCP (David Mason)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.xenix,comp.unix.questions,comp.unix.i386
Subject: Re: 2nd call to vote comp.unix.sco, undecided?
Message-ID: <1990May1.161300.8249@oct1.UUCP>
Date: 1 May 90 16:13:00 GMT
References: <836@sixhub.UUCP>
Reply-To: mason@oct1.UUCP (David M. Mason)
Followup-To: comp.unix.i386
Organization: Open Computer Technology
Lines: 21

In article <836@sixhub.UUCP> davidsen@sixhub.UUCP (Wm E. Davidsen Jr)
writes:
>In article <1990Apr26.130747.6047@virtech.uucp> cpcahil@virtech.UUCP
(Conor P. Cahill) writes:
> 
>| Several quotes about the "need" for comp.unix.sco were quoted in
>| this article.  It appears to me that most of them were from SCO.

Cahill's incoming mail looks somewhat like the result of some sort of
internal office memo at SCO saying "get out there and post `Viva
comp.unix.sco' ".

However, I think it is important to keep the issues in perspective at this
stage.  Cahill's posting may have been provocative, but the issue is still
comp.unix.sco.  Let's vote about that, not Cahill's style.

This is strictly my opinion.
--------------------
David                       |      mason@oct1 (David Mason)
                            |      ...!uunet!ddsw1!olsa99!oct1!mason