Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!psuvax1!uwm.edu!cs.utexas.edu!chinacat!chip
From: chip@chinacat.Unicom.COM (Chip Rosenthal)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.i386
Subject: Re: I will not honor comp.unix.sco
Message-ID: <1266@chinacat.Unicom.COM>
Date: 25 May 90 03:52:12 GMT
References: <187@shiloh.UUCP> <1990May22.130515.9111@virtech.uucp> <188@shiloh.UUCP>
Organization: Unicom Systems Development, Austin, TX
Lines: 22

In article <188@shiloh.UUCP> kmoore@shiloh.UUCP (kirk moore) writes:
>[Re: there is a Microport group; why not SCO?]
>I seem to have developed a case of foot-n-month. So I pick up the nearest rock
>and crawl under it. Sorry for the bandwidth of use for a silly message.

Don't worry about it.  There were probably dozens of folks who were
thinking this; you were the one bold enough to stand up and ask.  There
were four or five posted responses; none of which flamed you to a crisp.
That is because the folks who disagree with the idea understand where it
comes from.  So, thanks for the opportunity to set the record straight. :-)

Be that as it may, the problem might be fixed soon.  Check out Chip
Salzenberg's (no...not me...the other-other chip) posting in news.groups.
We appear to be closing on a vote which will include a microport->sysv286
rename.  I think the holdup at this point is getting the silly comp.unix.sco
vote over.  We are now into the 6th week of this nonsense.  So much for
the 21-day recommendation...

-- 
Chip Rosenthal                            |  You aren't some icon carved out
chip@chinacat.Unicom.COM                  |  of soap, sent down here to clean
Unicom Systems Development, 512-482-8260  |  up my reputation.  -John Hiatt