Xref: utzoo comp.text:7517 news.groups:25020
Path: utzoo!mnetor!geac!torsqnt!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!mcsun!tuvie!iiasa!wnp
From: wnp@iiasa.AT (wolf paul)
Newsgroups: comp.text,news.groups
Subject: Re: status of comp.text.dwb vote
Message-ID: <929@iiasa.UUCP>
Date: 3 Nov 90 21:55:25 GMT
References: <1990Nov1.191346.5962@cbnewsl.att.com> <1990Nov2.003633.2801@ico.isc.com>
Reply-To: wnp%iiasa@relay.eu.net (wolf paul)
Organization: IIASA, Laxenburg/Vienna, Austria, Europe
Lines: 26

In article <1990Nov2.003633.2801@ico.isc.com> rcd@ico.isc.com (Dick Dunn) writes:
>All WHAT dwb traffic???  With an 8-day expiration here, we've got 12 dwb-
>related articles, and 5 of them are yours!
>
>Neglecting the newsgroup-creation-related articles, it's about one article
>per day about dwb.  That just doesn't justify the group.  Even with my
>bias toward the subject, I can't see a justification.

How about this for a justification: As often as not, when you post
a *roff-related question comp.text, you are likely to get an answer along the
lines, "in TeX this works much better, like this ..." and similar, and
you can't really flame the poster, because in comp.text TeX-based
answers are just as legitimate as *roff-based or whatever-based
replies.

In comp.text.dwb, such answers would be out of order, and I for one
would be much more inclined to post and read to a group where I do
not have to contend with TeX, WP, MS-Word, Pagemaker, etc, but can
concentrate on discussing *roff related subjects with other *roff
users.

That's why I voted "yes."
-- 
Wolf N. Paul, UNIX SysAdmin, IIASA, A - 2361 Laxenburg, Austria, Europe
PHONE: +43-2236-71521-465     FAX: +43-2236-71313      UUCP: uunet!iiasa!wnp
INTERNET: wnp%iiasa@relay.eu.net      BITNET: tuvie!iiasa!wnp@awiuni01.BITNET