Xref: utzoo unix-pc.general:6507 comp.sys.att:10911 news.groups:25555
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rpi!usenet.rpi.edu!tale
From: tale@rpi.edu (David C Lawrence)
Newsgroups: unix-pc.general,comp.sys.att,news.groups
Subject: Re: CALL FOR DISCUSSION: comp.sys.3b1
Message-ID: <*T|^4L|@rpi.edu>
Date: 20 Nov 90 18:19:30 GMT
References: <1990Nov19.040128.29048@bagend.uucp> <72909@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu>
	<1990Nov20.025651.11472@vmp.com>
Organization: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute Computer Science, Troy NY
Lines: 19
Nntp-Posting-Host: cs.rpi.edu

In article <1990Nov20.025651.11472@vmp.com> oc@vmp.com (Orlan Cannon) writes:

   Not to mention that "unix-pc" is listed as an "alternative" distribution,
   which means that news administrators are likely to associate it more with
   "alt.sex.pictures" than with a normally distributed discussion group about
   a particular hardware platform.

I'm sorry, but anyone who is doing that is pretty lame.  While I am
sure some admins insist on primarily carrying the hierarchies which
were formed from the Great Renaming, associating unix-pc with
alt.sex.pictures rather than comp.sys.* is just patently absurd.

In two weeks worth of news here, just under half of the articles in
unix-pc are crossposted to mainstream groups and this seems typical
for it.   87 non-crossposted articles in two weeks in the whole
hierarchy.  If this group is created, what will become of unix-pc?
Should it continue to plod along or could we disband it?
--
   (setq mail '("tale@cs.rpi.edu" "tale@ai.mit.edu" "tale@rpitsmts.bitnet"))