Xref: utzoo unix-pc.general:6517 comp.sys.att:10923 Path: utzoo!utgpu!watserv1!watmath!uunet!shelby!apple!usc!wuarchive!emory!skeeve!bagend!jan From: jan@bagend.uucp (Jan Isley) Newsgroups: unix-pc.general,comp.sys.att Subject: Re: CALL FOR DISCUSSION: comp.sys.3b1 Message-ID: <1990Nov21.020553.13321@bagend.uucp> Date: 21 Nov 90 02:05:53 GMT References: <1990Nov19.040128.29048@bagend.uucp> <1085@galaxia.Newport.RI.US> <73146@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu> Organization: 1 Bagshot Row, the Shire Lines: 30 In article <73146@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu> templon@copper.ucs.indiana.edu (jeffrey templon) writes: > >Hey, guys, aren't we supposed to be crossposting to news.groups? I xposted >my two cents' worth. Someone knowledgeable straighten us out on this. I did not crosspost my original to news.groups. Sort of waiting for the official posting in news.announce.newgroups. I even took news.groups out of this followup. Yes, I am being paranoid. Why? Regardless of what we may agree to in the unix-pc groups, the debate that may or may not generate a vote *must* take place in news.groups. The guidlines are very clear on that. news.groups has been the home of more flame fests than alt.flame. There are enough people in the net world who will send in a no vote because the CFD had a word mispelled in it. So, I chose to give it a week. Because he has a real job too, Eliot does the news.announce.newgroup postings on Sundays. My mail to him bounced at least twice so even if I met the letter of the guidelines, it will not show up until this weekend. My rationale for this is that it gives us an extra week to build up a consensus within our own community before we have to justify it to a world that gets out of bed each day looking for something to be against. So, I exagerate a little, but only a little. take your pick :-) | )-: Now, someone disagree with me so that we can have a DISCUSSION. Jan -- Do not suffer the company of fools. | home jan@bagend 404-434-1335 Buddha | known_universe!gatech!bagend!jan