Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!thunder.mcrcim.mcgill.edu!snorkelwacker.mit.edu!spool.mu.edu!uunet!mcsun!ukc!slxsys!ibmpcug!mantis!mathew
From: mathew@mantis.co.uk (mathew)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.acorn,eunet.micro.acorn
Subject: Re: CALL FOR DISCUSSION: comp.binaries.acorn
Message-ID: <wRaoX6w163w@mantis.co.uk>
Date: 20 Feb 91 15:12:43 GMT
References: <1991Feb19.100159.19741@maths.tcd.ie>
Organization: Mantis Consultants, Cambridge. UK.
Lines: 24

chughes@maths.tcd.ie (Conrad Hughes) writes:
> In <1763@svin02.info.win.tue.nl> rcpieter@wsinti02.info.win.tue.nl (Tiggr) wr
> >The creation of both a comp.sources.acorn and a comp.binaries.acorn has
> >been propsed.  The question is whether or not this is wanted.  What is
> >the general opinion on this (I need to know before I can issue a proper
> >call for votes).
> 
> Judging by the fact that nobody has posted binaries in the past few weeks, so
> they can post to comp.binaries.acorn, I'd say the general opinion is that it
> _is_ wanted. Otherwise we get no more binaries :-(

Try reading the first line again.

Now, do you want
   A. comp.binaries.acorn
   B. comp.binaries.acorn + comp.sources.acorn
   C. comp.binaries.acorn with occasional source postings in it
   D. green (*)
   E. none of the above


mathew
[ (*) As is well known to exam candidates, every multiple choice question has
      one answer which is blatantly wrong. ]