Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!rutgers!cmcl2!kramden.acf.nyu.edu!brnstnd
From: brnstnd@kramden.acf.nyu.edu (Dan Bernstein)
Newsgroups: comp.sources.d
Subject: Re: v01INF1:  Status - Status of comp.sources.reviewed
Message-ID: <12422:Apr1602:14:1191@kramden.acf.nyu.edu>
Date: 16 Apr 91 02:14:11 GMT
References: <1991Apr14.204213.12062@athena.mit.edu> <12026:Apr1512:29:4191@kramden.acf.nyu.edu> <1991Apr15.164926.6468@athena.mit.edu>
Organization: IR
Lines: 19

In article <1991Apr15.164926.6468@athena.mit.edu> jik@athena.mit.edu (Jonathan I. Kamens) writes:
>   If you do not deny that, then how can you say that the potential in
> comp.sources.reviewed is only to provide "marginally" faster service than
> comp.sources.unix.

Tsk. You seem to be arguing that since you had a posting delayed,
everyone must have had postings delayed, and so anything faster than
eight months is a huge improvement. I just don't think comp.sources.unix
is so slow, and I invite you to survey other people who have actually
posted to the group rather than continuing to chat with me about our
theories. Until you do that, truce?

> then
> the service provided by comp.sources.reviewed is significantly more than
> "marginally" faster than the service provided by comp.sources.reviewed.

Ahem. :-)

---Dan