Xref: utzoo comp.sys.next:16796 news.groups:31494 comp.sys.amiga.advocacy:2399
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!uunet!wuarchive!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rpi!uupsi!sugar!taronga!peter
From: peter@taronga.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.next,news.groups,comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
Subject: Re: split up comp.sys.next (PLEASE!!)
Message-ID: <9WQ38W3@taronga.hackercorp.com>
Date: 30 Apr 91 12:20:21 GMT
References: <1991Apr30.064449.18530@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG>
Organization: A corner of our bedroom
Lines: 22

xanthian@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG (Kent Paul Dolan) writes:
> > peter@taronga.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) writes:
> > How about comp.sys.next.advocacy to get the risc-versus-cisc and
> > next-versus-sparcstation flame wars out of comp.sys.amiga.advocacy?

> No particular reason one end of that cross-posted flame war can't stay
> in c.s.a.advocacy where it belongs,

Kent, because you didn't bother creating a group for discussing the
Amiga's future, OS concerns, etc...  there are actual discussions in
c.s.a.advocacy. There is no reason to keep either end of a RISC versus
CISC or other NeXT versus whatever war in an Amiga group.

> [ You mean you actually _read_ c.s.a.advocacy, Peter?  ;-) ]

Yes. I really do. When I get time. Which these days is mostly devoted
to trying to convince certain people that shooting themselves in the
foot is a very bad idea.
-- 
               (peter@taronga.hackercorp.com)
   `-_-'
    'U`