Xref: utzoo comp.sys.handhelds:7928 news.groups:32188
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!uunet!mcsun!ukc!acorn!asmith
From: asmith@acorn.co.uk (Andy Smith)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.handhelds,news.groups
Subject: Re: RFD: Comp.sys.handhelds split reworking
Message-ID: <7168@acorn.co.uk>
Date: 20 May 91 11:42:04 GMT
References: <7530@rex.cs.tulane.edu>
Sender: asmith@acorn.co.uk
Distribution: comp
Organization: Acorn Computers Ltd, Cambridge, England
Lines: 44

In article <7530@rex.cs.tulane.edu> mandel@vax.anes.tulane.edu (Jeff E Mandel MD MS) writes:

>1) There seems to be no one who opposes comp.sources.hp48, so I see little
>reason to modify this. 

Agreed. There should be a sources feed. 


>2) The line of demarcation that people want to draw is between orientation of
>users. I would suggest that the solution could be:

>comp.sys.handhelds.programmers (for programming any machine)
>comp.sys.handhelds.organizers  (for using any machine to keep notes, phone #s)

>It is possible that an additional group would be useful:

>comp.sys.handhelds.connectivity (for connecting any machine to another device)

Jeff, What the??? Now your suggesting that we have to read three news groups
instead of the current one. The idea I thought was to group the RPL users
away from the MS-DOS users and non-HP calculator users. Most of those
posting to this discussion are settling on :-

comp.sys.palmtops
comp.sys.calculators

>I know this is a sea change from what I advocated in the past, but if this is
>what people want, I will see what the net.gods have to say (if any of you are

Are you just playing devils advocate? I agree that the net.gods should be
approched, but with the majority idea, NOT with something that makes life
worse.

>So, if you like this proposal, let me know. If there is a firestorm against it,
>I see little reason to abandon .HP48.

Yes there will be a firestorm against it. I for one think its less than
sensible, however I also do not agree with the form of your original idea,
but your wording implies a choice of the two and no freedom to back the
correct proposal??

>Jeff E Mandel MD MS

Andy