Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site lsuc.UUCP
Path: utzoo!lsuc!msb
From: msb@lsuc.UUCP (Mark Brader)
Newsgroups: can.general
Subject: Re: can.general discussion
Message-ID: <612@lsuc.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 19-Apr-85 18:16:07 EST
Article-I.D.: lsuc.612
Posted: Fri Apr 19 18:16:07 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 19-Apr-85 19:21:16 EST
References: <923@ubc-vision.CDN> <434@utai.UUCP>
Reply-To: msb@lsuc.UUCP (Mark Brader)
Organization: Law Society of Upper Canada, Toronto
Lines: 27
Summary: Use can.politics.  There is no can.followup.

Background (just a few lines, bear with me):

> > > Either we need more can.* newsgroups, or, better yet,
> > > a lot of these discussions could move to can.politics.
> >
> >What would you rather talk about?...it's sunny here in Vancouver
> >today...what's the weather like out there?...

Gregory Dudek writes:

>     My impression was that newgroups like can.general were for
> bulletins, announcements, queries and SHORT discussions.

Correct!  NOW can we move the SDI and Zundel/Keegstra to can.politics?

> Long ongoing debates should be relegated to some
> other group (like can.followup) ...

Can.followup was removed a couple of months ago, at my instigation,
because there wasn't enough traffic in can.general for can.followup
to be needed, and in fact, can.followup was not being used.  At all.

Nor is there a sufficient volume of *appropriate* traffic in can.general
now to justify a new group, since the current discussions can sit
happily in can.politics.  Once more: let's put them there!

Mark Brader