Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!bellcore!decvax!decuac!avolio
From: avolio@decuac.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.news.group,net.sf-lovers
Subject: Re: "new group..."
Message-ID: <855@decuac.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 11-Mar-86 20:53:42 EST
Article-I.D.: decuac.855
Posted: Tue Mar 11 20:53:42 1986
Date-Received: Thu, 13-Mar-86 08:00:40 EST
References: <417@excalibur.UUCP> <838@decuac.UUCP> <598@hoptoad.uucp>
Distribution: net
Organization: ULTRIX Applications Center, MD
Lines: 17
Xref: watmath net.news.group:5194 net.sf-lovers:12689
Summary: I wrote without thinking

In article <838@decuac.UUCP> I wrote:
> net.sf-lovers is more than 50% dicussions of f&sf books.  There is no need
> for another group.

In article <598@hoptoad.uucp>, laura@hoptoad.uucp (Laura Creighton) writes:
> I don't know, Fred.  I am not interested in the other 50%, which is why
> I don't subscribe to net/sf-lovers.  If there are a lot of people in
> my position, then net.books.sf would be a good idea.

You are quite right Laura and I was wrong.  In fact, the 50% I wrote is
dead wrong.  I just stop noticing how many times I hit the 'n' key when
reading net.sf-lovers (although, Laura, I bet you soon unsubscribe to
net.rumor ... one must hit the 'n' key lots more there now-a-days!) I
think that a subgroup under net.books is a good idea.
-- 
Fred @ DEC Ultrix Applications Center
UUCP: {decvax,seismo,cbosgd}!decuac!avolio       INET: avolio@decuac.DEC.COM