Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watnot!watmath!clyde!cbatt!ihnp4!ptsfa!lll-lcc!seismo!columbia!rutgers!cbmvax!grr
From: grr@cbmvax.UUCP
Newsgroups: news.groups,news.admin,news.sysadmin
Subject: Re: Call for one LESS group - news.admin vs news.sysadmin
Message-ID: <1476@cbmvax.cbmvax.cbm.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 2-Mar-87 07:00:35 EST
Article-I.D.: cbmvax.1476
Posted: Mon Mar  2 07:00:35 1987
Date-Received: Wed, 4-Mar-87 18:58:13 EST
References: <487@u410a.stl.stc.co.uk> <499@u410a.stl.stc.co.uk>
Reply-To: grr@cbmvax.UUCP (George Robbins)
Distribution: world
Organization: Commodore Technology, West Chester, PA
Lines: 19
Xref: utgpu news.groups:468 news.admin:181 news.sysadmin:54

In article <499@u410a.stl.stc.co.uk> dww@stl.UUCP (David Wright) writes:
>Ten days ago I posted an article to news.groups proposing that, since they
>usually contain the same postings and mostly have the same readers, the
>two admin groups be combined into one.    Since then I have had one mail
>message in favour and one against.   While I still think it is pointless 
>having two groups when only one is needed, the level of interest in this 
>question clearly does not justify taking any action.

Sure, get rid of it.  It's never been clear to me that there is really any
difference between the two groups.  On the other hand, the cost of a group
that does not generate any unique traffic is essentially nil.  It's just
hard to get excited about it. 

I don't know how it made it through the renaming plan, but net.gods, why
don't you just make news.sysadmin vanish, poof!
-- 
George Robbins - now working for,	uucp: {ihnp4|seismo|rutgers}!cbmvax!grr
but no way officially representing	arpa: cbmvax!grr@seismo.css.GOV
Commodore, Engineering Department	fone: 215-431-9255 (only by moonlite)