Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!lsuc!jimomura
From: jimomura@lsuc.UUCP
Newsgroups: comp.sys.m6809
Subject: Re: NEW GROUP - comp.sys.coco
Message-ID: <2210@lsuc.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 19-Nov-87 16:35:03 EST
Article-I.D.: lsuc.2210
Posted: Thu Nov 19 16:35:03 1987
Date-Received: Sat, 21-Nov-87 08:01:37 EST
References: <4096@watdcsu.waterloo.edu> <3782@pucc.Princeton.EDU> <3825@pucc.Princeton.EDU> <556@mcrware.UUCP>
Reply-To: jimomura@lsuc.UUCP (Jim Omura)
Organization: Consultant, Toronto
Lines: 24
Summary: comp.sys.coco and comp.sys.m68


     I've said this before via private mail, but I think that
it bears repeating in public.  The only argument raised against
changing comp.sys.6809 to comp.sys.coco is that 6809 non-coco
users would be displaced.  I don't think there are many
6809 users who are not coco users, who are not interested in
the 68000 family as well.  As such I think it would be worth
it to collapse the m6809 and m68k groups into one group called
'comp.sys.m68' to handle the traffic for all Motorola family
processors.  Likewise, there not having been much in the way
of 6809 postings outside the CoCo topic range in the current
6809 group, I'm sure the 68000 users could put up with the
"overflow".

     The only argument against this would be if there were
a substantial number of 6809 users, not interested in the CoCo
*and* not interested in the 68000 family of processors.  Would
those people kindly raise their hands?

Cheers! -- Jim O.
-- 
Jim Omura, 2A King George's Drive, Toronto, (416) 652-3880
ihnp4!utzoo!lsuc!jimomura
Byte Information eXchange: jimomura