Xref: utzoo comp.sys.att:2042 news.groups:2164
Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!rutgers!ames!aurora!labrea!decwrl!sun!pitstop!sundc!seismo!uunet!nuchat!flatline!erict
From: erict@flatline.UUCP (eric townsend)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.att,news.groups
Subject: Re: unix-pc.* newsgroups
Summary: More people follow it than follow rec.pencils.all
Message-ID: <164@flatline.UUCP>
Date: 10 Jan 88 18:12:03 GMT
References: <3764@islenet.UUCP>
Organization: flatline in Houston(Montrose, really), Tx.
Lines: 18

In article <3764@islenet.UUCP>, richard@islenet.UUCP (Richard Foulk) writes:
> Disregarding network traffic loads for a moment; is there some
> reason why it would not be a good idea to gateway the unix-pc.*
> groups to mainstream Usenet?

I've been wondering about this too.  What does it take for an
'alternate' newsgroup to get added to the 'regular' newsgroups list.
The objection of 'that's too silly' falls on it's face when you look
at the wide range of subjects 'regular' groups cover.  I assume
that if SA's don't feel that certain groups are needed at their site,
then they don't recieve that group.  How much trouble is it to not
recieve just a few more groups?  I can sympathize (sic) with SA's of
systems that are owned by agencies that do *not* want their computer
users receiving alt.drugs and rec.overthrow.government :-).
-- 
J. Eric Townsend ->uunet!nuchat!flatline!erict smail:511Parker#2,Hstn,Tx,77007
Just another journalist with too much computing power.| 'Hey, watch me ollie 
'Girls play with toys. Real women skate.' --Powell Peralta ad.| this <whump>'