Xref: utzoo comp.sys.att:2310 news.groups:2374
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!hao!oddjob!gargoyle!ihnp4!alberta!teletron!andrew
From: andrew@teletron.UUCP (Andrew Scott)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.att,news.groups
Subject: Re: splitting comp.sys.att
Message-ID: <208@teletron.UUCP>
Date: 15 Jan 88 22:55:19 GMT
References: <1285@edison.GE.COM> <1590@ethos.UUCP>
Distribution: na
Organization: TeleTronic Communications Ltd., Edmonton, Alta.
Lines: 29
Keywords: alternative

In article <1590@ethos.UUCP>, gary@ethos.UUCP (Gary J. Smith) writes:
> In article <1285@edison.GE.COM> rja@edison.GE.COM (rja) writes:
> 
>>  Since there are active unix-pc newsgroups in the alternate newsgroups,
>>and a lot of material is cross-posted between unix-pc.* and comp.sys.att,
>>why not MOVE unix-pc.* to comp.sys.att.pc?
> 
>    - Only people interested in the 3B1 would need to carry
>      the group and pay for the phone time in transmitting
>      the group.

I'd just like to point out that this would still be possible if unix-pc.all
moved to the mainstream newsgroup heirarchy through the use of the 'sys' file.
One can specify exactly which newsgroups are to be received - the full newsfeed
does not have to be recieved.  I'm not trying to start any argument, but I
thought a clarification was in order.

As far as moving the groups goes, I'm in favor of it.  I don't see what makes
the UNIX pc so special that it deserves it's own high level newsgroup set.
No other system in the comp.sys.* groups is treated that way.  With regards to
the comments that the "backbone" would have control over the newsgroups when
they don't have any interest in them: I've not seen any problems with any of
the other comp.sys groups yet.  I can't foresee any problems.

	Andrew

--
$ make sense
Make:  Don't know how to make sense.  Stop.