Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!bellcore!tness7!ninja!pollux!dalsqnt!uunet!lll-winken!lll-tis!ames!nrl-cmf!cmcl2!phri!dasys1!tneff
From: tneff@dasys1.UUCP (Tom Neff)
Newsgroups: comp.binaries.ibm.pc.d
Subject: Re: What is going on here?
Summary: Welcome to .d
Message-ID: <4436@dasys1.UUCP>
Date: 14 May 88 23:34:55 GMT
References: <2875@phoenix.Princeton.EDU>
Reply-To: tneff@dasys1.UUCP (Tom Neff)
Organization: Independent Users Guild
Lines: 25
Keywords:

In article <2875@phoenix.Princeton.EDU> amlovell@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Anthony M Lovell) writes:
>Are we witnessing the advantage of having this binaries group moderated?
>The move was meant to reduce the discussion of binaries and promote the
>proliferation of executables.  Instead, the opposite has occurred.  The
>only activity is the discussion of non-existent binaries.
>
>Why must things be this way?  It is FAR inferior to the old arrangement.
>Is there something I'm missing?  Clue me in if I am!

The move was meant to eliminate chatter in comp.binaries.ibm.pc -- this has
in fact happened.  We're not holding this discussion in c.b.ibm.pc, we're
holding it in c.b.ibm.pc.d -- check your Newsgroups header!  The .d group
was created to hold DISCUSSION about postings to the (separate) binaries
group, and is not moderated.  If you don't want to read this stuff, just
unsubscribe and stick to checking comp.binaries.ibm.pc.  (Conversely, there
shouldn't be any binaries posted to this group.)

In short, each group seems to be fulfilling its function well, and I do
not see any problem.  Were you aware of the split?



-- 
Tom Neff			UUCP: ...!cmcl2!phri!dasys1!tneff
	"None of your toys	CIS: 76556,2536		MCI: TNEFF
	 will function..."	GEnie: TOMNEFF		BIX: are you kidding?