Xref: utzoo comp.sys.ibm.pc:15612 comp.sys.misc:1428
Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!lll-lcc!pyramid!octopus!pete
From: pete@octopus.UUCP (Pete Holzmann)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc,comp.sys.misc
Subject: Re: Do we need c.s.i.p.tech? (was Re: Are RLL details too technical?)
Summary: Everybody wants high-technical-content
Message-ID: <225@octopus.UUCP>
Date: 16 May 88 14:57:47 GMT
References: <1255@kodak.UUCP> <638@mccc.UUCP> <216@octopus.UUCP> <650@mccc.UUCP> <217@octopus.UUCP> <5624@sgistl.SGI.COM>
Reply-To: pete@octopus.UUCP (Pete Holzmann)
Organization: Octopus Enterprises, Cupertino CA
Lines: 19

In article <5624@sgistl.SGI.COM> larry@sgistl.SGI.COM (Larry Autry) writes:
>In article <217@octopus.UUCP>, I write:
>> I'm trying to figure out the level of technical content appropriate for
>> this group.

>The unix newsgroups are subdivided.  One for wizards and one for neophytes.
>If the subject is somewhere in between levels of difficulty then the poster
>has a decision to make where to post.  Perhaps this group should be divided
>into comp.sys.ibm.pc and comp.sys.ibm.pc.tech.  Any agreement?  Any dissent?

Early returns on my call for votes indicates that everybody likes heavy-duty
technical content. Fodder for thought.

Pete

-- 
  OOO   __| ___      Peter Holzmann, Octopus Enterprises
 OOOOOOO___/ _______ USPS: 19611 La Mar Court, Cupertino, CA 95014
  OOOOO \___/        UUCP: {hpda,pyramid}!octopus!pete
___| \_____          Phone: 408/996-7746