Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!lll-tis!helios.ee.lbl.gov!pasteur!ames!oliveb!jerry
From: jerry@oliveb.olivetti.com (Jerry Aguirre)
Newsgroups: news.admin
Subject: Re: comp.women -- moderated groups and the naming hierarchy
Message-ID: <23922@oliveb.olivetti.com>
Date: 17 Jun 88 23:46:06 GMT
References: <5274@ecsvax.UUCP>
Reply-To: jerry@oliveb.UUCP (Jerry Aguirre)
Organization: Olivetti ATC; Cupertino, Ca
Lines: 23

In article <5274@ecsvax.UUCP> bch@ecsvax.UUCP (Byron C. Howes) writes:
>Let us, for the moment, try to call things as they actually are.
>
>The proponents of comp.women, myself included, would like to see it in
>the comp.* set because, frankly, it gets better distribution.  As the
>sysadmin of a site which takes only a limited feed of "serious" groups
>(comp,sci,news) I see this as a valid concern.

Right!  You want to trick some people who have decided they don't want
non-technical talk groups into carrying them for you.

If a site decides that for cost or political reasons they don't want to
carry groups that are not directly useful to them then I think you
should respect their decision.  You may not agree with them and
certainly you can try to convince them otherwise.

I now propose that we start a new news group "comp.drugs" for the
discussion of drug usage and computing.  I want it in the "comp"
group because some sites won't carry alt.drugs.  Start sending me your
votes.:-)  (This is satire in case you can't figure that out.)

Please note that this is a theoretical problem for me.  I already carry
all groups and would carry this duscussion about women computers
regardless of what its name was.