Xref: utzoo news.groups:6872 comp.sources.d:3213 comp.graphics:4135
Path: utzoo!utgpu!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!ames!mailrus!cornell!uw-beaver!mit-eddie!killer!wisner
From: wisner@killer.DALLAS.TX.US (Bill Wisner)
Newsgroups: news.groups,comp.sources.d,comp.graphics
Subject: Re: comp.data Call for Discussion (was Re: comp.datasets etc.)
Message-ID: <6808@killer.DALLAS.TX.US>
Date: 16 Jan 89 04:59:12 GMT
References: <1582@ucsfcca.ucsf.edu>
Reply-To: wisner@killer.Dallas.TX.US (Bill Wisner)
Followup-To: news.groups
Organization: SCUM, Inc.
Lines: 15

>It seems worthwhile to subdivide the actual data group into subgroups
>to allow reasonable selectivity. For example:
>
>      comp.data -- the parent group
>      comp.data.d -- discussion relevant to comp.data subgroups
>      comp.data.dict -- dictionaries, word lists, etc.
[...]

You're kidding, right?

How many dictionaries have YOU seen posted to USENET?

It may not be necessary to have a single comp.data newsgroup. It certainly
is not necessary to have several score of comp.data subgroups. Kill this
idea now.