Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!uunet!microsoft!brianw
From: brianw@microsoft.UUCP (Brian Willoughby)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.apple
Subject: Re: Call For Discussion
Message-ID: <9545@microsoft.UUCP>
Date: 15 Dec 89 05:00:38 GMT
References: <37045@apple.Apple.COM> <PNAKADA.89Dec6161004@pnakada.oracle.com> <37089@apple.Apple.COM>
Reply-To: brianw@microsoft.UUCP (Brian Willoughby)
Organization: Microsoft Corp., Redmond WA
Lines: 26

farrier@Apple.COM (Cary Farrier) writes:
>pnakada@oracle.com (Paul Nakada) writes:
>>The USENET is set up in a hierarchy which would be upset with the
>>creation of comp.tech.apple...  Please is a vote is taken, first
>>change comp.sys.apple to comp.sys.apple2 and then create
>>comp.sys.apple2.tech or preferably comp.sys.apple2.programmer (as was
>>done with the comp.sys.mac groups)
>
>	Just because the Macintosh people did something one way, does
>	not mean that the Apple II people must follow suit.  The name
>	comp.tech.apple2 is short and concise.  

Let the vote decide whether we follow the Mac or Amiga naming, no sense
in arguing.

BUT I agree with Paul: changing comp.sys.apple to comp.sys.apple2 is a simple
decision (I would say a necessity, since many posters think that
comp.binaries.apple2 is the only apple2 group), and it should be voted on as a
separate issue from the more debatable addition and/or naming of any technical
offshoot.

Brian Willoughby
UUCP:           ...!{tikal, sun, uunet, elwood}!microsoft!brianw
InterNet:       microsoft!brianw@uunet.UU.NET
  or:           microsoft!brianw@Sun.COM
Bitnet          brianw@microsoft.UUCP