Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!wuarchive!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!mips!apple!bionet!ames!attctc!rissa
From: rissa@attctc.Dallas.TX.US (Patricia O Tuama)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: Complimentary but not overlapping
Message-ID: <10728@attctc.Dallas.TX.US>
Date: 24 Dec 89 06:31:23 GMT
Organization: Lone Star Cafe
Lines: 24

In article <7VY+N.@splut.conmicro.com> jay@splut.conmicro.com (Jay "you ignorant splut!" Maynard) writes
>>Please note:  I am -not- asking a specific question about .aquaria 
>>per se.  I would simply like to know, now that Peter has added this 
>>exciting new dimension to the newgroup creation guidelines, whether 
>>this process can be used to create similar groups.  And I assume 
>>everyone else is also free to ignore the discussion period just as 
>>Peter did?
>*sigh*. No clue at all, Trish. You have no clue at all.

[irrelevant discussion wrt rec.aquaria deleted]

Sigh.  You just don't get it do you, Jay. 

My question doesn't have anything to do with Peter's group per se.  
I just want to know now that the newgroup creation guidelines have 
been amended to include the da Silva Process, whether or not anyone 
else who wishes to follow the same procedure is required to hold a 
separate discussion period or whether he/she can simply skip that 
step like Peter did.

Now if you have an answer to my question, Jay, I'd like to hear it.  
But if you and your fellow bizarrites are going to continue to wander
off on unrelated tangents about the .aquaria groups then please don't 
bother.