Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!att!cbnewsl!clyde!feg
From: feg@clyde.ATT.COM (Forrest Gehrke,2C-119,7239,ATTBL)
Newsgroups: comp.binaries.ibm.pc.d
Subject: Re: Withdrawal symptoms...
Keywords: no moderator
Message-ID: <4002@cbnewsl.ATT.COM>
Date: 7 Feb 90 13:12:56 GMT
References: <22685@usc.edu> <1990Feb6.191414.13982@eng.umd.edu>
Sender: nntp@cbnewsl.ATT.COM
Reply-To: feg@clyde.ATT.COM
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Lines: 23

In article <1990Feb6.191414.13982@eng.umd.edu>, linco@eng.umd.edu (Sam Lin) writes:
> In article <22685@usc.edu> kjh@pollux.usc.edu (Kenneth J. Hendrickson N8DGN) writes:
> >May I suggest that we un-moderate c.b.i.p?  There is no reason that I
> >can think of why this wouldn't work.  We can post instructions on how to
> >post programs, including shell scripts even.  We can heckle people who
> >carry on discussions there.  It should be able to work.  Some postings
> >would be far better than none, even if the noise level in the group
> >rises somewhat.  This would also take a great load off of simtel20.arpa,
> >and other machines that carry archives.
> >
> I second the motion!






I move this motion be tabled indefinitely.  It has been tried
before. It led to chaos and an overloaded network to the
point of the group being considered for abandonment by
the Usenet gods.  (And that was before viruses were around).

Forrest Gehrke feg@clyde.ATT.COM