Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!zephyr.ens.tek.com!uw-beaver!milton!caesar.cs.montana.edu!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!uwm.edu!lll-winken!polecat.llnl.gov!randy
From: randy@polecat.llnl.gov (Randy Futor)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: Splitting Comp.Sys.Mac again (was Re: Too many messages in ....)
Message-ID: <47815@lll-winken.LLNL.GOV>
Date: 8 Feb 90 17:44:40 GMT
References: <1688@xn.LL.MIT.EDU>
Sender: usenet@lll-winken.LLNL.GOV
Reply-To: randy@polecat.llnl.gov (Randy Futor)
Organization: Lawrence Livermore Nat'l Lab.
Lines: 22

In article <1688@xn.LL.MIT.EDU> delaney@xn (John R. Delaney) writes:
>I agree that the comp.sys.mac group seems to need splitting . . .

>The more we split the basic group, the more of this leakage back we can expect.
>Unless the basic group is moderated. And I don't think that anyone would
>want that.

Though Chuq seems to have backed off from his original suggestion, I think it's
a fine one & deserves reiteration:  let's prepare the way for rmgrouping c.s.m.
altogether!

I don't see a comp.lang on our system, no comp.os, no comp.mail;  each of these
is only a 2d level in a hierarchy that requires ( & receives ) further refine-
ment to be useful.  It seems more than reasonable to aim c.s.m in such a direc-
tion.

Proposals are already out there regarding what the appropriate 4th levels ought
be & more will show up, I'm sure -- maybe we'll be able to agree on one before
too many more meg of stuff we would otherwise prefer have been filtered roll
across our screens . . .

 -- what say?? -- R     randy@polecat.llnl.gov     futor@ocfmail.ocf.llnl.gov