Date:	Sun, 19 Jan 1997 02:59:56 -0500 (EST)
From:	root <root AT capslock DOT com>
To:	Gene Buckle <geneb AT deltasoft DOT com>
cc:	grendel AT ananke DOT amu DOT edu DOT pl, OpenDOS Mailing List <opendos AT mail DOT tacoma DOT net>,
	geneb AT wa DOT net
Subject:	Re: [opendos] First time...
In-Reply-To:	<3.0.32.19970117230558.0068f910@mail.wa.net>
Message-ID:	<Pine.LNX.3.93.970119025619.1162D-100000@capslock.com>
MIME-Version:	1.0
Sender:	owner-opendos AT mail DOT tacoma DOT net

On Fri, 17 Jan 1997, Gene Buckle wrote:

> At 01:56 AM 1/18/97 +0100, Mark Habersack wrote:
> >Once upon a time (on 16 Jan 97 at 22:03) Gene Buckle said:
> >
> >
> >> I'll look into newgrouping these:
> >> 
> >> comp.os.opendos.advocacy
> >> comp.os.opendos.bugs
> >> comp.os.opendos.developer
> >> comp.os.opendos.gui
> >> comp.os.opendos.misc
> >> comp.os.opendos.programming.djgpp
> >> comp.os.opendos.programming.drivers
> >> comp.os.opendos.programming.multitasking
> >
> >comp.os.opendos.programming.customapi /* For API specific for OpenDOS */
> >comp.os.opendos.compatibility
> >
> 
> Ok.  It may be easier to place them in the alt.os.* heirarchy so we don't
> need to do an RFD to get them newgroup'd under the comp. heirarchy.  Thoughts?

YUKK!!!!  The S/N ratio of ANY group in alt.* is about 1/1000000.  I like
the comp.os.* idea better myself.  Also, even if it were started in the
alt heirarchy, when switched to comp a year from now we'd all see the "I'm
not switching and you cant make me" posts.  Blah!!!!!

My vote is for the groups specified above.

Mike A. Harris                           http://www3.sympatico.ca/mharris
My dynamic address:      http://www3.sympatico.ca/mharris/ip-address.html
mailto:mharris AT sympatico DOT ca        mailto:mharris AT blackwidow DOT saultc DOT on DOT ca

- Raw text -