Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site mit-eddie.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!harvard!think!mit-eddie!lenoil
From: lenoil@mit-eddie.UUCP (Robert Scott Lenoil)
Newsgroups: net.micro.amiga
Subject: Re: BIX
Message-ID: <233@mit-eddie.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 28-Oct-85 19:38:09 EST
Article-I.D.: mit-eddi.233
Posted: Mon Oct 28 19:38:09 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 1-Nov-85 00:37:42 EST
References: <4090@topaz.RUTGERS.EDU> <862@lsuc.UUCP> <467@sdchema.sdchema.UUCP>
Reply-To: lenoil@mit-eddie.UUCP (Robert Scott Lenoil)
Followup-To: net.flame
Organization: MIT, Cambridge, MA
Lines: 28

In article <467@sdchema.sdchema.UUCP> jmw@sdchema.UUCP (John M. Wright) writes:
>
>If BYTE/MG H want the unannointed "rest of us" to stay off of BIX...

>B)  Restrain Very Poursmell from taking most of his November column
>to wax enthusiastic over BIX;
>
>C)  Ask you and others to refrain from flaunting your BIX addresses
>at us.

I'm no avid fan of Jerry's (in fact, I think he should be writing for
Popular Computing, not BYTE), but it WAS his NOVEMBER column, and BIX
will be open for business on NOVEMBER 1.  As for "flaunting" a BIX
address; if my signature includes my ARPANET address and you're not
on ARPANET, am I "flaunting?"

As a separate issue, I just want to say that I'm glad Commodore-Amiga
will be posting to USENET as well as BIX.  Yes, the amiga newsgroups
on BIX are receiving very heavy traffic now, but I wager that said
traffic will diminish substantially when BIX goes commercial on
Friday, to the tune of $14/connect hour.  I know that I won't be
using it again.

Robert Lenoil
USENET: {ihnp4,decvax!genrad,harvard,allegra}!mit-eddie!lenoil
ARPANET: lenoil@eddie.mit.edu
CSNET: lenoil@mit-mc.csnet
BIX: lenoil [if you want it to sit there for eternity]