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]