Xref: utzoo comp.unix.xenix:3041 comp.unix.microport:1349 news.groups:5191
Path: utzoo!utgpu!attcan!uunet!sco!davidbe
From: davidbe@sco.COM (The Cat in the Hat)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.xenix,comp.unix.microport,news.groups
Subject: Re: new groups for iX86 unix (was: Bell Tech 386 SysVr3)
Message-ID: <941@scovert.sco.COM>
Date: 19 Aug 88 16:51:47 GMT
References: <25145@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> <465@sp7040.UUCP> <11643@steinmetz.ge.com> <1988Aug16.011817.17102@gpu.utcs.toronto.edu> <1608@edis
Reply-To: davidbe@sco.COM (The Cat in the Hat)
Organization: The Santa Cruz Operation, Inc.  (Scovert Operations)
Lines: 20

A long long time ago in an article far far away (<5562@rpp386.UUCP> to be exact) jfh@rpp386.UUCP (The Beach Bum) said:
-there is precious little point in adding all those groups.  someone will
-only think of a new way to add even more groups.  what is needed is to
-take the uPort/Xenix flaming out of these groups for good.

We probably won't do that until we either get a moderated 
comp.unix.Xenix/uPort OR a comp.unix.flame group.

Comp.unix.flame has a certain appeal.  Makes about as much sense as 
splitting up into 286/386 groups.

Not that I'm suggesting it, mind you.  Just pointing it out.

-- 
David Bedno (aka The Cat in the Hat) Now appearing at: davidbe@sco.COM -OR-
...!{uunet,decvax!microsoft,ucbvax!ucscc}!sco!davidbe -OR- 
At home: 408-425-5266 At work: 408-425-7222 x5123 (I'm probably here...)
Disclaimer:  Not SCO's opinions.  At least not that they've told me.

"If you stand for nothing, you'll fall for anything."