CALL FOR DISCUSSION: Give comp.unix control to the wizards

[Tom Frauenhofer]

In article <18572 at rpp386.cactus.org> jfh at rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II) writes:
>In article <270B2795.1745 at tct.uucp> chip at tct.uucp (Chip Salzenberg) writes:
>>This "issue" is a red herring.  Any group of people who want a
>>hierarchy of their very own can simply create one.  This method has
>>already worked for vmsnet, unix-pc, pubnet, gnu and trial.  Nothing is
>>stopping you from creating wiznet.
>the "wizards" already created a net - it's called "usenet" and you
>are using it right now.
>>Or would you rather complain and post bogus newgroup messages than act
>>constructively?
>i am acting constructively.  since you are too stuborn to consider
>the simple action - namely re-creating comp.unix.wizards - i am holding
>a vote.

Here's the groups that I think we need:

comp.unix.wizards.newbie.flame - flames from newbies about wizards
comp.unix.wizards.flame - flames by wizards about newbie postings
comp.unix.wizards.wannabe - postings by wizard wanna-be's
comp.unix.wizards.who.cares - you guess

Doug Gwyn was right, but for the wrong reason.  Comp.unix.internals is turning
into comp.unix.flamefest.  I'm sorry I voted for it, wasn't thinking at the
time, I'll bow down to whatever net.whoever will fix it.

Doesn't anyone else appreciate the irony that comp.unix.internals was created
to eliminate the "newbie question" problem but instead has supplemented that
with the "what should we really call this group" problem?

I'm outta here.
-- 
Thomas V. Frauenhofer, WA2YYW	ccicpg!cci632!tvf at uunet.uu.net	tvf1477 at ma.isc.rit.edu
"Why don't you try acting?  It's much easier."
	- Laurence Olivier to Dustin Hoffman during filming of "Marathon Man"