C506634@UMCVMB.MISSOURI.EDU (Eric Edwards) (10/31/90)
In Message-ID: <Oct.29.16.47.42.1990.12671@pilot.njin.net> limonce@pilot.njin.net (Tom Limoncelli) said: >In article <1990Oct28.001448.25414@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG> xanthian@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG > >[Much deleted] [Still more deleted] >> comp.sys.amiga.market > >I know the definintion, you know the definition, but dispite that ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Are you sure? >we're going to get a million marketing questions and flames. If I >was a new user and want to rant: "C0mm0d0re sh00d do more advertz, >d00d!", I'd be tempted to post it (incorrectly) here. Don't you >think? I know that ba.market sets a precident for this name, but I >see ".classified" and ".forsale" as better names. I won't argue "classifed" and ".forsale" are highly inaccurate names. .market is much broader than that. It covers 1) Vendor experience 2) "What's a good price on 1 meg scrams?" 3) Educational discounts 4) Warranties And a host of other subjects that would be inappropriate in a ".classified" or ".forsale" group. >> comp.sys.amiga.influence > >I hate to say it, but the name.space.control.freaks of news.groups >are going to say, "this should be called comp.sys.amiga.flame". No one would post to a ".amiga.flame" group becuase no one would read it. Thereby defeating it's purpose. >computers, it shouldn't be under just the c.s.a groups. Maybe a >comp.flame should be proposed? There already is one. alt.religion.computers Doesn't help. Eric Edwards: c506634 @ "The 3090. Proof that by applying state of the Inet: umcvmb.missouri.edu art technology to an obsolete architecture, Bitnet: umcvmb.bitnet one can achieve mediocre performance."