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."