saltiel@cdstar.UUCP (Jack Saltiel) (08/26/85)
I agree. After reading net.auto for four weeks it's obvious to me
that a subgroup devoted to techincal matters should be created. My
views and actions relating to radar detectors, DWI, and such
matters are known, quite well, to myself, and I don't want to
discuss them any longer :-). I would rather devote my time on the
net to techical auto issues, like how do I get 60 more horsepower
out of my 911??
--
Jack Saltiel
Cambridge Digital Systems
{wjh12,talcott}!cdstar!saltiel
"Nailed retreads to my feet and prayed for better weather."dbmk1@stc.UUCP (Derek Bergin) (08/29/85)
>I would rather devote my time on the >net to techical auto issues, like how do I get 60 more horsepower >out of my 911?? Take the junk out of the exhaust and use real petrol - should be good for 70 bhp or so. :-) Regards Derek !seismo!mcvax!ukc!stc!dbmk1 Any correlation between the garbage above and any suspected fact should be removed and destroyed immediately.
mlg@akgua.UUCP (M.L. Graham [Mike]) (09/19/85)
Due to a large volume of discussions on such topics as the
55 MPH speed limit, DUI, etc., it has been suggested (mainly
in net.auto) that net.auto be split, with one group for technical
discussions the other for the non-technical items.
Two proposals have been made:
1. Retain net.auto for technical discussions, add net.
driving for the non-technical discussions.
2. Retain net.auto for the non-technical discussions,
add net.auto.tech for the technical discussions.
I vote to make the split, and I don't really have any storng
preference for 1 or 2 above. If pressured to make a choice, I
would go with #2 (is that because it was my suggestion originally?)
Mike Graham @AT&T Technologies
Atlanta, Georgia
(Norcross really, but who ever heard of Norcross.)
{ihnp4}akgua!mlgmberns@ut-ngp.UTEXAS (Mark Bernstein) (09/20/85)
[] The suggestion has been made in both net.auto and in this group (cf. Mike Graham, ref. above) that the issue of a possible splitting of net.auto be subject to some kind of "vote" posted to net.news.group. Accordingly, I would like to support the proposal: let's have discussions of speed limits, DWI, insurance, radar detectors, seat belts, etc. in one group and technical discussions about autos themselves in the other. If it's necessary to decide on names right now I'd prefer net.driving and net.auto, but it really doesn't matter much. Mark Bernstein (UT Austin, Speech Communication)
dbp@dataio.Dataio.UUCP (Dave Pellerin) (09/23/85)
> >Anyway, if you are in favor of splitting net.auto into two >groups, one for technical discussions, the other for non-technical >you should subcribe to net.news.group and post your opinion there. >I originally suggested net.auto.tech as a technical sub-group of >net.auto; others have since suggested net.driving for the non-technical... I vote for net.auto.tech !! I you create net.driving you will have the same situation as now, but the 'boring' articles will be posted in two places (remember net.general?) - Dave Pellerin
gordon@cae780.UUCP (Brian Gordon) (09/23/85)
>Due to a large volume of discussions on such topics as the >55 MPH speed limit, DUI, etc., it has been suggested (mainly >in net.auto) that net.auto be split, with one group for technical >discussions the other for the non-technical items. > >Two proposals have been made: > 1. Retain net.auto for technical discussions, add net. > driving for the non-technical discussions. > 2. Retain net.auto for the non-technical discussions, > add net.auto.tech for the technical discussions. A definite YES for the split, and specifically for #2. Bozos will continue to post to net.auto, no matter what its charter may be. It may be a little more difficult (psychologically) to post a DUI article to a group named <anything>.tech. FROM: Brian G. Gordon, CAE Systems Division of Tektronix, Inc. UUCP: tektronix!teklds!cae780!gordon {ihnp4, decvax!decwrl}!amdcad!cae780!gordon {nsc, hplabs, resonex, qubix, leadsv}!cae780!gordon Down 60 1/4 pounds, and counting ...
hav@dual.UUCP (Not Sid Vicious) (09/24/85)
<*munch*>
Here's yet another vote for splitting net.auto. Don't ask me which way to
do it (net.auto.tech or net.driving); I don't see that it matters much.
Helen Anne
{ucbvax,ihnp4,cbosgd,hplabs,decwrl,unisoft,fortune,sun,nsc}!dual!hav
"J. Frank Parnell."
"Ott . . . Otto."
"Do you ever feel as if your mind had started to erode?"saltiel@cdstar.UUCP (Jack Saltiel) (09/27/85)
OK, let's go. I vote to start net.auto.tech for
discussion of real technical matters.....
--
Jack Saltiel
Cambridge Digital Systems
{wjh12,talcott}!cdstar!saltiel
"Here's to plain speaking and clear understanding."
"I like a man who likes to talk."ugzannin@sunybcs.UUCP (Adrian Zannin) (10/19/85)
I would like to add my vote for net.auto.tech. I am the person who
wrote the article about "...Time to leave this group..." in net.auto.
I must say that I am glad that others feel the same way about the situation
as I do. By reading net.auto and net.news.group, I get the impression
that the overwhelming majority of the readers want the split to be made.
As for the name of the group, I think it should be net.auto.tech because
it will (hopefully) be created for those of us who want to read only the
technical articles. The name net.auto.tech would favor us a little more
by making people think twice about posting to the group. It adds emphasis
to the fact that the group is for technical discussions *ONLY*. Hence,
someone would be less likely to post an article about the aesthetic beauty
of his Lamborghini Countach there...
One question though: To create a new news group do we just bat the
discussion around this news group for awhile until the net gurus read it
and decide either way, or do we have to mail directly to them?
--
Adrian Zannin
..{bbncca,decvax,dual,rocksvax,watmath,sbcs}!sunybcs!ugzannin
CSNET: ugzannin@Buffalo.CSNET
ARPANET: ugzannin%Buffalo@csnet-relay.ARPA
BITNET: ugzannin@sunybcs.BITNETspaf@gatech.CSNET (Gene Spafford) (10/23/85)
Please don't post any more articles asking how to create net.auto.tech
or voting in favor of it. The group was created a number of weeks
back and any such discussion is meaningless.
--
Gene "sometime in 1986" Spafford
The Clouds Project, School of ICS, Georgia Tech, Atlanta GA 30332
CSNet: Spaf @ GATech ARPA: Spaf%GATech.CSNet @ CSNet-Relay.ARPA
uucp: ...!{akgua,decvax,hplabs,ihnp4,linus,seismo,ulysses}!gatech!spaf