xanthian@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG (Kent Paul Dolan) (05/08/91)
peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) writes: > alex@bilver.uucp (Alex Matulich) writes: >> Why not? This happens to be the only newsgroup in existence dedicated >> to, and encouraging, computer wars. Actually not. c.s.a.advocacy is dedicated to removing existing computer wars from the mainstream c.s.a.* groups, and it does that very well, with some 80% or more of that traffic successfully diverted. People are starting to _voluntarily_ divert emotion laden conversations to c.s.a.advocacy, whick exceeds my fondest dreams for the group. > How about alt.religion.computers? Didn't work, while it existed the flamage still covered c.s.a.* like a rug. People want to flame about the Amiga where they know Amiga users are listening. > If you want generic computer wars, that's the place. This place is for > Amiga wars and Amiga futures stuff. True, modulo the fact that most of those wars have a group for another computer on the other side, so that we get spates of NeXt versus Amiga, Atari versus Amiga, and IBM-PC clone versus Amiga. All those are OK, but NeXt versus Sun versus DecStation wars are not welcome unless AmigaUX gets in a few shots too. (time for comp.sys.misc.advocacy, I think) Won't work, for the same reason alt.religion.computers didn't. You need an audience guarantee to filter the traffic into the group, and that means you need the (micro) computer name in the newgroup name. It is probably long overdue for comp.sys.{any_brand}.advocacy, though, as I'm sure the other groups would like the effect as much as the Amiga groups do; low flame mainline newsgroups are a wonderful benefit. /// It's Amiga /// for me: why Kent, the man from xanth. \\\/// settle for <xanthian@Zorch.SF-Bay.ORG> <xanthian@well.sf.ca.us> \XX/ anything less? -- Convener, COMPLETED comp.sys.amiga grand reorganization.