🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <15023@bfmny0.UU.NET> tneff@bfmny0.UU.NET (Tom Neff) writes:
   also since it's UNREASONABLE to expect Usenet FORTH enthusiasts to be
   subscribed to comp.lang.forth (right?) we'll crosspost it to alt.sources!
   ...
   OK Ed Vielmetti I take it all back.  There IS something worse than
   re-posting 30k source postings from other groups.... :-(

I'm afraid I don't get it.  The message was properly cross posted, so
there shouldn't be any problem if you have reasonably installed news
software -- you should only have to read it once and have it stored on
your disk once.  And there may be system administrators who *don't*
read comp.lang.forth but who have users who use or would like to use
forth but don't read news.  There's also the fact that some sites
maintain an archive of alt.sources but not comp.lang.forth.  This
makes it nice when someone asks for a PD forth; they can be told to
look for an alt.sources archive site.

As for all the hubub about reposting sources, I agree that the volume
of stuff in alt.sources is a bit too high with the reposting, although
I think that the reposting is valuable.  Perhaps a quick summary of
each source can be posted every few days in another group.  That set of
pointers could be very valuable.

-rich
-=-
Rich Kaul                         | "It is dangerous to be sincere unless
The Ohio State University         |  you are also stupid."  -Bernard Shaw