🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <4494uh$bp9@nnrp1.news.primenet.com>,
   gridman@primenet.com (Eugene Glover) wrote:
>From: gridman@primenet.com (Eugene Glover)
>Newsgroups: az.config
>Subject: Re: Proposal & CFD: az.sf
>Date: Fri, 15 Sep 95 15:02:35 GMT
>jgeorge@primenet.com (The Hidden) wrote:
>
>
>It IS NOT time to vote!!!!!!!
>
>It is time to discuss, without *sufficient* time to bring people's attention 
to this matter, the same thing will happen
>as before, not enough votes.
>
>Since the az.sf list doesn't go to hundreds (maybe thousands) of potential 
users, we've GOT to spread the word
>BEFORE we issue the call for a vote.
>

Precisely.  For instance, an objection I heard once was that the az.sf would 
be clogging the bandwidth.  I admit I do not know the true meaning of this.  
The az-sf listserver has proved that there is a high sustained interest over 
the past 10 months.  Does this negate the bandwidth argument?  What does the 
bandwidth refer to?  

If Mark is not aware of the volume of local SF traffic, others probably aren't 
either.  Mark, do you think a demonstration would help illustrate the volume 
of posts we see?  We might be able to convince some of the az-sf listserver 
subscribers to repost in az.general.  If this demonstrated a high interest and 
post traffic, in your opinion, would this convince a few users to vote 
favorably to an az.sf group?  

Several people are putting together a bid for a NASFiC (North American Science 
Fiction Convention) in Phoenix.  If we are gradually seeing more local Usenet 
groups from other states then it is likely other states are seeing ours.  A 
az.sf group would allow those interested from out of state to see our 
enthusiasm.  This might increase convention attendence.  

I would like to know of any negative effects felt by non-Science Fiction fans 
toward this group.  


From: Jim Strait
      strait@primenet.com
      Phoenix, Arizona
      USA