🚀 go-pugleaf

> ba.technology.misc	Discussions about Bay Area technology-related issues.
> ba.technology.internet	Discussions about Bay Area Internet connectivity.
> ba.technology.wireless	Discussions about wireless connectivty around the Bay Area.
> 
> Sam

A.  Instead of the overly large "technology" which is difficult to type
    and takes extra bandwidth, we could use "tech", such as ba.tech.internet.

B.  We could consider further abbreviations, including but not limited to:
    tech->t; internet->inet; wireless->who knows but shorter; etc.
    e.g., ba.t.inet; some of these further abbreviations would be
    appropriate, and some would not (i.e., ba.t is not descriptive enough
    for typical USENET group names), whereas some abbreviations would
    still make some sense, such as ba.tech.inet for "internet".  This would
    not necessarily be a good idea, since "inet" could mean "internet"
    OR "intranet".  Making the group name "ba.tech.net" wouldn't be
    about internetworking, then, either.  Ok, I'm liking my point B less
    and less.  Nevertheless, I think it's always important to optimize
    abbreviation sizes.  "technology.internet" is just way way way too big.

C.  "misc" is meaningless; what does it mean?  A better concept and word
    would be "ba.tech.other", for everything Bay Area Technical which is
    not ba.tech.internet or ba.tech.telephone.  Another alternative
    is "ba.tech" rather than "ba.tech.other" for all the unspecific stuff.
    I hate "misc" categories, because they are not categories.

D.  "tel" could be used for "telephone".
    "comm" could be used for "communications".
    "ba.tech.comm.radio" could mean wireless communications.
    "ba.tech.dcom.radio" could mean wireless data communications.

E.  Has an enumeration of average posts per topic been made?

Ok, now I'll read others' responses.