🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <bt6ukvsd23viem5osu0mi2g5blql8e7tba@4ax.com>, Garrison Hilliard
says...
>
>In article <bco0oi0nh4@drn.newsguy.com>, blakenospam@newsguy.com wrote:
>
>>Newsgroups under the bit.* hierarchy are only accessible as a newsgroup.
>
>This is a lie, and a damn one at that considering the newsgroups are
>mostly echoes of lists (hence the "bit.listserv..."). For example, the
>feeder list for bit.listserv.skeptic is SKEPTIX, joinable at

Huh, why don't you go back and review my reply and the initial poster's
question, before you start throwing around accusations you retard.

Bit.* is a 'newsgroup' hierarchy, so if you want to access the 'newsgroup' you
couldn't do this via email. Obviously they are tied with mailing lists, pretty
evident considering 'listserv' appears within the group name and any others that
fall under bit.listserv.*.

The whole point of having a bit.* newsgroup is to access in that format, as
opposed to an associated mailing list, which many, including myself, find to be
a tedious format for discussion. Particularly when there is a high volume of
message traffic. Furthermore, there are bit.* newsgroups that facilitate message
traffic from multiple mailing lists, not just one such as may be the case in
this instance.

Oh, and taking your comments out of context, like you did mine, "considering the
newsgroups are mostly echoes of lists". Talk about lies, and damn ones at that.
What are you talking about? There are well over 30,000 'newsgroups' within the
Usenet network, less than 100 of which are dedicated towards gateways to
exchange message traffic with mail lists.

Blake