🚀 go-pugleaf

Most of the comment I have seen is against splitting comp.editors.
There is a lively discussion of GNU emacs in a number of news groups.
Is it appropriate that the primary presence of GNU emacs in Usenet
*not* be in comp.editors?  If all the GNU emacs groups were in
comp.editors.?, then it *would* have to be split.  What I am inferring
that is that participants in the existing groups for GNU emacs are
willing to stay where they are and do not really care what happens to
comp.editors.  If this is the case, then I think it should be stated
more clearly than a simple "Don't split comp.editors."

It strikes me that there is a problem with comp.emacs that deserves to
be addressed.  comp.emacs is *mostly* about GNU emacs.  However, there
are other editors with "emacs" in their names that are occasionally
mentioned in comp.emacs.  These posts are just noise to those of us who
are only interested in GNU emacs.  Furthermore, they are not likely
very effective for the posters, because those most likely to be of
help are not likely to be willing to plough through the dominant GNU
emacs theme.  It would make sense to me to split comp.emacs into, say,

comp.emacs-gnu, and
comp.emacs-other

(Though the 'others' might resent being lumped that way relative to
GNU emacs, there certainly does not currently seem to be enough
traffic for the others to justify further splits.)

Regards,
  David V.

    --_/_/_/-----------------_/---_/_/_/---------------------------------------
   --_/----_/---------------_/--_/-----_/-  On certain issues, --  David  
  --_/-----_/-_/----_/-_/_/_/----_/_/----  I could be wrong;  --  van der Schel
 --_/----_/---_/-_/--_/---_/-_/-----_/--  but this is not    --  DvdS@eden.com
--_/_/_/------_/-----_/_/_/---_/_/_/---  one of them.       --  Austin, Texas