🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <m2u47iw7f9.fsf@iwtspc09.mpi.nl> marc@mpi.nl (Marc Fleischeuers) writes:
   In article <40rnmo$5sm@boris.eden.com> DvdS@eden.com  (David Vanderschel) writes:

>%  SNIP  %<

   My estimate is that only half of the posts is GNU Emacs specific, the
   rest is of general interest or specific to some other implemetation.

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

   Whats wrong with comp.emacs and gnu.emacs.*?

      (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.)

   Go talk to the folk in comp.emacs.xemacs, they'll tell you otherwise.

--

In case anyone cares, here's my pair of tarnished metal bits:

    comp.emacs.gnu
    comp.emacs.xemacs
    comp.emacs.others

This partitioning reflects the organizational structure of Usenet
far more accurately than comp.emacs-gnu and comp.emacs-other would.
Further, I believe the first two are by far the most popular
variants of our virtual Swiss Army knife, making it appropriate to
give each its own discussion panel while all of the other cheap,
imitation knives could be discussed in the other column.  As it is,
having a group denoted by a double rather than a triple doesn't seem
quite aesthetically pleasing.  Finally, it reflects the superiority
of emacs, which is far more than just an editor (and should
therefore NOT be lumped under comp.editors.* with all of the other
trash.)  ;}


tahoma
--
 ---------------------------------------------------------------
|      Tahoma M. Toelkes      | 100% Micro$loth-free computing. |
| ttoelkes@dkslwr.cr.usgs.gov | No, I don't speak for the USGS. |
 ---------------------------------------------------------------