🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <9418:Apr1121:48:4291@kramden.acf.nyu.edu> brnstnd@kramden.acf.nyu.edu (Dan Bernstein) writes:
>In article <1991Apr11.022612.2522@rick.doc.ca> csr@calvin.doc.ca (Andrew Patrick) writes:
>> There has been a lot of activity "behind-the-scenes" among the reviewers
>> in getting the newsgroup setup.
>
>Of course. So all the people who voted for the group are now getting
>a group that may only loosely correspond to what was proposed at first.
>This isn't a flame, just an observation.

How, pray tell, do you reach this conclusion?

Don't get me wrong, I didn't vote for the group either.  But it seems
to me that some amount of "behind the scenes" work has to occur for
just about anything that is set up on the net, simply because this
isn't real life - we aren't working in the same office building and
can't "watch" everything that goes on.

I will probably never submit anything to the group.  It seems pointless
and redundant and spiteful.  You want feedback and testing - use
alt.sources as your beta-test facility, then pick one of the other
groups for the finished product.
-- 
John F. Haugh II        | Distribution to  | UUCP: ...!cs.utexas.edu!rpp386!jfh
Ma Bell: (512) 832-8832 | GEnie PROHIBITED :-) |  Domain: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org
"If liberals interpreted the 2nd Amendment the same way they interpret the
 rest of the Constitution, gun ownership would be mandatory."