🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1ejd2mINN2uv@MINERVA.CIS.YALE.EDU> randall-joshua@yale.edu (Joshua Randall) writes:
>I've got a whole lot of problems with this message.
>
>In article <1992Nov20.171751.25602@sparky.imd.sterling.com> votes@sparky.sterling.com writes:
>>There has been an on going discussion as to whether SHAREWARE is 
>>acceptable for posting in the group comp.sources.misc.  This has 
>>been a topic that flares up  everytime that a piece of SHAREWARE 
>>is posted to the group. [...]

Given the volume of shareware around the place, I suggest a separate group
might be more appropriate:  comp.sources.shareware?

On the other hand, shareware is usually "freely" available from commercial
sources at reasonable prices, so why clutter USENET with it?

Of more interest would be user reviews of shareware products, which
would include PC-SIG disk numbers, author's address, and asking price
for registration of the product.

-- 
Ian Staples                       | Internet : ianst@qdpii.comp.qdpi.oz.au
c/- P.O. Box 1054,                | Fax      : +61 (0)70 923 593
MAREEBA  Queensland  4880         | Voice    : +61 (0)70 921 555
Australia.                        | Home     : +61 (0)70 924 847