🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <699@stag.UUCP> to_stdnet@stag.UUCP writes:
>From: dal@syntel.UUCP (Dale Schumacher)
>
>[Ordania-DM@cup.portal.com (Charles K Hughes) writes...]
>> 
>>   I never saw that discussion and I have been reading this newsgroup for 6
>> months now.  So far the requests for the ZMAG posting have been all favorable 
>> except yours.  There seems to be no reason not to post ZMAG that I can see; as
>I was hoping (as I expect a lot of others on the net were) that this would
>die quietly and I wouldn't have to waste net-space to argue it.  The intro

Likewise...This kind of thing comes up every couple month in various
newsgroups on the net. I wasn't overly impressed with the contents of
ZMAG, either, but my main objections to posting it are the same as
the first time this was 'voted' on. There simply weren't enough people
that showed an interest in having it posted. Just because 10 or 15
people say they want 'frequent-volume' postings doesn't hold much water when you
consider the size of the USENET readership (something like >100,000
'readers' on >15,000 computers). Granted, only 3-4 thousand people may
end up reading the Atari section of USENET, but your postings still
get mailed to every one of those >15,000 computers. Please keep this
stuff limited to mailing lists or petition to get a sub-group started
(comp.sys.atari.st.rags?).

  -Todd Burkey    "A member of STdNET - The ST developers' Network"
   trb@stag.UUCP  "Using UUMAIL-an ST PD networking UUCP/mail system"