🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <779@orbit.UUCP> steve@pnet51.cts.com (Steve Yelvington) writes:
| greg@bilbo (Greg Wageman) writes:
| >In article <11179@ut-emx.UUCP> osmigo@emx.UUCP (Ron Morgan) writes:
| >>>[George Woodside posts a continuation of "Virus 101"]
| >>You mentioned 1 out of 4 e-mail respondents falling in the "you idiot!"
| >>category. Count me, too, you idiot...|-:}
| >*You* are the idiot.
| This sort of thing is precisely why a virus newsgroup is needed: so that
| flatulent debate, bickering, name-calling and pointless chewing-up of net
| bandwidth can be confined to a single easily ignored newsgroup. Then perhaps
| messages of *substance* about viruses can be cross-posted.

I've been staying out of this till now, but Steve's comments were too
much.  Comp.virus is NOT being created so people can call one another
names.  If you think so, you are sadly mistaken and simply have not
read the proposal.  I suggest that you look at a few back issues of
the mailing list virus-l to get a feeling for the proposed group.  They
can be found, among other places, on lll-winken.llnl.gov (anonymous ftp).

If you want to call people names, use email.  If you really feel it
deserves to be posted, I suggest you form a new group,
	alt.virus.meta-discussions&flamage

Anyone who has questions regarding comp.virus, the appropriate place
to discuss them is in news.groups.

-- 
Jim Wright
jwright@atanasoff.cs.iastate.edu