🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1147@runx.ips.oz>, clubmac@runx.ips.oz (Macintosh Users Group) writes:
> 2) I personally appreciate the postings of updates to Lightspeed C & Pascal,
>    but I wonder just how many subscribers to comp.binaries.mac use them;
Quite a few actually, I should think and it is a much faster way of getting
upgrades then writing to Think Technologies and asking for them. It is also
the major source of upgrades for universities and they also use LSC and LSP
quite a great deal I should think.
 
> 4) Postings such as NetHack are too big (and expensive) as a single posting
>    to be cost effective. NetHack is probably already available from BMUG,
>    BCS and other MUGs. When there is talk of comp.binaries.mac being a 
>    borderline case with the USENET lords, I think that large postings
>    should be filtered out by the comp.{binaries,sources}.mac moderator,
>    Roger Long.
I beg to differ. Though I don't find everything useful, some large postings
may actually be useful.
 
> Australian readers of comp.sys.mac cannot get access to the INFO-MAC archives,
> so we rely on Roger Long's postings to get some of it (a dribble).
> 
> Wouldn't most readers of comp.sys.mac prefer to see more of the SMALLER
> and more useful postings (as described in the INFO-MAC digests) rather
> than these HUGE postings, which are specialist? 
I agree but that doesn't mean we should stop all huge postings. Perhaps just
be more cautious.
 
> Jason Haines, President
> 
> Club Mac Macintosh Users Group, Sydney, Australia


---------------------
J.T. Teh
===========================
UUCP:	{seismo,mcvax,ukc,ubc-vision}!mulga!jteh
ARPA:	jteh%mulga.oz@seismo.css.gov
CSNET:	jteh%mulga.oz@australia