Article View: comp.sys.ti.explorer
Article #90Re: This group, other lispms
From: Brad Miller
Date: Tue, 17 Oct 1989 00:37
Date: Tue, 17 Oct 1989 00:37
18 lines
1350 bytes
1350 bytes
Date: 16 Oct 89 21:00:26 GMT
From: philmtl!philabs!mkr@uunet.uu.net (Michael K. Reed)
Let me know. Please, no "How DARE you discuss THOSE machines
in a group for OUR machines" flames. I'm just seeing if some
other people feel as I do, and if so, what might be done.
I'm not directly opposed to such a thing, but I will note the reason for the
lack of existance of a comp.sys.symbolics is because of the existance of the
SLUG mailing list. (SLUG = Symbolics Lisp User's Group)
To get on it, send mail to SLUG-REQUEST@AI.SRI.COM
Also note that the majority of what is discussed on both lists has to do
with available software, configurations, etc. and therefore there really IS
very little overlap, 80% of the time. I therefore see no compelling reason
to merge groups...
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<19891017003741.8.MILLER@DOUGHNUT.CS.ROCHESTER.EDU>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!CS.ROCHESTER.EDU!millerReferences:
<65619@philabs.Philips.Com>Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!CS.ROCHESTER.EDU!miller From: miller@CS.ROCHESTER.EDU (Brad Miller) Newsgroups: comp.sys.ti.explorer Subject: Re: This group, other lispms Message-ID: <19891017003741.8.MILLER@DOUGHNUT.CS.ROCHESTER.EDU> Date: 17 Oct 89 00:37:00 GMT References: <65619@philabs.Philips.Com> Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU Reply-To: miller@cs.rochester.edu Distribution: inet Organization: University of Rochester, Department of Computer Science Lines: 18