🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Nov9.090122.10836@jato.jpl.nasa.gov> dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov writes:
|I thought I was dealing with rational folk who might have a chance of 
|perhaps considering that maybe there was an inequity in how it was handled.

The problem here is that there is an understanding gap.  It seems that Dave's
position is that the people who are getting the newsgroup through the gateways
that, for some unknown reason, are not going to change the name of the
newsgroup they're gatewaying, are being left behind.

The people arguing against Dave seem to think that Dave's position is simply
that the name should not be changed, for arbitrary reasons.

This is why we're starting to have this kind of misunderstanding of arguments,
because I don't think Dave sees that most people are discarding the argument
of the gateways, since it would obviously be trivial to change the gateway to
use the new group.

I, personally, think that Dave should go complain to whoever is doing the
gatewaying, and tell them that the name has changed and that they should
start gatewaying the new group.  Dave: if the gateways switch, so that everyone
still has the same access to the group, then do you still have a beef with it?

  Bill