🚀 go-pugleaf

>Rec.games.programmer is for the discussion of the implementation of
>computer games.  Questions like "What data structure is appropriate 
>for storing a game map" are probably appopriate.  A certain amount of
>PC hardware specific discussion (ie, "How is mode X more appropriate 
>for arcade games programming than mode 0x13"), with code examples, etc
>is probably appropriate.  I say probably, because many questions are
>of a hazy nature where they can't be pigeon holed.  The best we can do
>is for people to use some thought and consideration when adding 
>"rec.games.programmer" to the "Newsgroups:" line.  In the future, 
>please think about where your post really belongs, and do the other
>netters the courtesy of sending it there.  We all have made this

	Well i'm sure this must sound ok in theory, buty it doesn't
work very well. Those of us who have trie dother groups know how bad it
is over there.
	The lang groups like pascal rarley have anyone who either knows
or will answer questions on graphics.
	Lang groups like C send you 12,000 messages saying you geek, never
post ibm specific questions or we'll kill you, try games.programmer instead.
	I have never gotten an answer from any hardware group.
	Even if this group is inappropriate, it is one of the few groups
where i know i can find someone with the answers. Lets face it, there are
very few people who use these techniques (fast bit blts) except games, and the
market for support books is hideous. Even our local support groups here,
normally gurus, don't know half of what i can get from this group.
	Plus I've never seen it hurt anyone.
	I'm all for splitting the group to a new ibm-graphics group, but
i'm not going to keep wasting time on other groups where i know i won't
get an answer.