From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.5-pre1 (2020-06-20) on
	ip-172-31-74-118.ec2.internal
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham
	autolearn_force=no version=3.4.5-pre1
Date: 17 Dec 92 08:47:27 GMT
From: enterpoop.mit.edu!eru.mt.luth.se!lunic!sunic!mcsun!ub4b!sunbim!usenet@ucb
vax.Berkeley.EDU
Subject: Re: Lets split comp.lang.ada into multiple groups to confine flames
Message-ID: <1992Dec17.084727.26313@sunbim.be>
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

In article 62879@mimsy.umd.edu, alex@cs.umd.edu (Alex Blakemore) writes:
>make comp.lang.ada obsolete and create a small set of groups instead.
>
>  some suggestions
>
>    comp.lang.advocacy   - for the flame wars
>    comp.lang.programmer - for discussions of design/development Ada language 
issues
>                           (or comp.lang.technical or better name?)
>    comp.lang.announce   - moderated, low volume important announcements
>                           of meetings, products, standards, new mandates :) e
tc
>    comp.lang.misc       - catch all
>
>this works well in the NeXT groups which I've been reading lately
>they have huge flame fests between Objective-C and C++ but confine
>them to the advocacy group.
>
>anyone interested or familiar with how to do this?
>
>P.S. For people worried about getting overrun by C++, stop worrying
>and do something to contribute to Ada's success instead of flaming.
>Does anyone else program in Ada on a NeXT using a DVORAK keyboard?
>Talk about swimming against the tide.
>
>-- 
>---------------------------------------------------
>Alex Blakemore alex@cs.umd.edu   NeXT mail accepted


I like the idea and the division as proposed sounds reasonable.
Frank