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: 18 Dec 92 18:39:34 GMT
From: eachus@mitre-bedford.arpa  (Robert I. Eachus)
Subject: Re: Lets split comp.lang.ada into multiple groups to confine flames
Message-ID: <EACHUS.92Dec18133934@oddjob.mitre.org>
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 langua
ge issues
   >                           (or comp.lang.technical or better name?)
   >    comp.lang.announce   - moderated, low volume important announcements
   >                           of meetings, products, standards, new mandates :
) etc
   >    comp.lang.misc       - catch all

   If this is becomming a serious proposal, the names should be
comp.lang.ada.programmer, etc.  However comp.lang.advocacy might be
more appropriate than having a separate group for each language.  (Of
course, as soon as this is mentioned in news.groups, the C and C++
groups will play keep up with the Jones.)



--

					Robert I. Eachus

with Standard_Disclaimer;
use  Standard_Disclaimer;
function Message (Text: in Clever_Ideas) return Better_Ideas is...