[14849] in APO-L
Re: Suggestion for APO lists
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (S. Dawn (Bug) Heyse)
Wed Aug 14 04:12:10 1996
Date: Wed, 14 Aug 1996 04:18:05 -0400
Reply-To: "S. Dawn (Bug) Heyse" <heyses@WINNIE.FIT.EDU>
From: "S. Dawn (Bug) Heyse" <heyses@WINNIE.FIT.EDU>
To: Multiple recipients of list APO-L <APO-L@VM.CC.PURDUE.EDU>
In-Reply-To: <199608140354.XAA03649@winnie.fit.edu>
On Tue, 13 Aug 1996, High Lord of Chaos wrote:
> > I too remember the discussion about splitting apo-l and creating aposoc-l.
> > However, the issues are different this time, and therefore, I suggest we do
> > not split the lists.
> *reasons and discussion deleted*
> I agree with Riot, and he said it better than I could.
> > So, I vote no on this idea.
> Me too.
I also agree with Riot and Hawkeye. If APO-L was a high-volume list, the
split might be justifiable, but it isn't. Riot's other points are also
valid.
Mark me down as a "no", as well.
Bug
http://www.fit.edu/~heyses
**************************************
"Tis so," said the Duchess: "and the moral of that is--'Oh, 'tis love,
'tis love that makes the world go round'"
"Somebody said," Alice whispered, "that it's done by everybody minding
their own business!"
--Lewis Carroll
