Take it somewhere else!

Many of the posts discussing reorganising r.a.s. cite too much noise as a major factor for segregating the group. Personally, I feel that the discussion itself has become noise - loads of articles and follow-ups that are not really relevant to playing auto simulators. I assume that there is a specific newsgroup for this kind of debate. Why can't the discussion move over there, and thereby thin down the irrelevant articles in r.a.s? *********************************************************************** * Paul L. Finnemore - Apprentice Veterinarian * * "I haven't lost my mind. It's backed up on tape somewhere..." * ***********************************************************************

Quoted text (14 lines)

> Many of the posts discussing reorganising r.a.s. cite too much noise as > a major factor for segregating the group. Personally, I feel that the > discussion itself has become noise - loads of articles and follow-ups > that are not really relevant to playing auto simulators. > I assume that there is a specific newsgroup for this kind of debate. Why > can't the discussion move over there, and thereby thin down the > irrelevant articles in r.a.s? > *********************************************************************** > * Paul L. Finnemore - Apprentice Veterinarian * > * "I haven't lost my mind. It's backed up on tape somewhere..." * > ***********************************************************************

Wrong, CFD's must be discussed the in currently affected newsgroup(s).

I quote from an article by Tony Johns (IWCCCARS Project), in which he responds to the question 'Shouldn't this discussion belong in another group'. He replies - 'Yes, it does belong in news.groups, and I have cross-posted this thread there to divert traffic to that group. But questions raised here must be answered as well to present both sides of the question.' I apologise to Tony for quoting his article without permission, but trust that he will not object as been as it was in the public domain anyway. I take it from this that the majority of the threads to which I refered in my original article should indeed be in news.groups? Personally, I would rather follow the discussion there say once a week, rather than having to plough through it all daily when I read r.a.s. However, if indeed it should be discussed here, then let someone confirm this, and I will happily join the throng. regards, Paul. *********************************************************************** * Paul L. Finnemore - Apprentice Veterinarian * * "I haven't lost my mind. It's backed up on tape somewhere..." * ***********************************************************************

On Tue, 23 Jul 1996 18:53:41 -0500, "Thomas E. Retkowski" Thomas, did you even BOTHER to read ANYTHING on newsgroup procedure?!? -- Tony Johns (Hawaii: IWCCCARS) IWCCCARS Project Coordinator

Quoted text (15 lines)

> > On Tue, 23 Jul 1996 18:53:41 -0500, "Thomas E. Retkowski" > > >Wrong, CFD's must be discussed the in currently affected newsgroup(s). > > Thomas, did you even BOTHER to read ANYTHING on newsgroup procedure?!? > > -- > > Tony Johns (Hawaii: IWCCCARS) > > IWCCCARS Project Coordinator > Yes I did and much of the advice I received from those people was > apparently wrong because the RFD, CFD whatever you wish to call it was > an exact clone on the original CFD three years ago for R.A.S.! > Thomas I got an idea. Why don't you take yourself somewhere else.

Your obviously not doing this project or us any good.