Re: [GENERAL] 3rd RFD: comp.databases.postgresql (was: comp.databases.postgresql.*)

2005-03-20 Thread Woodchuck Bill
"Vern" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]: > Marc G. Fournier wrote in Msg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > >> it can't *hurt* to have the group ... > > I respectfully disagree with you, Marc. :) > > The PGSQL* hierarchy is now well distributed, and there is no need > for a comp.* group

Re: [GENERAL] 3rd RFD: comp.databases.postgresql (was: comp.databases.postgresql.*)

2005-03-20 Thread Woodchuck Bill
tm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]: > Woodchuck Bill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> The proponent certainly left a bad taste in my mouth after his >> little ... > > Too much information. > LOL. Get your mind out of the gutter. ;-) -- Bill ---(

Re: [GENERAL] 3rd RFD: comp.databases.postgresql (was: comp.databases.postgresql.*)

2005-03-16 Thread Vern
Marc G. Fournier wrote in Msg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > it can't *hurt* to have the group ... I respectfully disagree with you, Marc. :) The PGSQL* hierarchy is now well distributed, and there is no need for a comp.* group. If anything, the ungated comp.* group will confuse newbies into thinking

Re: [GENERAL] 3rd RFD: comp.databases.postgresql (was: comp.databases.postgresql.*)

2004-12-06 Thread Brian {Hamilton Kelly}
On Saturday, in article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Robert McClenon" wrote: > I think that the term that is occasionally used is that the hierarchy > has a hierarchy czar. That is the most straightforward way to manage > a hierarchy. I did not say that it was the best or the

Re: [GENERAL] 3rd RFD: comp.databases.postgresql (was: comp.databases.postgresql.*)

2004-12-04 Thread Robert McClenon
On 3 Dec 2004 20:34:36 GMT, Woodchuck Bill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >David Harmon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]: > >> On Fri, 3 Dec 2004 00:29:40 + (UTC) in news.groups, Marc G. >> Fournier From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote, >>>The pgsql.* hierarchy is a not a private

Re: [GENERAL] 3rd RFD: comp.databases.postgresql (was: comp.databases.postgresql.*)

2004-12-03 Thread Mike Cox
Mike Cox wrote: > Jan Wieck wrote: > >> On 12/3/2004 3:32 PM, Woodchuck Bill wrote: >> >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] ("Joshua D. Drake") wrote in >>> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]: >>> > So the current state of affairs is that we have the gated, official > pgsql.* newsgroups, and the comp.* stuf

Re: [GENERAL] 3rd RFD: comp.databases.postgresql (was: comp.databases.postgresql.*)

2004-12-03 Thread Mike Cox
Jan Wieck wrote: > On 12/3/2004 3:32 PM, Woodchuck Bill wrote: > >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] ("Joshua D. Drake") wrote in >> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]: >> >>> So the current state of affairs is that we have the gated, official pgsql.* newsgroups, and the comp.* stuff is not gated in either

Re: [GENERAL] 3rd RFD: comp.databases.postgresql (was: comp.databases.postgresql.*)

2004-12-03 Thread Woodchuck Bill
David Harmon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]: > On Fri, 3 Dec 2004 00:29:40 + (UTC) in news.groups, Marc G. > Fournier From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote, >>The pgsql.* hierarchy is a not a private one, it is a public one >>carried by several of the large usenet servers. >

Re: [GENERAL] 3rd RFD: comp.databases.postgresql (was: comp.databases.postgresql.*)

2004-12-02 Thread Mike Cox
Marc G. Fournier From: wrote: > Mike Cox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD) >> unmoderated group comp.databases.postgresql > >>This is a formal Request For Discussion (RFD) for the creation of >>the worldwide unmoderated Usenet newsgroup

Re: [GENERAL] 3rd RFD: comp.databases.postgresql (was: comp.databases.postgresql.*)

2004-12-02 Thread Mike Cox
Marc G. Fournier From: wrote: > Mike Cox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >>Marc G. Fournier From: wrote: > >>> The pgsql.* hierarchy is a not a private one, it is a public one carried >>> by several of the large usenet servers. > >>Doesn't "private" denote a hierarchy in its own domain such as >>