Re: List of postgresql rogue groups (was Re: Important Info on comp.databases.postgresql.general)

"Max" wrote:
> >
> > barbara(at)bookpro(dot)com wrote in
news:10outlgpkitaq20(at)corp(dot)supernews(dot)com:
> >
> > >>The other issue is that I would like to add the other postgresql
> > >>groups for consideration to be included into the big 8. However
there
> > >>are quite a few of them, and I don't know if all of them deserve
to be
> > >>there. They are all under comp.databases.postgresql.*, and I
highly
> > >>doubt Marc would want to eliminate them.
>
> I think Marc understands by now that these lists won't be eliminated.
It's a
> parallel process. Let's start with a few and create the other groups
down
> the road. An RFD with 21 groups has a good chance to be rejected, not
> because they are not relevant, just because it's too many at one
time. I
> assume a second RFD should be 'filed' in 6 months with the remaining
groups,
> and should be nothing more than a cruise.
>

Cruise my ass. Marc was a dumbfuck for setting up the rogue newsgroups
like he did. There is no way in hell that your gonna get *ALL* the
newsgroups. Thats not how Usenet works. Be happy with whatever you get.
We're doing you the favor. Not the other way around. Show us some
appreciation for Christs sake.