From:
Eric O'Connor <geo@cachestash.com>
Sent: 12/28/2001 4:23:26 PM
To:
gpsstash@yahoogroups.com
Cc:
Bcc:
Subject:

Re: [gpsstash] Do we want a usenet group? (RFD)



Eoghan wrote:

>If a consensus starts to emerge about a name, we could always start an alt.
>group to show the traffic is there (alt.rec.outdoors.geocaching for
>example) and then try to get it into the _real_ hierarchy. Much easier to
>start with.

Actually, I initially debated (with myself) the idea of submitting
alt.geocaching to alt.config.

alt groups are far easier to initiate, but I was afraid that this
might further disperse information if/when the rec group was approved.

I'n not in any way opposed to an alt.group, most of the groups I read
are in that hierarchy. I'm even willing to claim a little used group
for our own if needed. alt.furry.weasle.pet.pet.pet* works every bit
as well as rec.outdoors.geocaching if it's being picked up by most
news feeds.

I just thought we should take the high road, since this is a very
legitimate request. We can settle for alt later on if we must.

I'm not comfortable with posting geocaching related content in
sci.geo.satellite-nav, it seems like irresponsible behavior to me.

* I have no idea if AFWPPP actually exist, but I wouldn't be
surprised.