At 05:57 PM 11/23/2004, Jim Seymour wrote:
>Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> >
>[snip]
> >
> > Personally I think Marc should have waited awhile longer to see whether
> > the news.groups process would produce a positive vote, but that's just
> > my own $0.02.
>
>That's the way *I* would've preferred to see it handled. Then again:
>*I* was looking forward to the pgsql discussions widely propagated in
>Usenet. Others may not care.
>
> > He may well have decided that that wasn't going anywhere.
> > The part of the discussion that has reached this list certainly has not
> > given one cause to think it will :-(
>
>Au contraire. It looked to me like the general attitude was "Well,
>some wrong stuff happened, but now that they've been around as long as
>they have, where they have, maybe best to just let 'em become real."
That's how DataBasix was looking at it once it was discovered the groups
were bogus. But it appears the best thing to do is drop them.
