Mark said:
Some time earlier this month, people were discussing a change to daily
acf posting that I made. What was the outcome of that discussion?
The last couple of posts about that are in this thread:
http://groups.google.ca/groups?hl=e...ecember%202004&as_scoring=d&lr=&num=100&hl=en
Subject: alt.comp.freeware information 17 December 2004
I posted this:
IMO this revision accords with the current consensus of opinion:
This is the ALT.COMP.FREEWARE newsgroup. FREEWARE posts are welcome.
alt.comp.freeware newsgroups include:
alt.comp.freeware (ACF)
alt.comp.freeware.games (ACFG)
alt.comp.freeware.discussion (ACF's chat room)
alt.comp.freeware.gdp (inactive)
alt.binaries.freeware (related binary newsgroup)
Search alt.comp.freeware
http://google.ca/advanced_group_search?q=+group:alt.comp.freeware
<Snipped unchanged information>
-------------------------------
Karen posted:
IMO this revision accords with the current consensus of opinion:
This is the ALT.COMP.FREEWARE newsgroup. FREEWARE posts are welcome.
I'd be inclined to have that first line set off, as top line, and to
move the list of other groups down to the end of the post.
alt.comp.freeware newsgroups include:
alt.comp.freeware (ACF)
alt.comp.freeware.games (ACFG)
alt.comp.freeware.discussion (ACF's chat room)
alt.comp.freeware.gdp (inactive)
alt.binaries.freeware (related binary newsgroup)
This is definitely an improvement over before. Provides more complete
info on freeware alt groups.
With the groups listing positioned at the end of the post, a tad more
annotation would be workable (if it were wanted?), without it being too
much distracting clutter. But I am not sure what would make for a good
form of wording for adding a brief warning-type note on binary groups.
