Irene Waters  wrote: 
 >TK, 
  
 >I think the most important point in my response below is that I am certainly 
 >open to an alt.invest.bonds group. 
  
 >Tell me how to do it, and if misc.invest.bonds fails, then it will be the 
 >fallback. 
  
 I think your (Irene's) approach on this issue is the right one. 
 A few years back I might have also suggested an alt.* group to 
 begin with for certain situations.  I wouldn't have thought this 
 was one of those.  But moreso now, some alt.* groups tend to have 
 their own inertia, making a move to a Big-8 equivalent actually 
 more difficult, rather than easing it by demonstrating usage.  It 
 does depend on the situation, but having gone this far, you might 
 as well keep going.  If the proposal fails, then start thinking 
 about whether you want to start an alt.* group to get some 
 momentum, or if your subsequent efforts would be better spent 
 on pulling in bond-specific discussions in one of the existing 
 groups (say, by posting a widely distributed bond FAQ that 
 suggests the chosen existing misc.invest group as the place 
 to go).  In the event of a failure, you would be better off 
 proposing the group again if the centralization of discussion 
 happens in an existing Big-8 group than in an alt.* group. 
  
 But don't worry about that right now.  I agree that you should 
 continue to focus on getting THIS proposal passed. 
  
 ru 
  
 -- 
 My standard proposals rant: 
 Quality, usefulness, merit, or non-newsgroups popularity of a topic 
 is more or less irrelevant in creating a new Big-8 newsgroup. 
 Usenet popularity is the primary consideration. 
  
 --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05 
  * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)