From: jimrtex@pipeline.com 
  
 On Thu, 10 Jul 2003 10:29:48 -0700, Russ Allbery  
 wrote: 
  
 >Jim Riley  writes: 
 >> Russ Allbery  wrote: 
 >>> Jim Riley  writes: 
  
 >>> I'm not sure that I see the distinction between those two topics. 
 > 
 >> "When I compiled my code with the -strictcompliance flag set, I got an 
 >> error message, what'd I do wrong?" is not really about standardization. 
 > 
 >It's about the standards and is a perfectly reasonable thing to discuss in 
 >a comp.std.* group.  It also directly informs the standardization process 
 >not infrequently, since those sorts of discussions expose edge cases and 
 >unclear areas in the standard. 
  
 "I get an error message, what's wrong." 
  
 "You should ask on microsoft.*, this group is for discussing the 
 standardization of the language c#" 
  
 "I don't get that group." 
  
 "I'm not using the Microsoft compiler." 
  
 "This is the only *Usenet* group for c#" 
  
 >>> If it gets too much regular language use discussion, that would be an 
 >>> excellent justification for creating a new comp.lang.* group, yes? 
 > 
 >> And if they don't get enough votes to create that group?  They're stuck 
 >> with the group as it is. 
 > 
 >Then there wasn't too much regular language use discussion to actually 
 >bother enough people to do something about it, was there? 
  
 Why split the group simply because it is misplaced, and not serving 
 its intended purpose? 
  
 -- 
 Jim Riley 
  
 --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05 
  * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)