That's my point. Why not go with the existing rec.gardens.cacti?
I see you have not done your homework either, Jorgen. At least you are a
cactophile with familiarity with what's already out there.
Are you a member of the CSSA? Do you get the journal?
Did you check out their home page, the Cacti_etc homepage or the Cactus
I have yet to read from anyone who has made the connections between the
three, especially Bruno (Psycho Cactus) himself. I'm not going to do it for
Jorgen Grahn <jgrahn-nntp at algonet.se> wrote in message
news:slrn9uj1uu.h3.jgrahn-nntp at frailea.sa.invalid...
> [followup set]
>> On Wed, 7 Nov 2001 08:48:46 -0000, Brian Watson
<brian at spheroid.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> > "Cereoid*" <cereoid at prodigy.net> wrote in message
> > news:HS0G7.640$S61.105125961 at newssvr15.news.prodigy.com...> ...
> >> Cacti_etc already
> >> serves as the official source for information
> > Official? In what way "official"?
>> I'd say it's "unofficially official" ;-)
>> I agree with Cereoid about one thing: rec.gardens.cacti won't steal the
> audience from cacti_etc or the smaller, Yahoo-based mailing lists. If
> anything, it will be a place where you recruit new members to the list.
>> That's how *I* found out about cacti_etc back in '95 -- by asking around
>> So let's just create the group properly and see what happens, shall we?
> // Jorgen Grahn <jgrahn@ ''Battle ye not with monsters,
> \X/ algonet.se> lest ye become a monster''