> Done, but I said it in a nice way :)
> - Jim
> S. Isaac Dealey wrote:
>> They definately don't belong there... It's funny, I've
>> never seen them
>> anywhere but in the programming section next to C++ ...
>> (Not popular
>> enough to be on the end-cap next to XML for Dummies I
>> guess.) But then
>> it's been a little while since I've seriously been in a
>> book store
>> looking for CF books.
>>
>> Though I do think we should complain to Amazon.com for
>> not having a
>> ColdFusion section on this page:
>>
>> http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/browse/-/4021/ref=br
>> _bx_c_2_4/002
>> -1274419-3838416
>>
>>
>>
>> > I don't think it matters, since we all know where they
>> > are
>> > anyways :-)
>>
>> > -----Original Message-----
>> > From: Owens, Howard
>> > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> > Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2003 6:45 PM
>> > To: CF-Talk
>> > Subject: RE: CFV: comp.lang.coldfusion Usenet Newsgroup
>>
>>
>> > Speaking of more legitimacy -- what's up with chain
>> > bookstores always filing
>> > the CF titles under "graphic/web design"?
>>
>> > I asked an employee of my local Barnes and Nobel the
>> > other
>> > day and he said
>> > this was a corporate decision.
>>
>> > Personally, it always irks me that CF books aren't in
>> > with
>> > the programming
>> > books. Maybe we should all start complaining to the
>> > chains about this, and
>> > MM -- MM should file its own protests. I think.
>>
>> > H.
>>
>>
>>
>> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>> > Howard Owens
>> > Internet Operations Coordinator
>> > Ventura County Star / E.W. Scripps Co.
>> > www.venturacountystar.com
>> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> > AIM: GoCatGo1956
>> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>
>> >> -----Original Message-----
>> >> From: Dave Hodder [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> >> Sent: Saturday, September 27, 2003 12:38 PM
>> >> To: CF-Talk
>> >> Subject: Re: CFV: comp.lang.coldfusion Usenet
>> >> Newsgroup
>> >>
>> >> Jim McAtee wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > There's already a CF newsgroup. Why the need for
>> >> > another?
>> >>
>> >> It's covered in the comp.lang.coldfusion rationale.
>> >> Some
>> >> of us on the
>> >> existing alt.comp.lang.coldfusion group feel a
>> >> "proper"
>> >> comp.* group
>> >> would give ColdFusion more legitimacy, as well as the
>> >> group having
>> >> better propagation, longer message retention periods,
>> >> etc.
>> >>
>> >> Regards,
>> >>
>> >> Dave
>> >>
>> >> _____
>> >>
>> >> [ Todays Threads
>> > _____
>>
>>
>> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>> > ~~~
>>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
