Dan Goodman > wrote:

> Victor Sack wrote:
>
> > It is very obvious that creating aus.food is of no real importance to
> > you.
>
> Not obvious to me.

Not prepared. Not willing to devote any time to the matter. Not able
or willing to argue congently. Still not obvious?

> I don't see it as a split. It's a proposal for something equivalent to
> the uk.* food newsgroups,

They were a split. Anything that potentially takes actual or future
traffic froam a newsgroup is a split by definition.

> fr.rec.cuisine, and various other national
> food newsgroups.

Irrelevant. They are not English-language newsgroups and take nothing
from rfc.

> There are also a bunch of US-local *.food and *eats
> groups, which I don't consider to be splits of either this newsgroup
> nor restaurant newsgroups.

Most of them are de-facto splits of the rec.food.restaurants newsgroup.
Not of rfc, as Max implicitly points out, as they deal mainly with
restaurants.

Victor