Newsgroups: news.misc,alt.internet.services,news.future,news.admin.misc,news.groups
Path: news.clark.net!news.sprintlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!gatech!udel!news.mathworks.com!usenet.eel.ufl.edu!usenet.cis.ufl.edu!caen!hearst.acc.Virginia.EDU!murdoch!chimera.med.Virginia.EDU!mike
From: mike@chimera.med.Virginia.EDU (Mike Chapman)
Subject: Re: The Bible of Usenet *may* be changing its name...
Message-ID: <D2ywLv.3xI@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
Sender: usenet@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU
Organization: Unaffiliated
References: <3fukf8$fb6@clarknet.clark.net> <keoD2xor1.B66@netcom.com> <D2xxHo.EKH@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> <bc.791045675@gate.net>
Date: Wed, 25 Jan 1995 15:34:42 GMT
Lines: 33
Xref: news.clark.net news.misc:14805 alt.internet.services:39088 news.future:5429 news.admin.misc:28707 news.groups:124017

In article <bc.791045675@gate.net>, Bob Curtis <bc@news.gate.net> wrote:
>mike@chimera.med.Virginia.EDU (Mike Chapman) writes:
>
>>In article <keoD2xor1.B66@netcom.com>,
>>Kyle Elisabeth Overstreet <keo@netcom.com> wrote:
>>>A better term: The Usenet Concordance.
>
>>What's wrong with Bible?
>
>Religious overtones, and not very descriptive of the document. 


What doesn't have religious overtones?

(from webster's)

4: a publication that is preeminent esp. in authoritativeness <the
     fisherman's bible> 

Sounds good to me.  I *like* the name Usenet Bible.

>Personally, I didn't look at for the first half-dozen times I say the 
>post, assuming it was a religious discussion, perhaps preaching 'net 
>"morality".
>
>Anyone consider "Usenet Reference Guide"?

That's pretty flat.
-- 
    Citizen Chapman - Intellectual, Militiaman, Hacker, Leader of Men
mike@chimera.med.virginia.edu	I am solely responsible for the content of
mike%doxy@virginia.edu		this message, and in no way represent any 	
Live free or die!		organization unless otherwise indicated.
