🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <SACHS.93Jan24001910@rr5.FID.Morgan.COM>, sachs@FID.Morgan.COM (Josef Sachs) writes:
> In case anyone didn't see the newgroup control messages, here they are:
> 
>   From: daveh@vax.ox.ac.uk (Dave Hastings, OUCS)
>   Newsgroups: alt.games.tiddlywinks.ctl
>   Subject: newgroup alt.games.tiddlywinks
>   Message-ID: <1993Jan20.163138.2862@clts1.comlab.ox.ac.uk>
>   Date: 20 Jan 93 16:31:38 GMT
>   Control: newgroup alt.games.tiddlywinks
>   Sender: Malcolm.Harper@comlab.ox.ac.uk (Malcolm Harper)
>   Organization: Oxford University Computing Services, UK
>   Lines: 10
>   Approved: news@comlab.ox.ac.uk
>   Originator: malcolm@clts1.comlab
>   Nntp-Posting-Host: clts1.comlab.ox.ac.uk
> 
>   Charter:
> 
>   To promote discussion about the game of tiddlywinks, enable announcements as
>   to forthcoming tournaments, descriptions of tournament results and general
>   discussion as to the rules and nature of the game.
> 
>   For your newsgroups file:
>   alt.games.tiddlywinks : All aspects of the game of Tiddlywinks
> 
Right, I'll admit it, I got my local news manager to send that one, and he very
obligingly did so.

> and:
> 
>   From: news@signal.dra.hmg.gb
>   Newsgroups: alt.games.tiddlywinks.ctl
>   Subject: newgroup alt.games.tiddlywinks
>   Message-ID: <news-alt.games.tiddlywinks-21-Jan-1993-143616-WET@signal.dra.hmg.gb>
>   Date: 21 Jan 93 12:36:16 GMT
>   Control: newgroup alt.games.tiddlywinks
>   Lines: 8
>   Approved: news
> 
>   The idea behind having a group for winks on the NET is to allow for the
>   following:
> 
>    - Publication by the national organisations of their tournaments
>    - Posting of tournament reports, as well as articles from journals of
>      the national organisations
>    - To allow general discussion of the game, proposals and counter-
>      proposals about its rules, etc.
> 
> Would the authors of the above messages care to introduce themselves to us?
> I was wondering whether the two messages were the product of collaboration.
> It's just a bit weird -- I don't recall ever before seeing a USENET newsgroup
> newgroup'ed by multiple parties.
> 
> I'm a bit irked to see a winks newsgroup in the alt.games hierarchy.  Wouldn't
> alt.sport have been far superior?  As it is, I believe a.g.t to be the first
> group in alt.games or rec.games for a game which requires physical activity
> in any real sense (no offense intended to players of board games, video games,
> and computer games).

Yes well, the history of the thing is that once I had decided to try and start
a group and got the go ahead from the ETwA council I mailed off to alt.config
saying something along the lines of `hey, why don't we start a group called
alt.tiddlywinks?' and got the instant response from various quarters of `call
the thing alt.games.tiddlywinks instead' and so it came to pass and so it was,
so that's why.

>  Can we agree on rec.sport.tiddlywinks if we ever go
> "mainstream"?
> 

If you like, but I don't suppose that'll happen for a bit really.

> In any event, I'm looking forward to new avenues of interaction with winkers
> and winker-wannabes around the world.
> -- 
> Josef Sachs                     \     Morgan Stanley & Co., Inc.
> sachs@FID.Morgan.COM             \    1251 Avenue of the Americas
> Fixed Income Research Department  \   New York, NY  10020 USA
> (212) 703-7031                     \


Julian Porter

Josef Sachs writes
> In case anyone didn't see the newgroup control messages, here they are:
> ...
> Would the authors of the above messages care to introduce themselves to  
us?

Well the latter was mine. And in your great spirit of introductions,
my name is Anthony, I'm 36-28-34, and I like animals. I hope to save
the world someday. I was also president of CUTwC in 1989-1990.

The former was courtesy of Julian Porter, perhaps the greatest
Secretary ETwA has ever known. I'm sure he'll introduce himself
anyway...

> I was wondering whether the two messages were the product of  
collaboration.
> It's just a bit weird -- I don't recall ever before seeing a USENET  
newsgroup
> newgroup'ed by multiple parties.

I think the confusion is yours - there is a long-running joke
that newgroup messages should take the place of votes in the alt.
hierarchy - i.e. a group should get 100 more of them than rmgroup
messages. This is, of course, not serious, but a couple of different
starting places at least helps the chances of propagation.

> 
> I'm a bit irked to see a winks newsgroup in the alt.games hierarchy.   
Wouldn't
> alt.sport have been far superior?

Arguably. It was discussed on alt.config for a while, as most people
noted - certainly Larry and Rick from your side of the pond. There is
an argument which says that the "sport" of winks will appeal mostly to
those who are interested in games, rather than being mixed up with
a lot of sweaty neanderthals who like ranting about wrestling. But
I don't suppose anyone else feels too strongly...

You're on fairly dodgy ground with your comparisons, particularly
video-games. How would you class virtual-reality tennis? And do
snooker and pool players insist on their activity being called a
sport?

Anthony
--------------------------------
Pugwash is not a water-game.