🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <LIa7qAJNBh107h@momad.UUCP> taz%momad@infoserv.com writes:

>P.S.  I cross-posted this to alt.config also, as a possible alternative,
>to make a sub-heirarchy 'alt.topical.*'   But I think that it would deserve
>its own heirarchy.

In response to alt.inet92, I newgrouped alt.current-events.inet92 a
long time ago for that *very* purpose.  Unfortunately, the nature of
"topical" newsgroups causes people to rush out and send out newgroup
messages uncontrollably without suggesting them to begin with,
defeating the idea of a hierarchy for them.  Still, the hierarchy is
there should anyone care to use it.

Nice try, though.

-- 
____ Tim Pierce                / "You are just naive and repressed because
\  / twpierce@unix.amherst.edu /  penis envy is here and it's now and it's
 \/ (BITnet: TWPIERCE@AMHERST) /  all around you." -- Neal C. Wickham

In article <LIa7qAJNBh107h@momad.UUCP> taz@momad.UUCP (Sysop) writes:

   topical.election
   topical.election.clinton
   topical.election.perot
   topical.rodney.king
   topical.virus.michaelangelo(sp?)
   topical.hurrricane.andrew
   topical.recession
   topical.soviet-union

Why not alt.election, etc?  Really?  Or how about trial.election?
-- 
Ed McGuire                   1603 LBJ Freeway, Suite 780
Systems Administrator/       Dallas, Texas 75234
 Member of Technical Staff   214/620-2100, FAX 214/484-8110
Intellection, Inc.           <ed@intellection.com>

In article <LIa7qAJNBh107h@momad.UUCP> taz%momad@infoserv.com writes:
>
>I would like to propose a new heirarchy:

    Oh no, not again.

>The groups within this heirarchy would last througout the lifetime of
>the topic itself, and then would be cancelled.

    Then Bruce Becker would newgroup them again.  Isn't this fun?

>Of course, there would
>have to be new guidelines for proposing a new topic within this heirarchy,
>as a long voting period would defeat the purpose of 'timely' topical
>newsgroups.

    And what good are guidelines when you have jerks that have no
    respect for the net?

>I would appreciate any comments about this proposal, and would not
>appreciate flames. :-)

    Please - leave us alone.

>Thanks for listening

    <sigh>

--
============================================================================
| Help stamp out stupid .signature files!           Gerry Swetsky  WB9EBO  |
|                 vpnet - Public access Unix and Usenet                    |
| Home (708)833-8122       vpnet (708)833-8126      lisbon@vpnet.chi.il.us |
============================================================================

In article <EMCGUIRE.92Oct28171011@fuller.intellection.com> emcguire@intellection.com (Ed McGuire) writes:
>In article <LIa7qAJNBh107h@momad.UUCP> taz@momad.UUCP (Sysop) writes:
>
>   topical.election
[others deleted]

>
>Why not alt.election, etc?  Really?  Or how about trial.election?

   I think the point is that the groups in this hierarchy would be removed
after a short period of time. Perhaps a group would be created with a 
specific sunset date. If it is to extend beyond that date, then it would
need a new vote. 
   I think the idea is to have real rules about voting, but with fewer
votes needed. So alt and trial (does anyone get trial?) aren't the same.

DanZ

-- 
    "I think it is a little premature to attribute the failures of American
     foriegn policy to Carl Kadie."
                                                     -Mike Godwin
This article for entertainment purposes only.

lisbon@vpnet.chi.il.us (Gerry Swetsky) writes:

> taz%momad@infoserv.com writes:
>
> >I would like to propose a new heirarchy:
> 
>     Oh no, not again.
> 
> >The groups within this heirarchy would last througout the lifetime of
> >the topic itself, and then would be cancelled.
> 
>     Then Bruce Becker would newgroup them again.  Isn't this fun?
> 
> >Of course, there would
> >have to be new guidelines for proposing a new topic within this heirarchy,
> >as a long voting period would defeat the purpose of 'timely' topical
> >newsgroups.
> 
>     And what good are guidelines when you have jerks that have no
>     respect for the net?

That's not quite correct. Bruce, deranged as he is, actually believes he's
doing things correctly according to the "guidelines" of alt. The proposal
here for a new bottom-level heirarchy would have a completely different set
of guidelines.

It's possible that not enough people will support such a heirarchy for it
to succeed, but that's an entirely different issue. 

						- k
-- 
Craig Harding            kilroy@acme.gen.nz             ACME BBS +64 6 3551342
"Jub'er lbh pnyyvat n obmb?"

I think a "topical.*" heirarchy might be a good idea.  There are
a heck of a lot of alt.* groups, some serious, some not.  If you want
to talk about the issues of the day, it would be easier to find them
if you had a specific place to look for them. 

			-Richard Hartman
			hartman@uLogic.COM

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
I think.  I think I am.  Therefore ... I *am*!  (I think....)

In article <1992Oct29.022926.2422@vpnet.chi.il.us> lisbon@vpnet.chi.il.us (Gerry Swetsky) writes:
>In article <LIa7qAJNBh107h@momad.UUCP> taz%momad@infoserv.com writes:
>>
>>I would like to propose a new heirarchy:
>
>    Oh no, not again.

This starts out well.  Obviously this will be a level headed,
thoughtful, reply.

>>The groups within this heirarchy would last througout the lifetime of
>>the topic itself, and then would be cancelled.
>
>    Then Bruce Becker would newgroup them again.  Isn't this fun?

Put a Becker filter on your new group script.

>>Of course, there would
>>have to be new guidelines for proposing a new topic within this heirarchy,
>>as a long voting period would defeat the purpose of 'timely' topical
>>newsgroups.
>
>    And what good are guidelines when you have jerks that have no
>    respect for the net?

There are always jerks.  You find jerks all over the highways, does
that stop you from driving?

>>I would appreciate any comments about this proposal, and would not
>>appreciate flames. :-)
>
>    Please - leave us alone.

Yes, please do.  Unless you have some actual REASONS that this proposal
might not be a good idea.  Snide remarks have little informational
content.


		-Richard Hartman
		hartman@ulogic.COM

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
"Fosters!  It's Australian for beer, mate!"

In article <1992Oct29.210720.24740@news.columbia.edu> dan@cubmol.bio.columbia.edu (Daniel Zabetakis) writes:
>>Why not alt.election, etc?  Really?  Or how about trial.election?
>   I think the point is that the groups in this hierarchy would be removed
>after a short period of time.

This reinforces the need for a hierarchy outside of alt.* since there
are some strange people who view an rmgroup within alt to be a crime
of horrific proportions.

alt.* should be fine for this sort of thing, but back in the real usenet
world - things are different.

Cheers,
-- 
\/ato - Ian Dickinson - NIC handle: ID17                   No-one is to molest
vato@csv.warwick.ac.uk  ...!mcsun!uknet!warwick!vato           the wombat when
/I=I/S=Dickinson/OU=CSV/O=Warwick/PRMD=UK.AC/ADMD= /C=GB/            anyone is
@c=GB@o=University of Warwick@ou=Computing Services@cn=Ian Dickinson  watching.