🚀 go-pugleaf

>>>>> In article <9212111728.AA00402@chaos.cs.brandeis.edu>, "A Page
>>>>> in the Life of ..." <veritas!apple!chaos.cs.brandeis.edu!adam>
>>>>> writes:
Internaut>    This is an RFD to

Internaut>    1) unmoderate rec.games.cyber

Internaut> Now that the automoderator works, there is no need to
Internaut> unmoderate it, due to the fact that the problem lies with
Internaut> the mailing list not being updated due to people not
Internaut> dealing properly with unsubscribes.  Unmoderation it will
Internaut> have no effect on this, and if you get rid of the gatewayed
Internaut> mailing list, I will no longer recieve these (not having a
Internaut> newsfeed) so I vote no on this one.

No, unmoderation will dramatically *increase* throughput times for
those who have a newsfeed of the group. No change would be apparent to
those on the e-mail gateway. Since unmoderation will not affect you, I
fail to understand your standpoint.

Internaut>    2) move rec.games.cyber to rec.games.frp.cyber

Internaut> I have said before (apparently not loud enough) the
Internaut> discussions here are _*NOT*_ fantasy!  They are about a
Internaut> SCIENCE FICTION role playing game.

Are we going to argue whether "fantasy" encompases SF?

According to the Webster server at MIT:

DEFINE fantasy
DEFINITION 1
1 imagination
  1. fan.ta.sy or phan.ta.sy \'fant-*-se-, -*-ze-\ n
     [ME fantasie] obs
     1 : HALLUCINATION
     2 : FANCY; esp : the free play of creative imagination
     3  a : a creation of the imaginative faculty; broadly : a fanciful des
	    ign or invention
        b : a chimerical or fantastic notion
        c : FANTASIA
     4 : CAPRICE usu
     5 : the power, process, or result of creating mental images modified
	 by need , wish, or desire {the ~ of daydreams}
  2. fantasy vt : to portray in the mind : FANCY to indulge in reverie
     : DAY DREAM 

Therefore, SF is included in the definition of fantasy. Therefore
rec.games.frp.cyber is a valid newsgroup.

Now, since you do *not* have a newsfeed, I fail to see why you are
against the change, since it will have little to no effect on you.

--Rat
||||| | | | |  |  |  |   |   |    |    |    |   |   |  |  |  |  | | | | | |||||
Northeastern's Stainless Steel Rat          ratinox@meceng.coe.northeastern.edu
The music is reversible but time is not. Turn back, turn back, turn back...
                                                            --ELO, Fire On High

"A Page in the Life of ..." <veritas!apple!chaos.cs.brandeis.edu!adam> writes:
>    2) move rec.games.cyber to rec.games.frp.cyber
> 
> I have said before (apparently not loud enough) the discussions here are
> _*NOT*_ fantasy!  They are about a SCIENCE FICTION role playing game.
> 
> Let's go over that again.  Not a fantasy role playing [game] but
>                                  ^       ^    ^
> a Science Fiction (based on hard science and the future of this world
> today, not some author's stroke fantasy of what that author had mangled the
> laws of science to allow for his particular deviations) role playing game.

It's also been said thousands of times that rec.games.frp is not
indicating fantasy in terms of dragons and mystics, but fantasy as in
not real.  rec.games.frp is for all role-playing games, not just
magical and fantastical.

> Again it might be shoved under rec.games.larp.cyber or rec.newage.cyber
> with as much (lack of) justace.  Don't move it and force it where it
> doesn't belong, because you can't pigeon hole it properly.

This is a good point.  I've seen a lot more cyber larps than larps of
any other kind.  Among the better ones is the Zone, run at FanTek
conventions (do *not* attempt to contact the gm's until they
recuperate from that last one - they very well may reply with a letter
bomb...). (yes that was a shameless plug).  There is a lot more
discussion on rec.games.cyber about stuff not explicitly related to
specific game mechanics (or at least there was, until the group
died...) than there is on rec.games.frp.


-- faisal jawdat                  | "Certainly the game is rigged.
email: fj05+@andrew.cmu.edu       | Don't let that stop you;
if mail handler barfs             | if you don't bet, you can't win." 
fj05@andrew.cmu.edu               |        -Lazarus Long

In article <1992Dec12.023730.1751@jupiter.sun.csd.unb.ca> apple!mta.ca!apace writes:
>   If you can telnet, you can get the newsgroups.(nyx, etc.)
>   If not, well, you are in the minority anyways.

No.  Most people who read news can not telnet.  Telnet requires
an IP packet connection to other machines, reading news only
requires a UUCP connection to other machines.  IP packet connections
are relatively expensive, UUCP connections are relatively cheap.
Of the three companies I've worked for, only one has had network
connection which allowed telnet, but all three had a network connection
which allowed news.

In terms of people:

      mail > news > telnet

Many people can send/read mail. Some people can send/read news. 
A few people can telnet.

Joshua Levy  (joshua@homespace.mtview.ca.us)