rjnoe (09/09/82)
I think it is probably time for the readers of this newsgroup to come to a consensus and draw up some "suggestions" on what type of articles should or should not appear on this newsgroup. I realize that by its very name, anything and only those things specifically involving "Star Trek" fit this category precisely. After all, the group was created solely with the intent of opening a forum for discussing Trek without interfering with (or for that matter, being interfered with by) any other newsgroup. However, it is only by virtue the fact that Trek is graced with a large and loyal following that it has earned the right to have its own newsgroup. What of similar genres, e.g. Battlestar Galactica, Star Wars, Space: 1999, Lost in Space, and a whole host of theatrical releases? None of these has as large or steadfast a following, though it can be argued that they are all "related" to Trek in one way or another. Mind you, I'm not necessarily advocating the idea of allowing such topics to be discussed on net.startrek (as far as one can "allow" things to appear on a decentralized network like this net). I am simply bringing the topic to the foreground for free discussion. Not many people, I would guess, have bothered to think much about what will or will not appear on this newsgroup. I do not think that we are in a position where we must reach a conclusion very soon; I hope we have anticipated that moment sufficiently. Other newsgroups have not been so fortunate. So what's YOUR opinion? Feel free to expand the range of discussion at will. There is no need to restrict this to the few ideas I have just mentioned. And let's keep it on this newsgroup--that's what it's for, right? (Or is it?) Roger Noe ihuxx!rjnoe
sjb (09/09/82)
While I may be one of the biggest 'Trekkies' around, I still think that Star Trek does not deserve a newsgroup all of its own. I think I may have actually been the only one to respond negatively to the idea of creating the group. In any case, the 'overwhelming support' that led to the creation of this newsgroup has apparently not showed up since that date. Since then, I have seen 13, count them, 13, articles in this group. Star Trek is just not a broad enough topic to deserve its own group. And if you think that Star Trek and only Star Trek should be discussed here, what does happen to Battlestar Galactica, Star Wars, and the rest of them? Do they get groups of their own too? Come on! As far as I can see, I think all of this (not this discussion, just the Star Trek stuff) belongs back in net.movies
rjnoe (09/10/82)
Adam, what are you doing reading this newsgroup? You claim to believe that net.startrek is not broad enough a category to deserve its own newsgroup, insisting that this belongs on net.movies, yet you still read this newsgroup. You obviously are not a very avid reader of this group, because by your own count you have missed over half of the articles which have been posted here. And yes, you are correct in that you were the only person to mail me a note (or to voice the opinion anywhere) to the effect that net.startrek should not exist. Yet by my current count, over 168 others (plus some duplicates) were for this newsgroup. I agree that the number of postings has not been as high as anticipated, but you must remember that quite a few of these responses were from readers of net.movies who are not "Star Trek" fans and did not want to see that newsgroup crowded with discussions on how a phaser is supposed to work. Obviously these people are unlikely to submit articles to net.startrek or even read net.startrek for that matter. This was one of the reasons for net.startrek's existence which you failed to address in your solitary dissenting opinion. Do you really feel that "Star Trek" is not broad enough to merit a newsgroup? How about Atari video games? Or the LISP language? Or the 68000 microcomputer? How do you reconcile discussion of 79 hour-long television episodes originally aired between 1966 and 1969 (and now shown only in syndication--and more widely syndicated than any other show) with a newsgroup exclusively devoted to motion pictures? So now you may say "put it on net.tv" or something similar. Then where do "Star Trek: The Motion Picture" and "Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan" get discussed? For that matter, where does the philosophy of "Star Trek" go? If you were truly a "Star Trek" fan, you would not be able to forget the fact that "Star Trek" is much more than a television show or (so far) a couple of movies. All this aside, why do you care that net.startrek exists? If you don't like it, why don't you just unsubscribe from the newsgroup? You were entirely right to voice your opinion while debate over the creation of net.startrek was under way--but what good does it do now? Please don't take this the wrong way, Adam, but are you throwing a childish tantrum? I fail to see any logic in your position. I guess you just don't read other people's articles very closely. My previous article posed the question of whether or not articles on Star Wars, Galactica, etc. should be encouraged on this newsgroup. Explicit in the question was the fact that those topics were not as broad or widely followed to be likely to earn newsgroups on their own. I am interested in your responses to this, Adam. But let's keep it on the net--I think the other readers of this newsgroup have a right to know what's going on with net.startrek. Roger Noe ihuxx!rjnoe
aps (09/10/82)
Is there a big problem creating a special interest news group that does not have more than 13 entries? Who cares? I don't think that all the discussion (especially after the fact) is worth the money that is spent for the 1 or 2 seconds of line time for each hop that it takes to convey discussions. net.startrek is here. Enough. Now to NCC-1701. aps.
sjb (09/11/82)
I read this newsgroup mostly because my general policy is to subscribe to all (yes, everything -- no comments about masochism please!) and just say 'n' to the things I don't feel like reading. I have looked at every Star Trek article that has come through here, and when I mentioned the number 13, I meant that our site (alice) has only seen 13 Star Trek articles. If there have been more, I'm sorry, but we did not get them. My main objection to the formation of the group was that the grounds for it were that there were to be several more ST movies in the future, and people took the experience of all the ST stuff in net.movies and decided they did not want all that there, but rather here (if you can't figure out the grammar of that one, join the club!) However, once the group itself was created, discussion dies down. Only now has discussion picked up. Now, to pick out just one of your examples, I am not opposed to net.games.atari or net.atari or whatever, but the way things seem to be going, we would soon be seeing net.games.atari.combat, net.games.atari.tank, etc. etc. etc. I agree, Star Trek is a nice topic, I love it myself, but what would happen if everyone wanted to start a group for their favorite TV show? You may forget, but there *IS* a limit to the possible number of newsgroups; you reach it when your .newsrc file gets too big. What's gonna happen when we get net.mash, net.barney-miller, net.mork&mindy, etc? Certainly these have their big followings as well, but do they all deserve newsgroups of their own? Perhaps they may, but the thing is that the software as it is set up now can only handle a certain number of newsgroups. Granted, we may be a ways from reaching that limit now, but if the trend of making newsgroups more and more specific continues, we may not be a ways from it in the future. In any case, my main thing is not a dislike for Star Trek, on the contrary, I happen to LOVE Star Trek, but a concern over the growing trend to make more and more newsgroups and then find that they are not being used as much as promised. Maybe if we could get rid of some of the groups that have died, this might be a little easier, but no one is doing that now. In any case, I have said enough. I am already sorry for flaming all over the net, when private mail may have been better, but I wanted to voice my opinion. Live long and prosper, Adam