[net.startrek] Topics for Discussion

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