werner@aecom.UUCP (Craig Werner) (12/18/84)
A few weeks ago Greg Kuperberg at harvard!talcot had a very good idea that seems to have fizzled out. May I make this modest suggestion that would possibly make things easier to implement. Namely: net.politics.us (relating to US domestic and foreign policy, including US/USSR relationships.) net.politics.un (for United Nations, but the name could be changed, relating to any World and International politics not directly involving the United States.) net.politics.theory (for Libertarianism, Marxism, Fascism, Confucianism and other -isms too numerous to mention.) Other spinoffs could be added later, not as subgroups of these (too many dots) but as spinoffs of politics, but this is a good start. [Mail and I'll summarize, or post only after editing the Newsgroup line to only net.news.group! (net.politics is crowded enough.)] -- Craig Werner !philabs!aecom!werner What do you expect? Watermelons are out of season!
msb@lsuc.UUCP (Mark Brader) (12/20/84)
Craig Werner (werner@aecom.UUCP) suggests, in part: > net.politics.us > (relating to US domestic and foreign policy, including > US/USSR relationships.) Only an American would do that! To the rest of the world, there is no sense in this subgrouping. Of course there is lots of US domestic stuff in the group, because most of the sites are in the US. But if there are to be subgroups in net.politics (which I have no opinion on, one way or the other), the VERY FIRST separation should be US domestic issues from everything else. Mark Brader, Toronto, Canada, near the USA
werner@aecom.UUCP (Craig Werner) (01/04/85)
> Craig Werner [That's Me!] (werner@aecom.UUCP) suggests, in part: > > net.politics.us > > (relating to US domestic and foreign policy, including > > US/USSR relationships.) > Mark Brader, Toronto, Canada, near the USA, comments: > Only an American would do that! To the rest of the world, there is > no sense in this subgrouping. > the VERY FIRST separation should be US > domestic issues from everything else. > There is method to the madness, not just chauvinism. It would be to avoid such things as: Newsgroups: net.politics.us,net.politics.un for US foreign affairs Why: I hate multiple newsgroup postings for discussions. (OK for 1st postings, but the topic should settle down to one group. Ooops, looking up, I see I'm guilty of it on this posting. Oh well, if there's another followup, keep it in .news.group and out of .politics (unless net.politics.usenet :-) ). Leave the .politics for well, politics. -- Craig Werner !philabs!aecom!werner What do you expect? Watermelons are out of season!
faustus@ucbcad.UUCP (01/07/85)
Well, when is some person with group creation capabilities going to take care of splitting up net.politics? Wayne
biep@klipper.UUCP (J. A. "Biep" Durieux) (01/08/85)
In article <1079@aecom.UUCP> werner@aecom.UUCP (Craig Werner) writes: >> Craig Werner [That's Me!] (werner@aecom.UUCP) suggests, in part: >> > net.politics.us >> > (relating to US domestic and foreign policy, including >> > US/USSR relationships.) > >I hate multiple newsgroup postings for discussions. (OK for 1st postings, >but the topic should settle down to one group.) >Leave the .politics for well, politics. >-- > Craig Werner [] 1) Why shouldn't net.politics readers read how "their" group is to be subgrouped? 2) I propose: net.politics.us net.politics.them net.politics.us-vs-them -- Biep. {seismo|decvax|philabs}!mcvax!vu44!botter!klipper!biep I utterly disagree with everything you are saying, but I am prepared to fight to the death for your right to say it. --Voltaire
cjk@ccice2.UUCP (Chris Kreilick) (01/09/85)
No problem. Pol - Allowing a bunch of fools to express their views it - What they talk about ics - One of many noises made upon viewing -- Plum pudding
rohn@randvax.UUCP (Laurinda Rohn) (01/10/85)
> from Mark Brader > Let me try again. The very first separation should be US DOMESTIC issues > from EVERYTHING ELSE. There should be no such group as net.politics.us. > Either leave net.politics alone, or start with: > > US domestic net.politics.us-dom [or perhaps us-us] > international net.politics.world [or us-them? :-) ] I think making a subgroup or two out for net.politics might be a good idea. In the original posting on this issue, one possible subgroup mentioned was something like net.politics.theory where the [Ll]ibertarians, socialists, Marxists, etc. could talk theory. I still think this is a good idea and ought to be seriously considered. I'm not so sure about the domestic and international stuff. I think the international issues should be left in net.politics. I'm just not at all certain that there's really a need to split out the US domestic issues. I haven't noticed all that many postings on domestic issues other than handgun control since the election. But I would like to see some more arguments for the US domestic subgroup if people think there's really a need for it. Lauri rohn@rand-unix.ARPA ..decvax!randvax!rohn "I told you when I met you I was crazy..."
biep@klipper.UUCP (J. A. "Biep" Durieux) (01/16/85)
[]
I propose:
net.politics.isms (or .theory),
net.politics.nat (or .dom), for local (not international)
politics (in any country!!), and
net.politics.int (or .world), for international politics.
I prefer ".int" to ".world", for a war between two minor countries
isn't quite a world politics affair.
All articles transcending this tripartition should be posted to
(and only be posted to!) net.politics.
Giving an example from real life should not form a reason to post
an article from net.politics.isms in any of the other three groups.
--
Biep.
{seismo|decvax|philabs}!mcvax!vu44!botter!klipper!biep
I utterly disagree with everything you are saying, but I
am prepared to fight to the death for your right to say it.
--Voltairegjk@talcott.UUCP (Greg Kuperberg) (01/17/85)
> [] > I propose: > > net.politics.isms (or .theory), > net.politics.nat (or .dom), for local (not international) > politics (in any country!!), and > net.politics.int (or .world), for international politics. ... > Biep. Perfect. I second the motion. Mark Horton, Gene Spafford, etc., are you reading this? --- Greg Kuperberg harvard!talcott!gjk "Nice boy, but about as sharp as a sack of wet mice." - Foghorn Leghorn
spaf@gatech.UUCP (Gene Spafford) (01/19/85)
In article <239@talcott.UUCP> gjk@talcott.UUCP (Greg Kuperberg) writes: >> [] >> I propose: >> >> net.politics.isms (or .theory), >> net.politics.nat (or .dom), for local (not international) >> politics (in any country!!), and >> net.politics.int (or .world), for international politics. >... >> Biep. > >Perfect. I second the motion. Mark Horton, Gene Spafford, etc., are you >reading this? >--- > Greg Kuperberg Yes, I'm reading it. I think the idea of "politics.theory" sounds like a good idea, and perhaps even "politics.world", but the idea of a "politics.domestic" doesn't make sense to me -- if everybody on the net posts stuff about their domestic politics to that group, it is the same problem you're seeing now. The way to filter out much of the cruft is have people start using an up-to-date news, and restrict the distribution to the appropriate locale. I will create a net.politics.theory if I hear no significant objections and a sufficient amount of support (mail, NOT posted news). -- Gene "7 months and counting" Spafford The Clouds Project, School of ICS, Georgia Tech, Atlanta GA 30332 CSNet: Spaf @ GATech ARPA: Spaf%GATech.CSNet @ CSNet-Relay.ARPA uucp: ...!{akgua,allegra,hplabs,ihnp4,linus,seismo,ulysses}!gatech!spaf