avolio@decuac.UUCP (03/03/86)
In article <417@excalibur.UUCP>, sword02@excalibur.UUCP writes: > ... a proposal for a new group! At the moment there is only one NET.BOOKS. > I would like ... a NET.BOOKS for just fantasy, and science fiction lovers. net.sf-lovers is more than 50% dicussions of f&sf books. There is no need for another group. -- Fred @ DEC Ultrix Applications Center UUCP: {decvax,seismo,cbosgd}!decuac!avolio INET: avolio@decuac.DEC.COM
peno@enea.UUCP (Pekka Nousiainen) (03/05/86)
>> I would like ... a NET.BOOKS for just fantasy, and science fiction lovers. > >net.sf-lovers is more than 50% dicussions of f&sf books. There is no need >for another group. ...provided people discussing Star Trek & Dr. Who & other net.american.tv topics indicate it on the Subject: line so that my KILL file works. Please.
li@uw-vlsi.ARPA (Phyllis Li) (03/06/86)
In article <838@decuac.UUCP> avolio@decuac.UUCP (Frederick M. Avolio) writes: >In article <417@excalibur.UUCP>, sword02@excalibur.UUCP writes: >> ... a proposal for a new group! At the moment there is only one NET.BOOKS. >> I would like ... a NET.BOOKS for just fantasy, and science fiction lovers. > >net.sf-lovers is more than 50% dicussions of f&sf books. There is no need >for another group. Actually I don't see all that much fantasy begin discussed here; and when it is it is usually done in a "well, I shouldn't, but..." manner. Here's to more fantasy on sf-lovers!! :) LiralenOx Li -- A closed mouth gathers no foot. USENET: ihnp4!akgua!sb6!fluke!uw-vlsi!li ARPA: li@uw-vlsi.arpa
anich@puff.UUCP (Steve Anich) (03/08/86)
> >> ... a proposal for a new group! At the moment there is only one NET.BOOKS. > >> I would like ... a NET.BOOKS for just fantasy, and science fiction lovers. > > > >net.sf-lovers is more than 50% dicussions of f&sf books. There is no need > >for another group. > > Actually I don't see all that much fantasy begin discussed here; and when > it is it is usually done in a "well, I shouldn't, but..." manner. Here's > to more fantasy on sf-lovers!! :) > I think there should be more discussion of fantasy books on the net. How 'bout this to start things off: What are some good recent fantasy books? I just read ' The Colour of Magic' by Terry Prattchet (I think that's how its spelled). It was a fine humorous story. Steve Anich anich@puff.UUCP
laura@hoptoad.uucp (Laura Creighton) (03/09/86)
In article <838@decuac.UUCP> avolio@decuac.UUCP (Frederick M. Avolio) writes: >In article <417@excalibur.UUCP>, sword02@excalibur.UUCP writes: >> ... a proposal for a new group! At the moment there is only one NET.BOOKS. >> I would like ... a NET.BOOKS for just fantasy, and science fiction lovers. > >net.sf-lovers is more than 50% dicussions of f&sf books. There is no need >for another group. I don't know, Fred. I am not interested in the other 50%, which is why I don't subscribe to net/sf-lovers. If there are a lot of people in my position, then net.books.sf would be a good idea. I don't think that I am a minority of one -- but perhaps I am -- Laura Creighton ihnp4!hoptoad!laura utzoo!hoptoad!laura sun!hoptoad!laura toad@lll-crg.arpa
drm@stc.co.uk (03/10/86)
In article <1203@enea.UUCP> peno@enea.UUCP (Pekka Nousiainen) writes: >>> I would like ... a NET.BOOKS for just fantasy, and science fiction lovers. >> >>net.sf-lovers is more than 50% dicussions of f&sf books. There is no need >>for another group. > >...provided people discussing Star Trek & Dr. Who & other net.american.tv >topics indicate it on the Subject: line so that my KILL file works. Please. Since when was "Dr. Who" *AMERICAN* tv ?????????
ix312@sdcc6.UUCP (ix312) (03/11/86)
In article <838@decuac.UUCP>, avolio@decuac.UUCP writes: > In article <417@excalibur.UUCP>, sword02@excalibur.UUCP writes: > > ... a proposal for a new group! At the moment there is only one NET.BOOKS. > > I would like ... a NET.BOOKS for just fantasy, and science fiction lovers. > > net.sf-lovers is more than 50% dicussions of f&sf books. There is no need > for another group. I, too, feel that there is a need to separate books.sf/fantasy from media science fiction. The media group could then include the present Dr. Who group. This might then reduce the double coverage of many articles in both the net.sf-lovers and net.tv, as well as some duplication in net.books and net.sf-lovers. There is, in my opinion, enough difference between literary science fiction and media science fiction to warrent this. ME (Yes, I'd love to get and education, but it's too late; I already have my Ph.D.)
chuq@sun.uucp (Chuq Von Rospach) (03/11/86)
> > Actually I don't see all that much fantasy begin discussed here; and when > > it is it is usually done in a "well, I shouldn't, but..." manner. Here's > > to more fantasy on sf-lovers!! :) > > > I think there should be more discussion of fantasy books > on the net. How 'bout this to start things off: If the readers survey that I did on OtherRealms is any indication, the reason that there isn't as much fantasy discussed on the net is because fewer people on the net read fantasy. The figures I got on my survey show that 97% of the OtherRealm readers read SF, and only 82% read fantasy. Also, the number of books per month is way down, too -- 4 SF books against only three fantasy. -- :From catacombs of Castle Tarot: Chuq Von Rospach chuq@sun.ARPA FidoNet: 125/84 {decwrl,decvax,hplabs,ihnp4,pyramid,seismo,ucbvax}!sun!chuq Somehow, Toto, I don't think we're in Kansas anymore...
phillips@cisden.UUCP (Tom Phillips) (03/12/86)
>Actually I don't see all that much fantasy begin discussed here; and when >it is it is usually done in a "well, I shouldn't, but..." manner. Here's >to more fantasy on sf-lovers!! :) A solution! I hereby decree that sf-lovers means speculative-fiction-lovers! (So it's a kludge. Wanna make something of it?) -- Tommy Phillips The Gibbelins eat, as is well known, nothing less good than man. cisden!phillips
avolio@decuac.UUCP (03/12/86)
In article <838@decuac.UUCP> I wrote: > net.sf-lovers is more than 50% dicussions of f&sf books. There is no need > for another group. In article <598@hoptoad.uucp>, laura@hoptoad.uucp (Laura Creighton) writes: > I don't know, Fred. I am not interested in the other 50%, which is why > I don't subscribe to net/sf-lovers. If there are a lot of people in > my position, then net.books.sf would be a good idea. You are quite right Laura and I was wrong. In fact, the 50% I wrote is dead wrong. I just stop noticing how many times I hit the 'n' key when reading net.sf-lovers (although, Laura, I bet you soon unsubscribe to net.rumor ... one must hit the 'n' key lots more there now-a-days!) I think that a subgroup under net.books is a good idea. -- Fred @ DEC Ultrix Applications Center UUCP: {decvax,seismo,cbosgd}!decuac!avolio INET: avolio@decuac.DEC.COM
norman@batcomputer.TN.CORNELL.EDU (Norman Ramsey) (03/12/86)
In article <598@hoptoad.uucp> laura@hoptoad.UUCP (Laura Creighton) writes: >In article <838@decuac.UUCP> avolio@decuac.UUCP (Frederick M. Avolio) writes: >>In article <417@excalibur.UUCP>, sword02@excalibur.UUCP writes: >>> ... a proposal for a new group! At the moment there is only one NET.BOOKS. >>> I would like ... a NET.BOOKS for just fantasy, and science fiction lovers. >>net.sf-lovers is more than 50% dicussions of f&sf books. There is no need >>for another group. > >I don't know, Fred. I am not interested in the other 50%, which is why >I don't subscribe to net/sf-lovers. If there are a lot of people in Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't it be possible for us to put the keyword "book" in the Keywords: part of the header for those postings relating to books? Those who are interested in books only could then filter out other postings using their kill files. Of course, it is probably asking too much of our overworked posters that they remember to insert this keyword where appropriate... (:-) -- Norman Ramsey norman@tcgould.tn.cornell.edu Pianist at Large
woods@hao.UUCP (Greg Woods) (03/14/86)
> Those who are interested in books only could then filter out other > postings using their kill files. Anyone who thinks like this shoudl subscribe to the group 'mod.newslists', in which every month an article is posted detailing the wide variety of news versions in use. Only 'rn' supports 'kill' files. If 'rn' would fit on our 11/70, I would gladly run it, but it doesn't. We are stuck with 'readnews' and 'kill' files are only a dream. This is not a viable option for much of the net. Do not assume the net looks the same to everyone else as it does to you. --Greg -- {ucbvax!hplabs | decvax!noao | mcvax!seismo | ihnp4!seismo} !hao!woods CSNET: woods@ncar.csnet ARPA: woods%ncar@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA "If the game is lost, we're all the same; no one left to place or take the blame; Will we leave this place an empty stone, or a shining ball of earth, we can call our home"
dobro@ulowell.UUCP (Chet Dobro) (03/17/86)
In article <2467@sdcc6.UUCP> ix312@sdcc6.UUCP (ix312) writes: >In article <838@decuac.UUCP>, avolio@decuac.UUCP writes: >> In article <417@excalibur.UUCP>, sword02@excalibur.UUCP writes: >> > ... a proposal for a new group! At the moment there is only one NET.BOOKS. >> > I would like ... a NET.BOOKS for just fantasy, and science fiction lovers. >> >> net.sf-lovers is more than 50% dicussions of f&sf books. There is no need >> for another group. > >I, too, feel that there is a need to separate books.sf/fantasy from >media science fiction. The media group could then include the present >Dr. Who group. This might then reduce the double coverage of many >articles in both the net.sf-lovers and net.tv, as well as some >duplication in net.books and net.sf-lovers. > >There is, in my opinion, enough difference between literary science >fiction and media science fiction to warrent this. > > > ME > > (Yes, I'd love to get and education, but it's too late; I already have > my Ph.D.) Count my $0.02 in towards a "net.books.sf" or a "net.fantasy" Gryphon
lindberg@suadb.UUCP (Per Lindberg QZ) (03/29/86)
Yes, here's another vote to split the sf-discussions into two newsgorups, one for sf-movies, another for sf-books.