billr@saab.CNA.TEK.COM (Bill Randle) (07/17/90)
The following article recently appeared in both comp.sources.games and talk.bizarre: > Path: tekred!zephyr.ens.tek.com!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!mailrus!iuvax!rutgers!bpa!cbmvax!billr > From: billr@saab.CNA.TEK.COM (Bill Randle) > Newsgroups: comp.sources.games,talk.bizarre > Subject: nethack 4.0 > Message-ID: <13I12@saab.CNA.TEK.COM> > Date: 14 Jul 90 18:11:07 GMT > Sender: billr@saab.CNA.TEK.COM > Lines: 7 > Approved: billr@saab.CNA.TEK.COM > Xref: tekred comp.sources.games:1045 talk.bizarre:60262 > > NetHack 4.0 will be ready for beta testing in a few weeks. In > addition to multi-player scenarios a fully POSIX compliant operating > system will be incorporated into the release. > > This should bring the package up to only 60 parts. > > Pax It is a clever forgery, which I don't appreciate at all. I wouldn't have minded as much if the poster had limited his remarks to the talk.bizarre newsgroup (which I don't read anyway), but I strongly object to him/her adding the Approved: header line and cross posting to comp.sources.games. If someone has an objection to a posting then feel free to comment on it or send me mail but please don't post articels directly to moderated newsgroups. As to the recent NetHack posting, I did query for comments before I posted and received mail from many people asking that the fully patched source be posted and not a single objection (to my recollection). Even though the posting was rather large, overall it will save bandwidth on all networks as getting the original source plus all nine sets of patches from an archive site would be a lot of bytes! Also, it's not as if there is lots of other stuff queued up to send out - there's only one other submission in the queue. -Bill Randle Moderator, comp.sources.games Tektronix, Inc. billr@saab.CNA.TEK.COM P.S. In case someone gets the wrong impression, I don't mind at all the contents of the article (i.e. poking fun at NetHack 4.0) - I just object to the author not putting his/her name on it.