scott@zorch.UU.NET (Scott Hazen Mueller) (04/01/89)
First off, for the people who didn't see my original article: I am proposing creation of alt.fusion to carry discussions of the Utah cold-fusion experiment in one place. My apologies for the wide cross-posting; the groups mentioned are either concerned with newsgroup creation or are locations where fusion discussion is currently occurring. So far, the proposal has generated a small amount of favorable response, and an even smaller amount of unfavorable replies. To address the concerns of people who would like to see one place for fusion discussions but do not receive the alt.* heirarchy, I am announcing here my willingness to provide digests of the newsgroup for these people. For those who are wondering, "why an alt newsgroup", I feel that the experiment with alt.next indicated that a newsgroup can be created quickly in alt in response to a hot topic and then either aliased to a 'mainstream' group, ala comp.sys.next, or deleted if the topic dies down. -- Scott Hazen Mueller scott@zorch.UU.NET (408) 298-6213 (pyramid|tolerant|uunet)!zorch!scott
gdelong@cvman.UUCP (Gary Delong) (04/05/89)
In article <910@zorch.UU.NET>, scott@zorch.UU.NET (Scott Hazen Mueller) writes: [ First off, for the people who didn't see my original article: I am proposing [ creation of alt.fusion to carry discussions of the Utah cold-fusion experiment [ in one place. My apologies for the wide cross-posting; the groups mentioned [ are either concerned with newsgroup creation or are locations where fusion [ discussion is currently occurring. [ [ So far, the proposal has generated a small amount of favorable response, [ and an even smaller amount of unfavorable replies. To address the concerns [ of people who would like to see one place for fusion discussions but do not [ receive the alt.* heirarchy, I am announcing here my willingness to provide [ digests of the newsgroup for these people. [ [ For those who are wondering, "why an alt newsgroup", I feel that the [ experiment with alt.next indicated that a newsgroup can be created quickly [ in alt in response to a hot topic and then either aliased to a 'mainstream' [ group, ala comp.sys.next, or deleted if the topic dies down. [ -- [ Scott Hazen Mueller scott@zorch.UU.NET [ (408) 298-6213 (pyramid|tolerant|uunet)!zorch!scott Scott, I agree that the topic is important and deserves maximum exposure while the facts get shaken out of the rhetoric, but I don't think that this is a good idea. Many sites (including mine) do not carry the alt.* groups. The discussion of possible cold fusion is too important to be tucked away in the alt.* wastelands. (I couldn't even post a reply to the alt.config followup header) While I appreciate your offer to provide a digest of the discussion via e-mail, I already find myself gritting my teeth over just the normal USENET propogation delay. Please don't add an additional delay to that. There is a discussion going in sci.physics, which would seem to be a reasonable place. (If this is not a physics discussion, then I don't know what it would take to qualify as one.) Please. -- _____ / \ / Gary A. Delong, N1BIP "I am the NRA." gdelong@cvman.prime.com | \ / COMPUTERVISION Division {sun|linus}!cvbnet!gdelong \____\/ Prime Computer, Inc. (603) 622-1260 x 261
scott@zorch.UU.NET (Scott Hazen Mueller) (04/06/89)
In article <546@cvman.UUCP> gdelong@cvman.UUCP (Gary Delong) writes: [edited] >Many sites (including mine) do not carry the alt.* groups. While I appreciate >your offer to provide a digest of the discussion via e-mail, I already find >myself gritting my teeth over just the normal USENET propogation delay. >There is a discussion going in sci.physics, which would seem to be a >reasonable place. (If this is not a physics discussion, then I don't >know what it would take to qualify as one.) [This was edited down...] At this point, alt.fusion is a fait accompli. I appreciate your concern over the timeliness of the mailing list, having spent the first portion of my time on the net at the end of a long and slow forwarding chain. However, I felt and still feel that the manner in which the discussion was scattered all over the net justified the creation of a newsgroup for most/all fusion discussion. As far as the group being an alt group goes, the whole purpose of alt is to encourage news admins to explicitly pick and choose which groups they receive. I'm sorry that your site does not carry alt, but if the contents of alt.fusion are important enough to you, I strongly recommend finding a way to receive it. I have been told that the news admin of mcvax is considering picking up alt.fusion to supply to the rest of Europe; while alt.* is sometimes considered to be a sewer, this shows that at least one experienced administrator is willing to be flexible. I am sure that an alt feed should be available should you wish to look for one, and as always, my offer to mail the contents of alt.fusion stands. I have redirected followups on this topic to news.groups, where we can divert ourselves from discussing Brad and moderation with a renewal of the cycle of discussion on alt vs. the mainstream... -- Scott Hazen Mueller scott@zorch.UU.NET (408) 298-6213 (pyramid|tolerant|uunet)!zorch!scott
steve@revolver.gatech.edu (Poppa Smurf) (04/07/89)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In article <910@zorch.UU.NET>, scott@zorch.UU.NET (Scott Hazen Mueller) writes:
[ First off, for the people who didn't see my original article: I am proposing
[ creation of alt.fusion to carry discussions of the Utah cold-fusion experiment
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You may not realize it but some sites are not able to receive any of the
newsgroups under the prefix "ALT." Ours is one such site. Because of
subgroups like alt.sex, etc. some administrators have rejected the entire
range of newsgroups under the alt prefix.
I suggest an alternative name: sci.physics.fusion
No mistaking the topic there!
Steve Fischer
Georgia Institute of Technologyscott@zorch.UU.NET (Scott Hazen Mueller) (04/07/89)
In article <7877@pyr.gatech.EDU> steve%revolver@gatech.edu (Poppa Smurf) writes: |In article <910@zorch.UU.NET>, scott@zorch.UU.NET (Scott Hazen Mueller) writes: |[...text from my article delete to save space...] |You may not realize it but some sites are not able to receive any of the |newsgroups under the prefix "ALT." Ours is one such site. If you had read the rest of my posting, you would have seen that I addressed that concern by offering to forward alt.fusion via email to sites that do not get it. I am already sending it to two addresses at prism.gatech.edu. |I suggest an alternative name: sci.physics.fusion This may be reasonable *if* the topic continues to generate volume; however, if interest dies off, there is no point to creating a mainstream newsgroup for the topic. |No mistaking the topic there! The only mistake that I have seen is one person who thought that the topic was fusion jazz. |Steve Fischer |Georgia Institute of Technology -- Scott Hazen Mueller scott@zorch.UU.NET (408) 298-6213 (pyramid|tolerant|uunet)!zorch!scott
erict@flatline.UUCP (J. Eric Townsend) (04/08/89)
In article <7877@pyr.gatech.EDU> steve%revolver@gatech.edu (Poppa Smurf) writes: >You may not realize it but some sites are not able to receive any of the >newsgroups under the prefix "ALT." Ours is one such site. Because of >subgroups like alt.sex, etc. some administrators have rejected the entire >range of newsgroups under the alt prefix. Then your site administrators should be soundly kicked in the disk packs for throwing out the good stuff in the name of getting rid of a little bad stuff. /usr/lib/news/sys entries will accept "alt.fusion" w/o getting any of that nasty, dirty alt.crap all over the good clean corporate image. :-) -- J. Eric Townsend | "Enter, oh seeker of knowledge... That's *YOU*, fathead!" uunet!sugar!flatline!erict bellcore!texbell!/ 511 Parker #2 |EastEnders Mailing List: Inet: cosc5fa@george.uh.edu Houston,Tx,77007 |eastender@flatline.UUCP
steve@jack.UUCP (Steven Harrison) (04/10/89)
In article <7877@pyr.gatech.EDU> steve%revolver@gatech.edu (Poppa Smurf) writes: >------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >In article <910@zorch.UU.NET>, scott@zorch.UU.NET (Scott Hazen Mueller) writes: > creation of alt.fusion to carry discussions of the Utah cold-fusion experiment > >I suggest an alternative name: sci.physics.fusion >No mistaking the topic there! > >Steve Fischer If there has not been a vote taken I think one should be called for. sci.physics.fusion sounds like a great place for the new nesgroup to be created. Any other responses to this suggestion???
jho@ihlpe.ATT.COM (Yosi Hoshen) (04/10/89)
I vote yes for sci.physics.fusion Yosi Hoshen
kscott@cca.ucsf.edu (Kevin Scott) (04/11/89)
In article <781@jack.UUCP> steve@jack.UUCP (Steven Harrison) writes: > creation of alt.fusion to carry discussions of the Utah cold-fusion experiment >I suggest an alternative name: sci.physics.fusion >>No mistaking the topic there! > >If there has not been a vote taken I think one should be called for. > >sci.physics.fusion sounds like a great place for the new nesgroup to be >created. > >Any other responses to this suggestion??? A yes vote here. Send votes here and I'll tally them while looking up the procedure for moving a newsgroup. It will be nice to get some mail, I haven't received an alt.fusion mailing in many days. When I do it will probably be too large to boot. So let us get a non-alt newsgroup and let sci.physics return to normal. If you are a sci.physics person who wants to see sci.physics return to normal, please feel free to vote even if you will never read sci.physics.fusion Be it proposed, in that alt.fusion does not have the ability to reach enough of the net, in that alt.fusion has failed to clear sci.physics of the fusion topic. and in that fusion is an issue of great importance that is not likely to die down too soon, Let alt.physics be moved to sci.physics.fusion ________ mail votes to kscott@cgl.ucsf.edu kscott@cca.ucsf.edu ucbvax!cgl!kscott
cslewis@lily.waterloo.edu (Cary Lewis) (04/11/89)
In article <4667@ihlpe.ATT.COM> jho@ihlpe.ATT.COM (Yosi Hoshen) writes: > >I vote yes for sci.physics.fusion > >Yosi Hoshen Based on the recent A&M annoucements, it sounds like ``cold fusion'' is real, and therefore deserves a science newsgroup, perhaps alt.fusion could be used for non-science (environmental, social impact, etc. ) issues as they relate to fusion, as opposed to the physical science underlying the phenomenon. I hope that future replications of the experiment will reveal true nuclear fusion occuring (as opposed to some chemical reaction), and I can't wait to see all the media's reactions; after all this just might be the biggest most important discovery since fire (too much of a cliche, eh? maybe we can come with something better.) -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Cary Lewis - 4th year CS undergrad, Univ. of Waterloo
scott@zorch.UU.NET (Scott Hazen Mueller) (04/11/89)
In article <1820@ucsfcca.ucsf.edu> kscott@cca.ucsf.edu.UUCP (Kevin Scott) writes: > >A yes vote here. Send votes here and I'll tally them while looking up >the procedure for moving a newsgroup. You've ALREADY violated proper guidelines. The two-week discussion period has been opened today. See article <946@zorch.UU.NET>. Votes are not to be collected until 4/24/89 at the earliest, per the article from Greg Woods on newsgroup creation guidelines. -- Scott Hazen Mueller scott@zorch.UU.NET (408) 298-6213 (pyramid|tolerant|uunet)!zorch!scott
cc1@valhalla.cs.ucla.edu (It eats Volcano Burgers) (04/14/89)
In article <781@jack.UUCP> steve@jack.UUCP (Steven Harrison) writes:
^In article <7877@pyr.gatech.EDU> steve%revolver@gatech.edu (Poppa Smurf):
^>I suggest an alternative name: sci.physics.fusion
^>No mistaking the topic there!
^>Steve Fischer
^If there has not been a vote taken I think one should be called for.
^sci.physics.fusion sounds like a great place for the new nesgroup to be
^created.
I hope everyone remembers the procedure for creating a normal (non-alt)
newsgroup:
1) Two weeks of discussion
2) A vote lasting one month
3) If the vote passes, the newsgroup is created
This would obviously create the newsgroup in six weeks at the earliest.
With a hot topic like cold fusion (heh), such a delay is undesired.
That's why alt.fusion was created--alt groups can be started very
easily, with few, if any, formal rules on creating them.
But I suppose, if anyone really wants to, they can start the procedures
for creating sci.physics.fusion. However, due to the "faddishness"
(it's a hot topic now--but will it be in 5 months?), I urge you to
vote NO on sci.physics.fusion.
--Kenscott@zorch.UU.NET (Scott Hazen Mueller) (04/14/89)
In article <22943@shemp.CS.UCLA.EDU> cc1@cs.ucla.edu (It eats Volcano Burgers) writes: [...edited by SHM...] >I hope everyone remembers the procedure for creating a normal (non-alt) >newsgroup: two weeks of discussion; a vote lasting one month; if the vote >passes, the newsgroup is created. This would obviously create the newsgroup >in six weeks at the earliest. But I suppose, if anyone really wants to, they >can start the procedures for creating sci.physics.fusion. On Date: 10 Apr 89 16:32:25 GMT I posted Message-ID: <946@zorch.UU.NET> Subject: Re: Start of discussion on sci.physics.fusion (was Fusion newgroup) "Today is the 10th. On the 24th, at the end of the two week discussion period, I will be in Hawaii for my honeymoon, and when I return I will have comparatively little interest in conduction a vote for at least a few days. If there is no problem with starting the vote no earlier than May 5th, then I will handle it." In <967@zorch.UU.NET>, posted earlier today, I note that Kevin Scott (kscott@cca.ucsf.edu) has been working for the creation of sci.physics.fusion and is presumably not getting married in a few days. Therefore, let me state again that as originator of alt.fusion, I support creation of sci.physics.fusion and recommend Kevin Scott as the vote-taker for newsgroup creation. -- Scott Hazen Mueller scott@zorch.UU.NET (408) 298-6213 (pyramid|tolerant|uunet)!zorch!scott