dveditz@dbase.UUCP (Dan Veditz) (01/10/90)
I missed the discussion, so I'll stick in my tuppence now: 1. This group will not divert any significant amount of traffic from the groups that are currently bothered by them. It will, however, make a good crossposting magnet. 2. This group is out of place as a "talk" group -- misc.lists would be a much better name. (I realize you can't change the name during the vote without causing apoplectic spasms in all net.police.self-appointed, but next time give it a thought.) Perhaps someone who supports the group could explain what good the group would do, and why "talk" is a reasonable place in the hierarchy. -Dan uunet!ashtate!dveditz dveditz@ashtate.A-T.com
moriarty@tc.fluke.COM (Jeff Meyer) (01/10/90)
In article <1090@scorn.sco.COM> davidbe@uunet.uu.net (The Cat in the Hat) writes: >to illegally posted David Letterman Top 10 Lists (it's been confirmed that >NBC does not want these posted; they claim a book of these is coming) To set the record straight, the lists weren't posted illegally; however, the *writers* on Late Night have requested that the lists not be reprinted, since they stand to make something off the sales of the books. I've decided to honor those requests, and have refrained from posting any more. I can't see what special dispensation talk.lists would grant the posting of the Top 10 Lists, but then I'm just a humble-yet-lovable shoe-shine boy. (No, wait, that's someone else...) DAVE BARRY'S 1989 IN REVIEW -- August 12th "The federal government, finally fed up with the savings and loan industry's appalling stupidity, irresponsibility, corruption and greed, gives it several hundred billion taxpayer dollars. 'And there's plenty more where that came from,' the government warns." --- Moriarty, aka Jeff Meyer INTERNET: moriarty@tc.fluke.COM Manual UUCP: {uw-beaver, sun, microsoft, hplsla, uiucuxc}!fluke!moriarty CREDO: You gotta be Cruel to be Kind... <*> DISCLAIMER: Do what you want with me, but leave my employers alone! <*>
davidbe@sco.COM (The Cat in the Hat) (01/11/90)
She said that he said that she said that dveditz@dbase.A-T.com (Dan Veditz) said:
-I missed the discussion, so I'll stick in my tuppence now:
-
-1. This group will not divert any significant amount of traffic from the
- groups that are currently bothered by them. It will, however, make
- a good crossposting magnet.
Actually, I think while there may be some initial crossposting, once the
group gets going, people will start saying "Take it to talk.lists" and
not crosspost. This may be a bit optomistic, but stranger things have
happened.
-2. This group is out of place as a "talk" group -- misc.lists would be a
- much better name. (I realize you can't change the name during the vote
- without causing apoplectic spasms in all net.police.self-appointed,
- but next time give it a thought.)
I considered misc.lists for a while, but feel that it would have the wrong
flavor in the misc.* hierarchy. I see talk being for groups "full of sound
and fury signifying nothing." The politics groups are an example of this.
Misc, on the other hand is more informative, less inflamatory. You rarely
see flame wars in the *.jobs.* groups.
I just didn't think collections of various lists was lofty enough for the
misc hierarchy. And, anyway, misc.lists doesn't roll off my tongue as
nicely as talk.lists does, either. :-)
--
David Bedno, Systems Administrator, The Santa Cruz Operation, Inc.
Email: davidbe@sco.COM / ..!{uunet,sun,ucbvax!ucscc,gorn}!sco!davidbe
Phone: 408-425-7222 x5123 Disclaimer: Speaking from SCO but not for SCO.
Is talk.lists a good idea? Is talk.lists a bad idea?
mail yesvote@sco.COM Vote ends 2/5 mail novote@sco.COMmesard@bbn.com (Wayne Mesard) (01/11/90)
davidbe@sco.COM (The Cat in the Hat) writes: >Actually, I think while there may be some initial crossposting, once the >group gets going, people will start saying "Take it to talk.lists" and >not crosspost. This may be a bit optomistic, but stranger things have >happened. I assume you're thinking of alt.flame as a precedent. This is a useful group in that we are occasionally successful in getting a long, personality-driven thread out of a group. However, when people post the list of smilies, for example, it's not a long annoying thread, it's a lot of little annoying threads. The latter are much harder to divert somewhere appropriate. I useful purpose for talk.lists might be for people to make requests for a particular list (e.g., the purity test, the real programmers thingie, etc.). But I'm not convinced that the users who typically ask for such things would realize that this is the place to post. I sure would like to see this work (or fail) as an alt.* or trial.* group first. Wayne();