adams@swbatl.UUCP (4237) (12/28/89)
Mail is *too hard*. The mailing list seems to be a major pain to keep running, and outbound mail is unreasonably prone to technical difficulties. There is, however, a reasonable body of interest in antiques in general. However, it now seems that antique radio is too specialized for a general antiques newsgroup. Hence I propose rec.antique-radio for the discussion of early radio news, hints and discussion. Also, having heard little on the recent call for discussion for an antiques group, and having suggested people join the mailing list I now wish to reignite the antiques discussion. What I have in mind is a newsgroup for the discussion of antiques and collectables, their repair, acquisition, value and history. Please subscribe to news.groups now that the aquaria squabble is over. Participation and some time could help get this off the ground. This is not a call for votes, though it would be nice to get a gauge on the general level of interest. Also, for those with problems reading news that have communicated their difficulties, I'll try to provide bi-directional mail gateways if I can get reasonable email reliabity. I'll have to sort out who is interested in which areas. The antiques mailing list wil continue to operate in the meantime. send new requests to join to uunet!swbatl!antiques-request. -- uunet!swbatl!adams or adams@swbatl.swbt.com | Tom Adams: 314-235-7459 BOOKS WANTED: pre-1930 radio, electrical & scientific topics.
chguest@pioneer.arc.nasa.gov (Charles J. Guest) (12/28/89)
I would be interested in seeing the creation of an antiques related newsgroup in the rec.xxx heirarchy, however at this point I do not believe that the volume of antique _radio_ postings would be considered large enough to warrant it's own group. I would very much like to see antique radios discussed in the antique group though as this is one of my interests too. If a time comes for a vote ont the name of the group, (to avoid a xyz.aquaria type squabble), I would be willing to accept the votes. Please note: followups to news.groups Charles +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ + *READ* ---> The opinions expressed above are to the best of my knowledge, + + however all options should be discussed with persons who have professional+ + training with the subjects covered here. * ALL POSSIBLE DISCLAIMERS APPLY!+ + ____FROM: chguest@pioneer.arc.nasa.gov =>or<= sun!ames!pioneer!chguest____+ +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ + A new Soviet/American truism - KGB does NOT stand for Kinder Gentler Boys + +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
tale@cs.rpi.edu (David C Lawrence) (12/28/89)
In article <1078@swbatl.UUCP> adams@swbatl.UUCP (4237) writes: > Hence I propose rec.antique-radio for the discussion of early radio > news, hints and discussion. I suspect that there is not enough traffic on this topic to justify purusing a newsgroup for it, but if it is indeed brought to vote I think that a better place for it would be in the newly formed rec.radio hierarchy as rec.radio.antique. I certainly don't think that it is big enough to get its own second-level name. Dave -- (setq mail '("tale@cs.rpi.edu" "tale@ai.mit.edu" "tale@rpitsmts.bitnet"))
adams@swbatl.UUCP (4237) (12/29/89)
In article <-#DC7-@rpi.edu> tale@cs.rpi.edu (David C Lawrence) writes: >In article <1078@swbatl.UUCP> adams@swbatl.UUCP (4237) writes: >> Hence I propose rec.antique-radio for the discussion of early radio >> news, hints and discussion. > >I suspect that there is not enough traffic on this topic to justify >purusing a newsgroup for it, but if it is indeed brought to vote I >think that a better place for it would be in the newly formed >rec.radio hierarchy as rec.radio.antique. I certainly don't think >that it is big enough to get its own second-level name. As to traffic, I think we'll make it.. can't tell until the voting happens though. I'll be pestering everyone I can think of till then. I've heard several suggestions along the rec.radio.antique line, and certainly have no problems with that name. I was thinking of rec.ham-radio when I suggested antique-radio. I'm also curious about this size/second-level name perception. Is there some policy on this? Doesn't seem to be any reason to link the two that I can think of, except perhaps some sys file convenience. -- uunet!swbatl!adams or adams@swbatl.swbt.com | Tom Adams: 314-235-7459 BOOKS WANTED: pre-1930 radio, electrical & scientific topics.
tale@cs.rpi.edu (David C Lawrence) (12/29/89)
In article <1083@swbatl.UUCP> adams@swbatl.UUCP (4237) writes: > I'm also curious about this size/second-level name perception. Is > there some policy on this? Doesn't seem to be any reason to link > the two that I can think of, except perhaps some sys file > convenience. Global USENET policy? Not really. It is indeed a sys file convenience in some regards, but for the most part it is staying consistent with the USENET-as-a-file-cabinet model which some people have. The size of the group isn't even as much of a factor as whether it would fit better under a more specialised node so it is near (as in sorted listings) other groups which are related to it. This supposedly keeps things orderly and easy for people to find, and in general results in a more evenly distriuted tree. There are of course many counter-examples to that and people that don't put much stock in this particular model of the namespace. The existence of other anomalies, though, doesn't mean that more should be encouraged. Dave -- (setq mail '("tale@cs.rpi.edu" "tale@ai.mit.edu" "tale@rpitsmts.bitnet"))