MATON%SASK.BITNET@EVANS.UCAR.EDU (11/28/89)
There has been a lot of comment in recent times regarding postings
to 'rec.arts.tv.uk' that have nothing to do with TV.
The fact is that they do often originate from questions arising
from brit tv shows seen in N. America (and maybe elsewhere).
However, I think it is time to give a seperate sub-group for these
questions/discussions of things such as food, customs, sayings etc.
As there are many locations that do not get the '.soc' newsgroups
it would seem appropriate to have this group under the '.rec'
heading.
I suggest a discussion period to last until Dec 15th at which time
if interest seems to be there, and general proposals be agreed, a
Call for Votes would be issued.
Terry Maton
University of Saskatchewan
Saskatoon
Saskatchewan
Canada
uucp address: maton@dvinci.USask.ca
bitnet address: MATON@SASK.BITNET
******* One Planet - One People - PLEASE *******sullivan@aqdata.uucp (Michael T. Sullivan) (11/29/89)
From article <8911281706.AA06461@ncar.UCAR.EDU>, by MATON%SASK.BITNET@EVANS.UCAR.EDU: > > As there are many locations that do not get the '.soc' newsgroups > it would seem appropriate to have this group under the '.rec' > heading. Is this a good enough reason to make, what looks to me to be, a soc group a rec group? This inquiring mind wants to know. -- Michael Sullivan uunet!jarthur.uucp!aqdata!sullivan aQdata, Inc. aqdata!sullivan@jarthur.claremont.edu San Dimas, CA
crew@CS.Stanford.EDU (Roger Crew) (11/29/89)
In article <8911281706.AA06461@ncar.UCAR.EDU> MATON%SASK.BITNET@EVANS.UCAR.EDU writes: > > As there are many locations that do not get the '.soc' newsgroups > it would seem appropriate to have this group under the '.rec' > heading. > This by itself is enough to make me put in a NO vote. If it's a soc. group, then it's a soc. group. If we get large numbers of soc. groups masquerading as rec. groups all that will happen is that we'll get sites deciding not to carry the rec. groups either. -- Roger Crew OBEY MARRY AND REPRODUCE CONSUME STAY ASLEEP Usenet: {arpa gateways, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!crew Internet: crew@CS.Stanford.EDU
ray@philmtl.philips.ca (Ray Dunn) (11/29/89)
In article <8911281706.AA06461@ncar.UCAR.EDU> <MATON%SASK.BITNET@EVANS.UCAR.EDU> writes: > >As there are many locations that do not get the '.soc' newsgroups >it would seem appropriate to have this group under the '.rec' >heading. > Sigh.... here we go again, a totally inappropriate name just for distribution reasons. Anarchy at its worst I suppose. >There has been a lot of comment in recent times regarding postings >to 'rec.arts.tv.uk' that have nothing to do with TV. No, there has been at most a handful of comments in a newsgroup that averages about 10 postings a day. Until your call for discussion, there was only 1 posting on the subject in the last 15 days. >The fact is that they do often originate from questions arising >from brit tv shows seen in N. America (and maybe elsewhere). So, in fact there is a strong argument that the postings are perfectly valid. >However, I think it is time to give a seperate sub-group for these >questions/discussions of things such as food, customs, sayings etc. Why is a sub-group required in a newsgroup with a daily traffic of 10 postings? -- Ray Dunn. | UUCP: ray@philmt.philips.ca Philips Electronics Ltd. | ..!{uunet|philapd|philabs}!philmtl!ray 600 Dr Frederik Philips Blvd | TEL : (514) 744-8200 Ext : 2347 (Phonemail) St Laurent. Quebec. H4M 2S9 | FAX : (514) 744-6455 TLX : 05-824090
carlo@electro.UUCP (Carlo Sgro) (11/30/89)
In article <8911281706.AA06461@ncar.UCAR.EDU> MATON%SASK.BITNET@EVANS.UCAR.EDU writes:
# As there are many locations that do not get the '.soc' newsgroups
# it would seem appropriate to have this group under the '.rec'
# heading.
Oh, Richard ...
--
Carlo Sgro Vote for your favorite .signature!
watmath!watcgl!electro!carlo Call 1-900-GOODONE ($2 on your phone bill).nigel@modcomp.UUCP (Nigel Gamble) (11/30/89)
I don't think that the number of postings of a cultural nature in rec.arts.tv.uk justifies the creation of a new group. These discussions usually originate from a question about a TV program anyway, so such discussions will probably continue to be started in rec.arts.tv.uk even if another group exists. Just because many locations (mine included) do not receive the soc.* groups, this is not a good reason to choose an inappropriate name for a proposed new group. The group that is being proposed should be named something like soc.culture.uk: it clearly belongs in the soc.* groups. For these two reasons, I do not think rec.arts.uk.misc is a good idea. By the way, I am a Brit (despite the Florida address). -- Nigel Gamble "Everything should be made MODCOMP an AEG company as simple as possible, but 1650 W McNab Rd, Ft Lauderdale, FL 33340-6099 not simpler." A. Einstein uunet!modcomp!nigel
dave@cogsci.indiana.edu (David Chalmers) (12/03/89)
In article <8911281706.AA06461@ncar.UCAR.EDU> <MATON%SASK.BITNET@EVANS.UCAR.EDU> writes: >There has been a lot of comment in recent times regarding postings >to 'rec.arts.tv.uk' that have nothing to do with TV. >However, I think it is time to give a seperate sub-group for these >questions/discussions of things such as food, customs, sayings etc. > >[calls for "rec.arts.uk.misc"] I know you mean well, but you have zero chance of getting this group created under "rec" unless you have very thick skin and lots and lots of chocolate. I recommend against it. It should be fine under "soc". We recently held a vote on soc.culture.commonwealth, which failed, I think because people felt that it wasn't a cohesive enough topic (also because I didn't have enough chocolate :-). Soc.culture.british wouldn't suffer from this problem. I'd be very interested in reading it. Incidentally, I think that "soc.culture.british" is a better name than "soc.culture.uk". Mostly because it stresses the deeper, cultural issues rather than the more surface-level political ones. Also because this way you'll avoid endless flames about Northern Ireland. (It's also a better analogy with most existing soc.culture.* groups.) -- Dave Chalmers (dave@cogsci.indiana.edu) Concepts and Cognition, Indiana University. "To live outside the law you must be honest..."
maton@dvinci.usask.ca (Terry Maton) (12/05/89)
From article <1989Nov28.233823.13658@aqdata.uucp>, by sullivan@aqdata.uucp (Michael T. Sullivan): > From article <8911281706.AA06461@ncar.UCAR.EDU>, by MATON%SASK.BITNET@EVANS.UCAR.EDU: >> >> As there are many locations that do not get the '.soc' newsgroups >> it would seem appropriate to have this group under the '.rec' >> heading. > > Is this a good enough reason to make, what looks to me to be, a soc group > a rec group? This inquiring mind wants to know. > -- > Michael Sullivan uunet!jarthur.uucp!aqdata!sullivan > aQdata, Inc. aqdata!sullivan@jarthur.claremont.edu > San Dimas, CA I feel that the difference between 'rec' & 'soc' is in this case very slight due to the nature of the questions and discussions and how they originate. ie. most discussions start out from things seen on British TV shows. I would point out that there does not seem to be much point in starting up a new group if a large number of the people who would be interested and who would participate are unable to do so because it is in a section that is not available to them. Maybe the new group should be an immediate sub-group of rec.arts.tv.uk such as 'rec.arts.tv.uk.culture'? Our link to the outside world has been down for nearly a week and so I have not seen any discussions prior to this :( I do hope we can get something agreed upon to take to a vote! Terry Maton University of Saskatchewan Saskatoon Saskatchewan Canada uucp address: maton@dvinci.USask.ca bitnet address: MATON@SASK.BITNET ******* One Planet - One People - PLEASE *******
maton@dvinci.usask.ca (Terry Maton) (12/06/89)
From article <875@philmtl.philips.ca>, by ray@philmtl.philips.ca (Ray Dunn): > In article <8911281706.AA06461@ncar.UCAR.EDU> <MATON%SASK.BITNET@EVANS.UCAR.EDU> writes: >> >>As there are many locations that do not get the '.soc' newsgroups >>it would seem appropriate to have this group under the '.rec' >>heading. >> > > Sigh.... here we go again, a totally inappropriate name just for > distribution reasons. Anarchy at its worst I suppose. I get the picture! I was at a bit of a loss in the discussions, because of the fact that our site lost it's UUCP link about two days after my original posting, and was down until yesterday :( Thanks to all contributors and esp. to Ray Dunn for mailing me copies of all the postings I missed. I would agree that we should look at a new group 'soc.culture.british' and would be pleased to initiate the call for discussion in the new year, or to support one from someone else. I think there should be enough interest to get this group started and to get some lively, and interesting stuff going. Terry Maton University of Saskatchewan Saskatoon Saskatchewan Canada uucp address: maton@dvinci.USask.ca bitnet address: MATON@SASK.BITNET DISCLAIMER: The above most definitely may be my opinion, but you can be sure that it also could be yours if you would like it to be. If you find it is yours, you can be sure that I agree with you and that, in my opinion, you too have good taste and are obviously right just as I am.
jmdoyle@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Jennifer Doyle) (12/07/89)
In article <1989Dec5.142855.7945@dvinci.usask.ca> (Terry Maton) writes: >In article <1989Nov28.233823.13658@aqdata.uucp> (Michael T. Sullivan) writes: >>In article <8911281706.AA06461@ncar.UCAR.EDU> (Terry Maton) writes: TM: As there are many locations that do not get the '.soc' newsgroups TM: it would seem appropriate to have this group under the '.rec' TM: heading. MS: Is this a good enough reason to make, what looks to me to be, a soc group MS: a rec group? This inquiring mind wants to know. No, this is exactly the wrong reason to put a group in a hierarchy, as has been pointed out, and has been witnessed recently with the foo.aquaria flamewar TM: I feel that the difference between 'rec' & 'soc' is in this case TM: very slight due to the nature of the questions and discussions TM: and how they originate. ie. most discussions start out from TM: things seen on British TV shows. The discussion may *start* that way, but it does not then include comments on tv. They are inspired by, but not related to tv shows. The discussion of food, (coinage, language, schools, etc.) is the type of discussion that belongs in a soc group. [ `>' from here on represents Terry Maton] > I would point out that there does not seem to be much point in > starting up a new group if a large number of the people who > would be interested and who would participate are unable to > do so because it is in a section that is not available to them. I would point out that there does not seem to be much point in starting up a new group if a large number of the people who would be interested and who would participate are unable to do so because their sysadmins have refused to carry the group because it is clearly in the wrong hierarchy. > Maybe the new group should be an immediate sub-group of > rec.arts.tv.uk such as 'rec.arts.tv.uk.culture'? Why not instead call it soc.culture.british? Do you get the soc groups? Do you know of large numbers of people who would want to participate but who do not get the soc groups? The group could always be archived and sent to people who do not get soc groups. >I do hope we can get something agreed upon to take to a vote! So do I. I'd also like to see the group. But I think that the support will be greater if the group is proposed with the right name, in the right hierarchy. Jen -- "Make mine a root beer, Mike. Thanks. To communication! <CRASH>" ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Jennifer Doyle // Princeton '92 // jmdoyle@phoenix.princeton.edu Disclaimer: I am a student, I represent the future.
welty@lewis.crd.ge.com (richard welty) (12/09/89)
In article <1989Dec5.142855.7945@dvinci.usask.ca>, Terry Maton writes:
* 'rec.arts.tv.uk.culture'?
this is a joke, right?
richard
soc.culture.british seems just about right
--
richard welty 518-387-6346, GE R&D, K1-5C39, Niskayuna, New York
..!crdgw1!lewis.crd.ge.com!welty welty@lewis.crd.ge.com
``i've got a girlfriend with bows in her hair,
and nothing is better than that'' -- David Byrnezmacx07@doc.ic.ac.uk (Simon E Spero) (12/09/89)
>>>>> On 6 Dec 89 14:29:44 GMT, maton@dvinci.usask.ca (Terry Maton) said: Tel> From article <875@philmtl.philips.ca>, by ray@philmtl.philips.ca (Ray Dunn): > In article <8911281706.AA06461@ncar.UCAR.EDU> <MATON%SASK.BITNET@EVANS.UCAR.EDU> writes: >> >>As there are many locations that do not get the '.soc' newsgroups it >>would seem appropriate to have this group under the '.rec' heading. Just a historical note, but up until recently, Europe used to get soc.culture.* but only a few rec.arts groups (rec.arts.tv.uk wasn't one of them!). I can see valid reasons why this may be the case for other sites as well. No point causing IDOTN if it doesn't improve distribution! Namespace pollution kills fish and birds. Tel> I would agree that we should look at a new group Tel> 'soc.culture.british' and would be pleased to initiate the Tel> call for discussion in the new year, or to support one from Tel> someone else. Harking back to the soc.culture.commonwealth discussion, I seem to remember that a lot of the people who opposed the group were objecting on naming grounds- mostly that the charter was drawn to wide. A finer targeted group should go through no problem at all. Personally, I would prefer soc.culture.uk, but either is ok. Of, course, the other alternatives are comp.sys.difference-engine (every site should have one), or sci.aquaria.fish'n'chips . Tel> Terry Maton University of Saskatchewan Saskatoon Tel> Saskatchewan Canada Simon -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ zmacx07@doc.ic.ac.uk | sispero%cix@specialix.co.uk | ..!ukc!slxsys!cix!sispero ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ "Advisers advise, Prime Ministers decide" | Not the official view. "The GNU Manifesto refers to all Software, not just Editors" | (I'm the FSF)
maton@dvinci.usask.ca (Terry Maton) (12/15/89)
> Why not instead call it soc.culture.british? Do you get the soc groups? Do you > know of large numbers of people who would want to participate but who do not > get the soc groups? The group could always be archived and sent to people who > do not get soc groups. > >>I do hope we can get something agreed upon to take to a vote! > > So do I. I'd also like to see the group. But I think that the support will be > greater if the group is proposed with the right name, in the right hierarchy. > > Jen I do so hope so too!!! I would agree *totally* that we should have a group 'soc.culture.british'. So who wants to start the ball rolling this time? Terry Maton University of Saskatchewan Saskatoon Saskatchewan Canada uucp address: maton@dvinci.USask.ca bitnet address: MATON@SASK.BITNET ******* One Planet - One People - PLEASE *******
maton@dvinci.usask.ca (Terry Maton) (12/18/89)
From article <2838127019@lewis.crd.ge.com>, by welty@lewis.crd.ge.com (richard welty): > In article <1989Dec5.142855.7945@dvinci.usask.ca>, Terry Maton writes: > * 'rec.arts.tv.uk.culture'? > > soc.culture.british seems just about right > -- > richard welty 518-387-6346, GE R&D, K1-5C39, Niskayuna, New York YES YES YES !!!!!!! I propose to issue a CALL FOR VOTES on ** soc.culture.british ** At end of month, or first thing in New Year. Terry Maton University of Saskatchewan Saskatoon Saskatchewan Canada uucp address: maton@dvinci.USask.ca bitnet address: MATON@SASK.BITNET DISCLAIMER: The above most definitely may be my opinion, but you can be sure that it also could be yours if you would like it to be. If you find it is yours, you can be sure that I agree with you and that, in my opinion, you too have good taste and are obviously right just as I am.
paola@zen.co.uk (Paola Kathuria) (12/19/89)
In article <1989Dec14.174618.20949@dvinci.usask.ca> maton@dvinci.usask.ca (Terry Maton) writes: >> Why not instead call it soc.culture.british? > > I would agree *totally* that we should have a group > 'soc.culture.british'. I agree with the sentiment behind this group, if the suggestion arose out of how rec.arts.tv.uk is now used. However, I feel that the discussions have been about differences between the US and UK (food, drink, schooling and slang, mostly). I have considered suggesting a new group myself, one that would encourage discussion about similarities and differences (food, drink, slang and so, I guess, culture) but could never think of an appropriate name. So, here are my inappropriate names and hope that someone can make some use of them: soc.culture.transatlantic soc.culture.shock soc.food-and-slang soc.marmite soc.differences soc.culture.anglophone Oh, :-) -- Paola Poot