mesard@bbn.com (Wayne Mesard) (11/12/89)
rang@cs.wisc.edu (Anton Rang) writes: >In article <1989Nov10.013424.17574@ddsw1.MCS.COM> benfeen@ddsw1.MCS.COM (Ben Feen) writes: >>Yes, I agree that rec.kids is a little silly - soc.kids is better. > > Or perhaps talk.kids...for kids talking with each other. Get it right. soc.foo is for foo's to talk with each other. talk.foo is for people to talk _About_ foo's. [And what a messy places t.p.g or t.a would be if it were otherwise.] Soc is the right place. Now is it a good idea? -- unsigned *Wayne_Mesard(); "This is a show for people with great haircuts Mesard@BBN.COM and short attention spans." BBN, Cambridge, MA - from the Nakamichi(?) International Music Series
edhew@xenitec.on.ca (Ed Hew) (11/13/89)
In article <1989Nov8.023420.12396@ddsw1.MCS.COM> benfeen@ddsw1.MCS.COM (Ben Feen) writes: >On misc.kids, there has been some support for a (moderated?) kids-only >group. It seems that there are many kids here, but they have difficulty >meeting in a common forum. Any takers? (and in no way commenting or detracting from the call for discussion), how would you define "Kids"? How will you decide who is a "kid" and qualified to post to rec.kids? Note the lack of smiley's in this paragraph. The point is that once the definition of kids is established, one would quickly get to the stage where we had kids of different development stages posting, and this wouldn't mix any better than (what an example!) posters of different experience level on the current 'NET groups. What would be the charter (have I missed it somewhere)? Ed. A. Hew Authorized Technical Trainer Xeni/Con Corporation work: edhew@xenicon.uucp -or- ..!{uunet!}utai!lsuc!xenicon!edhew ->home: edhew@xenitec.on.ca -or- ..!{uunet!}watmath!xenitec!edhew # This posting has absolutely nothing to do with what I do for a living.
lori@hacgate.UUCP (Lori Barfield) (11/14/89)
Some people seem to be forgetting that *no one* needs permission to contribute to UseNet. A Call for Discussion is *not* a request for permission-- it is a standard, required practice for the (potential) creation of a new group. Certain people have suggested practicing discrimination against this particular group of people because they aren't interested in what those people might say on their own net. Or that it may encourage them <gasp> to follow and contribute to other nets. (God *forbid* we should have even more teenagers out there expressing their opinions with us *real* people.) The same as anyone else, if Ben Feen follows the rules and gets the votes, the group is created. Discussion of whether one likes the *type* of people who would contribute to that net is irrelevant. ...lori