ifab750@walt.cc.utexas.edu (Matthew S. Cohen) (10/19/89)
I was wondering if there was any interest in the creation of a group which would hold discussions about Architecture? I am assuming this would be a talk group (I could be wrong, please correct me) and would focus on architectural criticism, theory, and general information of concern to the architecture community. It would not be a moderated group. I do not know the proper procedures for the rest of this process so if someone could inform me... Please reply to: ============================================================================= erik josowitz | University of Texas SOA | erik@vitruvius.ar.utexas.edu.UUCP ============================================================================= "run into the bedroom, in the suitcase on the bed you'll find my favorite axe" ---Pink Floyd =============================================================================
richard@gryphon.COM (Richard Sexton) (10/19/89)
In article <19792@ut-emx.UUCP> ifab750@walt.cc.utexas.edu (Matthew S. Cohen) writes: >I was wondering if there was any interest in the creation of a >group which would hold discussions about Architecture? >I am assuming this would be a talk group Whao! You can get an advanced degree in it so it clearly belongs in sci except it's probably just a hobby for you in which case it clearly belongs in rec unless you don't do it for a hobby, you do it for a living in which case clearly it belongs in biz unless you mean computers in which case it already exists. Fuck it. Make it an alt group. Then you don't have to figure out which hierarchy it goes in and you can post to it tomorrow. -- Help wipe out BBQ lighter fluid in your lifetime richard@gryphon.COM decwrl!gryphon!richard gryphon!richard@elroy.jpl.NASA.GOV
bob@MorningStar.Com (Bob Sutterfield) (10/19/89)
Just to clarify: You mean "architecture" like in big physical structures that people go into and on, right? Not like what's discussed in comp.arch?
mesard@bbn.com (Wayne Mesard) (10/19/89)
richard@gryphon.COM (Richard Sexton) writes: >In article <19792@ut-emx.UUCP> ifab750@walt.cc.utexas.edu (Matthew S. Cohen) writes: >>I was wondering if there was any interest in the creation of a >>group which would hold discussions about Architecture? >>I am assuming this would be a talk group Only if you want the discussion to go something like, "This building is great." "No, it sucks." "You're an idiot, it's great." Repeat ad naseum. >You can get an advanced degree in it so it clearly belongs in sci >except Except it's widely considered an art, not a science. >unless >you don't do it for a hobby, you do it for a living in which case clearly >it belongs in biz Only if the discussion will center on business and commercial products. >Make it an alt group. Then you don't have to figure >out which hierarchy it goes in Bitterness and recent events aside, it really isn't that difficult. And the answer is: misc.architecture Wayne("You heard it here first, folks.");
chip@ateng.com (Chip Salzenberg) (10/20/89)
According to ifab750@walt.cc.utexas.edu (Matthew S. Cohen): >I was wondering if there was any interest in the creation of a >group which would hold discussions about Architecture? I doubt that architechture will cause much argument. How about trying misc.architecture? -- You may redistribute this article only to those who may freely do likewise. Chip Salzenberg at A T Engineering; <chip@ateng.com> or <uunet!ateng!chip> "'Why do we post to Usenet?' Naturally, the answer is, 'To get a response.'" -- Brad "Flame Me" Templeton
welty@lewis.crd.ge.com (richard welty) (10/20/89)
In article <19792@ut-emx.UUCP>, Matthew S. Cohen writes:
*I was wondering if there was any interest in the creation of a
*group which would hold discussions about Architecture?
*I am assuming this would be a talk group (I could be wrong, please
*correct me) and would focus on architectural criticism, theory, and
*general information of concern to the architecture community.
*It would not be a moderated group.
discussions of architecture would probably be perfectly in
rec.arts.misc, as they are unlikely to have to do with detailed
technical techniques. i think i even used architecture as an
example of a topic for rec.arts.misc back when i called for votes
lo these many months ago.
richard
--
richard welty 518-387-6346, GE R&D, K1-5C39, Niskayuna, New York
..!crdgw1!lewis.crd.ge.com!welty welty@lewis.crd.ge.comlearn@igloo.Scum.COM (Bill Haroldmegrhondapooh Vajk) (10/21/89)
In article <21078@gryphon.COM>, richard@gryphon.COM (Richard Sexton) writes: > You can get an advanced degree in it so it clearly belongs in sci > except > it's probably just a hobby for you in which case it clearly belongs in rec > unless > you don't do it for a hobby, you do it for a living in which case clearly > it belongs in biz > unless > you mean computers in which case it already exists. Advanced degree ? How about religion ? Of course if you make it comp.society.women.fish you could get it through just like <snap> that cause we know that it is the male guppies that eat the baby guppies. Clearly another case of male domination && they don't want to make those support payments to the unwed moms.