sword02@excalibur.UUCP (Luther ) (02/27/86)
I would like to make a proposal for a new group! At the moment there
is only one NET.BOOKS. I would like to set up a NET.BOOKS for just
fantasy, and science fiction lovers. I have discussed this with
various people who now use the net, and they have all agreed that it
would be a nice addition.
I have one problem. I know we have the abiltity to set up a new NET
group, but I was told that I had to go through it in a Buerocratic
way. How do I go about the voting on the group. I have read all
the messages on this group, but they did not help much. Should I
just post the propossal on NET.BOOKS and NET.SF-LOVERS, or should I
post it here only???
Mail responses would be appreciated, and any votes or comments on
the subject!!!
Thanks...
...!ihnp4!psuvax1!vu-vlsi!excalibur!sword02
<don't ask me how I remembered it>avolio@decuac.UUCP (03/03/86)
In article <417@excalibur.UUCP>, sword02@excalibur.UUCP writes: > ... a proposal for a new group! At the moment there is only one NET.BOOKS. > I would like ... a NET.BOOKS for just fantasy, and science fiction lovers. net.sf-lovers is more than 50% dicussions of f&sf books. There is no need for another group. -- Fred @ DEC Ultrix Applications Center UUCP: {decvax,seismo,cbosgd}!decuac!avolio INET: avolio@decuac.DEC.COM
li@uw-vlsi.ARPA (Phyllis Li) (03/06/86)
In article <838@decuac.UUCP> avolio@decuac.UUCP (Frederick M. Avolio) writes: >In article <417@excalibur.UUCP>, sword02@excalibur.UUCP writes: >> ... a proposal for a new group! At the moment there is only one NET.BOOKS. >> I would like ... a NET.BOOKS for just fantasy, and science fiction lovers. > >net.sf-lovers is more than 50% dicussions of f&sf books. There is no need >for another group. Actually I don't see all that much fantasy begin discussed here; and when it is it is usually done in a "well, I shouldn't, but..." manner. Here's to more fantasy on sf-lovers!! :) LiralenOx Li -- A closed mouth gathers no foot. USENET: ihnp4!akgua!sb6!fluke!uw-vlsi!li ARPA: li@uw-vlsi.arpa
wheel@utastro.UUCP (Craig Wheeler) (03/08/86)
Regardless of whats been posted here recently, I have a proposal for a new newsgroup. I suggested the idea on net.games, and received several positive replies. Proposal: net.games.infocom For: sharing stories, hints, info, rumors, all "giveaway" answers could be rotated or left in email (to avoid numerous, equivalent answers on the net) What do you think? Everyone has dabbled in an Infocom game now and then! Share your success stories! Offer help! Votes in email, I'll keep track of results and then SOMEONE can decide how they should be tallied correctly. "NO" votes are appreciated (see previous articles) -------------------------------------------------
laura@hoptoad.uucp (Laura Creighton) (03/09/86)
In article <838@decuac.UUCP> avolio@decuac.UUCP (Frederick M. Avolio) writes: >In article <417@excalibur.UUCP>, sword02@excalibur.UUCP writes: >> ... a proposal for a new group! At the moment there is only one NET.BOOKS. >> I would like ... a NET.BOOKS for just fantasy, and science fiction lovers. > >net.sf-lovers is more than 50% dicussions of f&sf books. There is no need >for another group. I don't know, Fred. I am not interested in the other 50%, which is why I don't subscribe to net/sf-lovers. If there are a lot of people in my position, then net.books.sf would be a good idea. I don't think that I am a minority of one -- but perhaps I am -- Laura Creighton ihnp4!hoptoad!laura utzoo!hoptoad!laura sun!hoptoad!laura toad@lll-crg.arpa
ix312@sdcc6.UUCP (ix312) (03/11/86)
In article <838@decuac.UUCP>, avolio@decuac.UUCP writes: > In article <417@excalibur.UUCP>, sword02@excalibur.UUCP writes: > > ... a proposal for a new group! At the moment there is only one NET.BOOKS. > > I would like ... a NET.BOOKS for just fantasy, and science fiction lovers. > > net.sf-lovers is more than 50% dicussions of f&sf books. There is no need > for another group. I, too, feel that there is a need to separate books.sf/fantasy from media science fiction. The media group could then include the present Dr. Who group. This might then reduce the double coverage of many articles in both the net.sf-lovers and net.tv, as well as some duplication in net.books and net.sf-lovers. There is, in my opinion, enough difference between literary science fiction and media science fiction to warrent this. ME (Yes, I'd love to get and education, but it's too late; I already have my Ph.D.)
irene@epistemi.UUCP (Irene Orr) (03/11/86)
A new group JUST FOR SF & FANTASY BOOKS! so we can have grossly misspelled cross-posting to net.sf-lovers, net.books and this new group, no doubt. Most sf readers are literate (well, nearly) so net.sf-lovers should be quite adequate. Anyway, what is net.sf-lovers FOR if not sf & fantasy books, as well as other media, Irene Orr (...mcvax!ukc!cstvax!epistemi!irene)
phillips@cisden.UUCP (Tom Phillips) (03/12/86)
>Actually I don't see all that much fantasy begin discussed here; and when >it is it is usually done in a "well, I shouldn't, but..." manner. Here's >to more fantasy on sf-lovers!! :) A solution! I hereby decree that sf-lovers means speculative-fiction-lovers! (So it's a kludge. Wanna make something of it?) -- Tommy Phillips The Gibbelins eat, as is well known, nothing less good than man. cisden!phillips
avolio@decuac.UUCP (03/12/86)
In article <838@decuac.UUCP> I wrote: > net.sf-lovers is more than 50% dicussions of f&sf books. There is no need > for another group. In article <598@hoptoad.uucp>, laura@hoptoad.uucp (Laura Creighton) writes: > I don't know, Fred. I am not interested in the other 50%, which is why > I don't subscribe to net/sf-lovers. If there are a lot of people in > my position, then net.books.sf would be a good idea. You are quite right Laura and I was wrong. In fact, the 50% I wrote is dead wrong. I just stop noticing how many times I hit the 'n' key when reading net.sf-lovers (although, Laura, I bet you soon unsubscribe to net.rumor ... one must hit the 'n' key lots more there now-a-days!) I think that a subgroup under net.books is a good idea. -- Fred @ DEC Ultrix Applications Center UUCP: {decvax,seismo,cbosgd}!decuac!avolio INET: avolio@decuac.DEC.COM
norman@batcomputer.TN.CORNELL.EDU (Norman Ramsey) (03/12/86)
In article <598@hoptoad.uucp> laura@hoptoad.UUCP (Laura Creighton) writes: >In article <838@decuac.UUCP> avolio@decuac.UUCP (Frederick M. Avolio) writes: >>In article <417@excalibur.UUCP>, sword02@excalibur.UUCP writes: >>> ... a proposal for a new group! At the moment there is only one NET.BOOKS. >>> I would like ... a NET.BOOKS for just fantasy, and science fiction lovers. >>net.sf-lovers is more than 50% dicussions of f&sf books. There is no need >>for another group. > >I don't know, Fred. I am not interested in the other 50%, which is why >I don't subscribe to net/sf-lovers. If there are a lot of people in Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't it be possible for us to put the keyword "book" in the Keywords: part of the header for those postings relating to books? Those who are interested in books only could then filter out other postings using their kill files. Of course, it is probably asking too much of our overworked posters that they remember to insert this keyword where appropriate... (:-) -- Norman Ramsey norman@tcgould.tn.cornell.edu Pianist at Large
woods@hao.UUCP (Greg Woods) (03/14/86)
> Those who are interested in books only could then filter out other > postings using their kill files. Anyone who thinks like this shoudl subscribe to the group 'mod.newslists', in which every month an article is posted detailing the wide variety of news versions in use. Only 'rn' supports 'kill' files. If 'rn' would fit on our 11/70, I would gladly run it, but it doesn't. We are stuck with 'readnews' and 'kill' files are only a dream. This is not a viable option for much of the net. Do not assume the net looks the same to everyone else as it does to you. --Greg -- {ucbvax!hplabs | decvax!noao | mcvax!seismo | ihnp4!seismo} !hao!woods CSNET: woods@ncar.csnet ARPA: woods%ncar@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA "If the game is lost, we're all the same; no one left to place or take the blame; Will we leave this place an empty stone, or a shining ball of earth, we can call our home"
dobro@ulowell.UUCP (Chet Dobro) (03/17/86)
In article <2467@sdcc6.UUCP> ix312@sdcc6.UUCP (ix312) writes: >In article <838@decuac.UUCP>, avolio@decuac.UUCP writes: >> In article <417@excalibur.UUCP>, sword02@excalibur.UUCP writes: >> > ... a proposal for a new group! At the moment there is only one NET.BOOKS. >> > I would like ... a NET.BOOKS for just fantasy, and science fiction lovers. >> >> net.sf-lovers is more than 50% dicussions of f&sf books. There is no need >> for another group. > >I, too, feel that there is a need to separate books.sf/fantasy from >media science fiction. The media group could then include the present >Dr. Who group. This might then reduce the double coverage of many >articles in both the net.sf-lovers and net.tv, as well as some >duplication in net.books and net.sf-lovers. > >There is, in my opinion, enough difference between literary science >fiction and media science fiction to warrent this. > > > ME > > (Yes, I'd love to get and education, but it's too late; I already have > my Ph.D.) Count my $0.02 in towards a "net.books.sf" or a "net.fantasy" Gryphon
dobro@ulowell.UUCP (Chet Dobro) (03/17/86)
This is a formal request for a creation of soething along the lines of "net.psi" to handle discussions of occult or parapsychological content. I am a serious student of this field, and am interested in discussing this topic. There are other people out there who like to dicsuss this topic. Whenever it shows up on net.sci (almost without exception) it is flamed. There are two reasons for my suggeted title. 1) The [obvious :-)] rebuff/parity of "net.sci" 2) 'psi' - short for 'psionic' Please respong (mail or post) on your oppions on this. **** Oh powers that be (aka Administration), hear our plea !!! *** humbly, Gryphon
carl@aoa.UUCP (Carl Witthoft) (03/18/86)
In article <242@ulowell.UUCP> dobro@ulowell.UUCP (Chet Dobro) writes: >This is a formal request for a creation of soething along the lines of >"net.psi" to handle discussions of occult or parapsychological content. >I am a serious student of this field, and am interested in discussing this ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^ Look , another oxymoron! >Whenever it shows up on net.sci (almost without exception) it is flamed. ^^^^^^^ Or on net.physics, or net.med, or anywhere that is viewed by rational people. Seems discussion of "occult" should be on net.religion ( :=) ) ( Really, only kidding!!!! Don't flame! Ouch!) Darwin's Dad ( Carl Witthoft @ Adaptive Optics Associates) {decvax,linus,ihnp4,ima,wjh12,wanginst}!bbncca!aoa!carl {wjh12,mit-vax}!biomed!aoa!carl 54 CambridgePark Drive, Cambridge,MA 02140 617-864-0201x356 "Selmer MarkVI, Otto Link 5*, and VanDoren Java Cut."
gsmith@brahms.BERKELEY.EDU (Gene Ward Smith) (03/21/86)
In article <424@aoa.UUCP> carl@aoa.UUCP (Carl Witthoft) writes: >In article <242@ulowell.UUCP> dobro@ulowell.UUCP (Chet Dobro) writes: >>This is a formal request for a creation of soething along the lines of >>"net.psi" to handle discussions of occult or parapsychological content. >>I am a serious student of this field, and am interested in discussing this > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^ >Look , another oxymoron! >>Whenever it shows up on net.sci (almost without exception) it is flamed. > ^^^^^^^ >Or on net.physics, or net.med, or anywhere that is viewed by rational people. Geez! Give this guy a break. We already have net.origins. Net.psi seems a lot more sensible to me. ucbvax!brahms!gsmith Gene Ward Smith/UCB Math Dept/Berkeley CA 94720 Fifty flippant frogs / Walked by on flippered feet And with their slime they made the time / Unnaturally fleet.
weemba@brahms.BERKELEY.EDU (Matthew P. Wiener) (03/21/86)
>>>This is a formal request for a creation of something along the lines of >>>"net.psi" to handle discussions of occult or parapsychological content. >>>I am a serious student of this field, and am interested in discussing this >> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^ >>Look , another oxymoron! >>>Whenever it shows up on net.sci (almost without exception) it is flamed. >> ^^^^^^^ >>Or on net.physics, or net.med, or anywhere that is viewed by rational people. > > Geez! Give this guy a break. We already have net.origins. Net.psi seems >a lot more sensible to me. If a topic can only get flamed when it shows up in the standard newsgroups, it clearly deserves its own separate newsgroup. Of course, I'm sure >> above would subscribe to it so he could continue to flame the topic, but at least the heat would be localized. ucbvax!brahms!weemba Matthew P Wiener/UCB Math Dept/Berkeley CA 94720
ethan@utastro.UUCP (Ethan Vishniac) (03/22/86)
Add my vote to net.psi. I`m not likely to be a contributor, but it's
clear the psi enthusiasts need a home of their own. It's also clear net.sci
shouldn't be it.
--
"Ma, I've been to another Ethan Vishniac
planet!" {charm,ut-sally,ut-ngp,noao}!utastro!ethan
ethan@astro.UTEXAS.EDU
Department of Astronomy
University of Texasinstall@kosman.UUCP (Kevin O'Gorman) (03/28/86)
Add my vote for "net.psi". Some people I regard as level-headed and non-
hysterical have had experiences they don't understand and would like to
understand. My feeling is these folks would benefit from a place they could
relate their stories and thoughts, without too much expectation that they'll
get a lecture for their trouble. These people don't get treated much like
people in some places...
Kevin O'Gorman
...{ihnp4,hjuxa}!wcom!kosman!installlindberg@suadb.UUCP (Per Lindberg QZ) (03/29/86)
Yes, here's another vote to split the sf-discussions into two newsgorups, one for sf-movies, another for sf-books.