mwolf@yale-com.UUCP (Anne G. Wolf) (12/10/83)
There has been a suggestion in net.sf-lovers that we create
net.sf-lovers.whonix. I support the creation of the group,
but I think that net.who or net.drwho would be better.
It would be nice if this discussion were moved out of sf-lovers
and into net.news.group, which is why I am posting this to
both groups.
Mary-Anne Wolf (decvax!yale-comix!mwolf)alb@alice.UUCP (12/11/83)
net.sf-lovers is too long to have subgroups, and Dr. Who does not deserve a top level group.
feldman@umcp-cs.UUCP (12/12/83)
I second the motion. We Doctor Who fans deserve a news group of our own.
-- mark feldman -- UUCP : {seismo,allegra,brl-bmd}!umcp-cs!feldman
CSNet : feldman@umcp-cs
Arpa : feldman.umcp-cs@CSNet-relaydw@rocks34.UUCP (12/12/83)
I'm also in favor of a newsgroup for Dr. Who fans. How about net.tv.drwho for it's name? Don Wegeng
chuqui@cae780.UUCP (12/12/83)
I think the preferable place would be net.tv.{who!tardis} rather than
net.sf-lovers, mainly because Dr. Who is much more a TV show with SF and
fantasy extensions than it is a SF/Fantasy TV show... Also, I intensely
disagree with net.who, because net.startrek should be net.tv.startrek
anyway. Renaming sf-lovers is impossible mainly because those things never
work....
--
From the dungeons of the warlock: {amd70 qubix}!cae780!chuqui
Chuqui the Plaid *pif*bae@astrovax.UUCP (Brian Ehrmantraut ) (12/12/83)
I'm all for it. net.sf-lovers.drwho is TOO long.
Brian Ehrmantraut
allegra!{astrovax, fisher, twiggy}!baeofut@gatech.UUCP (Jeff Offutt) (12/13/83)
How about net.sf.tv? That way he could share with such gems as
Mork and Mindy, and.... I guess there's really not much sf on
tv anyway. Probably nothing on tv worth watching in the first place
for that matter.
rambling on --...
--
Jeff Offutt
School of ICS, Georgia Tech, Atlanta GA
CSNet: Ofut @ GATech ARPA: Ofut.GATech @ Csnet-Relay
uucp: ...!{akgua,allegra,rlgvax,sb1,unmvax,ulysses,ut-sally}!gatech!ofutwbpesch@ihuxp.UUCP (Walt Pesch) (12/13/83)
Yes! All for net.sf.who! And how about starting it off with the
question of:
Where, in the United States, can one get Jelly Babies?
--
Walt Pesch
Specialist in Removal of Oral Insertions of Feet
AT&T Western Electric
ihnp4!ihuxp!wbpeschjdb@mordor.UUCP (12/13/83)
Although I am a Dr. Who fan, I am unconvinced that a new newsgroup should be created for this show, for two reasons. First, I've seen comments on Dr. Who come and go in "net.sf-lovers" in the past; I'm not sure that there would be a sustained series of submissions to warrant creating a new newsgroup. Second, creating a "net.tv.who" does not address the problem of subscribers to the ARPANET mailing list SF-LOVERS; they will be unable to read/submit to the new newsgroup. (I don't recall how many submissions have been from ARPANET sites, so I don't know how great a problem this will be.) This means that there will still be submissions to SF-LOVERS. (Articles are still posted concerning Star Trek and Star Wars, even though there are separate newsgroups for them.) The people who are annoyed at Dr. Who messages will still have to read some of them, and those who want to read all of the Dr. Who messages will still have to scan "net.sf-lovers". Meanwhile, ARPANET Dr. Who fans will miss out on messages that may be of interest to them. I would suggest that we do nothing for a while, to see if we really do need a separate newsgroup. If the interest continues (or grows) then "net.tv.who" sounds like the best subgroup to me. -- John Bruner (S-1 Project, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory) MILNET: jdb@s1-c UUCP: ...!decvax!decwrl!mordor!jdb
laura@utcsstat.UUCP (Laura Creighton) (12/13/83)
From alice!alb: net.sf-lovers is too long to have subgroups, and Dr. Who does not deserve a top level group. Gee, Adam, it sounds like you have had a lousy week. But don't you think that you are being a little hasty? Should everybody who reads net.sf-lovers have to read all this DR Who stuff just because the news software is too brain-damaged to hack subgroups of any length? Something tells me there is a false economy there. Then again, I have never understood the bother of worrying about "whether to create a newsgroup". I figure that you should create anything that you want, and then later if it is unused you can go off and remove it. There must be some good reason why people don't like this solution, since it never happens, but nobody has ever bothered to tell me... Cheer up. Have a good week. If you don't like "net.dr-who", how about "net.tv.dr-who"? Though I can't really see why you need rules as to what consitutes "big enough to deserve" anyway... Laura Creighton utzoo!utcsstat!laura
glc@akgua.UUCP (g.l. cleveland ) (12/14/83)
I also am an enthusiastic Dr. Who fan and have been for years. I
think I would enjoy the "trivia" on the series which would be
quite similar to that in the "Star Trek" newsgroup. However, I
also vote for holding off awhile to see if there really is enough
traffic/interest to start up a new newsgroup.
Lindsay Cleveland (...{ihnp4|mhux?|clyde}!akgua!glc)
AT&T Western Electric/Bell Laboratories ... Atlanta, Ga
(404) 447-3909 ... Cornet 583-3909hobbit@sunybcs.UUCP (Thomas Pellitieri) (12/14/83)
I also vote YES to net.tv.drwho. "Incomparable...extraordinary...
My Hero....Doctor Who!" (as the books say....)
-The Parker Hobbit
a.k.a. Thomas R. Pellitieri
UUCP: {seismo, allegra} !rochester!rocksvax!sunybcs!hobbit
PS - March 1984 Welcomes the Sixth Doctor -- Colin Baker!msc@qubix.UUCP (12/15/83)
I second (third, whatever..) net.tv.drwho
--
From the Tardis of Mark Callow
msc@qubix.UUCP, decwrl!qubix!msc@Berkeley.ARPA
...{decvax,ucbvax,ihnp4}!decwrl!qubix!msc, ...{ittvax,amd70}!qubix!mscJim Simester@hou2b.UUCP (Jim Simester) (12/15/83)
Another resounding affirmative regarding a newsgroup for the
good Doctor!!!
--
Jim
houxm!hou2b!simsggr@pyuxbb.UUCP (12/17/83)
I agree with John Bruner -- that we should leave the Dr. Who stuff in net.sf-lovers. Creating a new group will just raise more ARPA gateway troubles. And, if you noticed, the concept of a separate newsgroup was *not* raised by someone who wanted it, but by someone who just wanted to get all that nasty Who stuff out of SF-Lovers. === Guy Riddle == AT&T Bell Laboratories, Piscataway ===
tomk@orca.UUCP (Tom Kloos) (12/17/83)
You wouldn't consider net.tv.drwho or net.tv.who would you?
-Tom Kloos, Tektronix, Inc. {tektronix | teklabs}!tekecs!tomk
or tektronix!orca!tomkjulian@ecsvax.UUCP (12/19/83)
We have had such a newgroup on our system for 3 months. Since we are not on Usenet, we can only listen to your remarks for now. But I will certainly download any WHO news. ecsvax!julian julian @Wolf MAIL on the Software Tools mail system at NC State
dave@taurus.UUCP (Dave Lukes) (12/20/83)
Yup, count me in too (the great thing is that, since Dr. Who is actually made here, us U.K.ers can at last get the jump on you U.S.ers), also it'll be nice to have a group about a TV programme (NOTE THE SPELLING) which we actually might want to subscribe to! Yours 'till the Tardis rusts Dave Lukes: <U.K.>!ukc!hirst1!minotaur!dave P.S.: who actually shows Dr. Who over there, and how far behind us is it?? (Don't bother to answer: we'll continue in the news group when it's formed!)