stanwyck@ihuxr.UUCP (11/18/83)
I second (or whatever number we are up to) the motion for a usa.all, AND a na.all. I further propose the following groups as directly related to the above: usa.politics na.politics usa.flame na.flame -- ________ ( ) Don Stanwyck @( o o )@ 312-979-6667 ( || ) Cornet-367-6667 ( \__/ ) ihnp4!ihuxr!stanwyck (______) Bell Labs @ Naperville, IL
mark@cbosgd.UUCP (11/19/83)
The intent of usa and na newsgroup classes was that they would be used on the Distribution line, not as part of the newsgroup. Thus, if you're talking about what you hate about the US Congres, you might post to net.politics, with Distribution set to usa: Newsgroups: net.politics Distribution: usa It seems to me that creating na.general and usa.general will just clutter up the net. However, if people feel that they can't trust the Distribution mechanism well enough, we can create these newsgroups. There is an annoying bug in postnews, and probably heavy use of Distribution will show up more bugs. However, the real key is how many systems will forward usa and na to their appropriate neighbors. I asked everyone to add these long ago, and I assume most sites have, but you never know for sure. If they are pretty much everywhere, then we should just use Distribution. Mark
riddle@ut-sally.UUCP (Prentiss Riddle) (11/19/83)
Don Stanwick (ihuxr!stanwyck) says: >> I second (or whatever number we are up to) the motion for a usa.all, >> AND a na.all. >> >> I further propose the following groups as directly related to the above: >> usa.politics na.politics >> usa.flame na.flame Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought that the whole point in creating geographical distributions like "usa.all" was to AVOID having to create newsgroups like "usa.politics". Discussions of interest to a limited region should be posted to "net.whatever" but with a distribution of "wherever.all". In many areas on the net, such distributions exist and are commonly used to limit discussion to the city, state or cluster of states where it is pertinent. We already have "ut.all", "austin.all" and "tx.all" distributions, for example; although there hasn't as yet been a lot of use made of them, I'm sure they'll become more important as more Texas sites join the net. ---- Prentiss Riddle {ihnp4,seismo,ctvax}!ut-sally!riddle riddle@ut-sally.UUCP
bstempleton@watmath.UUCP (Brad Templeton) (11/21/83)
Well, I won't speak for everybody, but it is my impression that most Canadians are as interested in most usa news as Americans are. At least political, military and certain economic topics. About the only groups worth splitting the continent on would be such things as tax law (although many americans live here and are interested, and many Canadians deal heavily with the USA) certain other branches of law, and local (state level politics) In general, if it is of interest to the whole usa, it is of interest here. This includes some things you might not think about, such as TV, music etc. So stick with "na" for now, and worry about "usa" if we in Canada start noticing topics we don't want to see. -- Brad Templeton - Waterloo, Ont. (519) 886-7304
dave@utcsrgv.UUCP (Dave Sherman) (11/21/83)
I support Brad on this one. I wouldn't like to be cut off from the
U.S. discussions. In most economic and social senses there are few
fundamental differences between the U.S. and Canada. And most Canadians
get U.S. TV. "na.all" as a distribution limiter would be fine.
--
{allegra,cornell,decvax,ihnp4,linus,utzoo}!utcsrgv!davesteven@mcvax.UUCP (Steven Pemberton) (11/21/83)
Distributions would be fine if people actually used them, but many don't. Maybe a problem is that people don't even realise that they can target an item in net.general only to the USA, for instance. It's the sort of information you only pick up after reading the news for some time. If things don't get better, and I don't see how they can without postnews being modified to point out the distribution possibilities, I would like to see net.general replaced by usa.general and world.general. Then at least submitters would be aware of their responsibilities when they submit. I know that this is a slightly nasty solution (and we've been all through it before), but on the other hand, only net.general is so abused.
jrc@ritcv.UUCP (James R Carbin) (11/22/83)
# > Brad Templeton - Waterloo, Ont. posts: > > Well, I won't speak for everybody, but it is my impression that most > Canadians are as interested in most usa news as Americans are. > At least political, military and certain economic topics. > ... > In general, if it is of interest to the whole usa, it is of interest here. > This includes some things you might not think about, such as TV, music > etc. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Well, I don't speak for everyone in the U.S. but I think that many of us are equally interested in what's happening North of the border. My opinion might be biased as I only live 65 miles or so from Canada, but separating us.all from na.all just isn't realistic. Besides, I don't want to miss any of the articles posted by Laura. :-) as ever, j.r.
piet@mcvax.UUCP (Piet Beertema) (11/23/83)
Well, the old discussion seems to have started again.
usa.all, can.all, na.all? Or back again to the old idea
of world.all? I still think the last would be the best,
It's a hard job to change peoples habits: those not too
familiar with the net are likely to pick net.xxx without
realizing the effect of it. Then world.xxx will at least
give them something to think of before they really send
an article out over the whole world.
Who would say Europe, Israel, Japan, Korea, Australia
would be really interested in e.g. American TV programs?
If you don't like the idea of world.all newsgroups, then
at least newsgroups related to that kind of stuff should
be moved from net.xxx to na.xxx (or even usa.xxx).
--
Piet Beertema
CWI (Center for Math. & Comp. Science), Amsterdam
...{decvax,philabs}!mcvax!piet