[net.news.group] net.bicycle?

ken@turtleva.UUCP (06/08/83)

A few weeks ago, I noticed the appearance of a new newsgroup, called
"net.bicycle".  I don't recall any discussion on the subject, so I am
wondering whether it is, in fact, a legal newsgroup.  There may be some
sites that do not pass on newsgroups without official sanction.

I am an avid bicycle rider, and would like to see such a group,
especially since it is now great bike riding weather.

Is there sufficient interest in bike riding to warrant such a group?

			Ken Turkowski
		    decwrl!turtlevax!ken
		    amd70!turtlevax!ken

alb@alice.UUCP (06/11/83)

At the moment, net.bicycle is an 'illegitimate' group

ka@spanky.UUCP (06/13/83)

net.bicycle is not a legal newsgroup, and articles posted to it will
be discarded by sites running 2.10, so it should become an official
group if people want to use it.
				Kenneth Almquist

rwhw@hound.UUCP (06/13/83)

Who decides what is legal? My site has always had a "net.bicycle" group.

tower@inmet.UUCP (06/14/83)

#R:turtleva:-19500:inmet:7000009:000:51
inmet!tower    Jun 13 18:21:00 1983

YES for a net.bicycle.

-len tower
ima!inmet!tower

stevel@ima.UUCP (06/15/83)

#R:turtleva:-19500:ima:18100005:000:96
ima!stevel    Jun 14 10:43:00 1983

another YES for net.bicycle

Steve Ludlum  decvax!yale-co!ima!stevel, ucbvax!cbosgd!ima!stevel,

sysman@glasgow.UUCP (06/15/83)

If net.bicycle is not a legal group please make it so.

Zdravko Podolski, University of Glasgow, Scotland

seth@hp-cvd.UUCP (06/19/83)

#R:turtleva:-19500:hp-cvd:8300006:000:49
hp-cvd!seth    Jun 17 15:07:00 1983

Yes for net.bicycle.  --Seth Alford, hp-cvd!seth

evans@wivax.UUCP (06/20/83)

Why not keep things uniform and call it net.rec.bicycle.  After all,
there already is net.rec.ski, ..scuba, and more.
-- 
Barry Evans   linus!wivax!evans
              Wang Institute (617)649-9731

tower@inmet.UUCP (06/22/83)

#R:turtleva:-19500:inmet:7000011:000:186
inmet!tower    Jun 21 12:44:00 1983

Bicycles are far more than just recreational vehicles.
Just as autos (net.auto) and cycles (net.cycle) are. 
So NO to net.rec.bicycle.
YES to net.bicycle.

-len tower harpo!inmet!tower

ken@turtleva.UUCP (06/23/83)

>From decwrl!decvax!wivax!evans
Subject: Re: net.bicycle? - (nf)
Newsgroups: net.news.group

	Why not keep things uniform and call it net.rec.bicycle.  After
	all, there already is net.rec.ski, ..scuba, and more.
	-- 
	Barry Evans   linus!wivax!evans
		      Wang Institute (617)649-9731

Good idea, Barry!
			Ken Turkowski
		{decwrl,amd70}!turtlevax!ken

tower@inmet.UUCP (06/25/83)

#R:turtleva:-19500:inmet:7000013:000:447
inmet!tower    Jun 24 09:08:00 1983

Other reasons for net.bicyle (NOT net.rec.bicycle) are:

1) some sites already have an "illegal" net.bicycle.

2) the man documentation for notes gives a net.bicycle as an example.

The reason I previously mentioned against net.rec.bicycle is that:

Bicycles are much more than just recreational vehicles, just like
autos (net.auto) and motorcycles (net.cycle) are. [perhaps we
need a net.transport.* -just kidding].

-len tower harpo!inmet!tower

wisen@inmet.UUCP (06/29/83)

#R:turtleva:-19500:inmet:7000016:000:123
inmet!wisen    Jun 28 12:50:00 1983

  Yes for net.bicycle
  no for net.rec.bicycle  (unless you also have net.rec.auto, to be consistent).
---Bruce Wisentaner