MICPRF@latvax8.lat.oz (07/24/90)
In article <5976@tekred.CNA.TEK.COM>, billr@saab.CNA.TEK.COM (Bill Randle) writes: > The following article recently appeared in both comp.sources.games > and talk.bizarre: > >> Path: tekred!zephyr.ens.tek.com!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!mailrus!iuvax!rutgers!bpa!cbmvax!billr >> From: billr@saab.CNA.TEK.COM (Bill Randle) >> Newsgroups: comp.sources.games,talk.bizarre >> Subject: nethack 4.0 >> Message-ID: <13I12@saab.CNA.TEK.COM> >> Date: 14 Jul 90 18:11:07 GMT >> Sender: billr@saab.CNA.TEK.COM >> Lines: 7 >> Approved: billr@saab.CNA.TEK.COM >> Xref: tekred comp.sources.games:1045 talk.bizarre:60262 >> >> NetHack 4.0 will be ready for beta testing in a few weeks. In >> addition to multi-player scenarios a fully POSIX compliant operating >> system will be incorporated into the release. >> >> This should bring the package up to only 60 parts. >> >> Pax > > It is a clever forgery, which I don't appreciate at all. I wouldn't > have minded as much if the poster had limited his remarks to the > talk.bizarre newsgroup (which I don't read anyway), but I strongly > object to him/her adding the Approved: header line and cross posting > to comp.sources.games. > > If someone has an objection to a posting then feel free to comment > on it or send me mail but please don't post articels directly to > moderated newsgroups. > > As to the recent NetHack posting, I did query for comments before I > posted and received mail from many people asking that the fully > patched source be posted and not a single objection (to my recollection). > Even though the posting was rather large, overall it will save > bandwidth on all networks as getting the original source plus all > nine sets of patches from an archive site would be a lot of bytes! > Also, it's not as if there is lots of other stuff queued up to send > out - there's only one other submission in the queue. > > > -Bill Randle > Moderator, comp.sources.games > Tektronix, Inc. > billr@saab.CNA.TEK.COM > > P.S. In case someone gets the wrong impression, I don't mind at all > the contents of the article (i.e. poking fun at NetHack 4.0) - I > just object to the author not putting his/her name on it. In fact, since not everyone has ready access to ftp - I for one - I appreciate Bill having posted the full source a great deal. If it's big that's because it is highly developed - and it is being posted over several days. No problem I'm a patient soul. Thanks Bill. Paul Fisher (micprf@latvax8.lat.oz.au)