roy@phri.UUCP (Roy Smith) (05/03/86)
There has been so much talk about the Libyan air raid on all sorts
of groups (politics, general, followup, etc) lately that I think we should
create a temporary group to isolate all the traffic. This was done with
net.coke when new Coke came out (net.coke *did* get removed, didn't it?) so
why not with this stuff.
There have been some suggestions in the past to create a temp
distribution for this type of stuff; temp.libya would suit me just fine.
Presumably, the brou-ha will settle down in a few weeks, and we can rmgroup
it then.
--
Roy Smith, {allegra,philabs}!phri!roy
System Administrator, Public Health Research Institute
455 First Avenue, New York, NY 10016tim@oucs.UUCP (Tim Thompson) (05/06/86)
> > There has been so much talk about the Libyan air raid on all sorts > of groups (politics, general, followup, etc) lately that I think we should > create a temporary group to isolate all the traffic. This was done with > net.coke when new Coke came out (net.coke *did* get removed, didn't it?) so > why not with this stuff. > > There have been some suggestions in the past to create a temp > distribution for this type of stuff; temp.libya would suit me just fine. > Presumably, the brou-ha will settle down in a few weeks, and we can rmgroup > it then. > -- > Roy Smith, {allegra,philabs}!phri!roy > System Administrator, Public Health Research Institute > 455 First Avenue, New York, NY 10016 I wholeheartedly agree. I'm sick and tired of paging through all the articles with a Subject of 'RE: Air raid on Libya'. If and when this group is created, I could unsubscribe to it, and not listen to everyone and his brother spouting off. Very good suggestion, Roy. -- +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+ Tim Thompson 414 Morton Hall Ohio University Athens, Ohio 45701 ihnp4!{amc1,cbdkc1,cbosgd,cbrms1,cuuxb}!oucs!tim Disclaimer: If the University finds out what I'm doing, they probably couldn't care less. +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
mark@cbosgd.UUCP (Mark Horton) (05/06/86)
This is a good idea, and I should have thought of it before. While the name net.misc.libya or even net.misc.terror is obvious, I'm inclined to put it in net.politics.terror and consider leaving it there as a permanent group, unless traffic dies out. I'd consider it a soapbox group to be moved to talk.politics.terror at the same time as net.politics would be moved. (This move seems likely, but no decision has been made yet. Watch net.news.group for more.) Unless I receive significant opposing opinions in by Thursday May 8, I'll create net.politics.terror and put something in net.announce asking traffic to move there. Mark Horton
steve@miduet.mifnet.gec-mi-ate.co.uk (Steve Lademann) (05/07/86)
In article <2332@phri.UUCP> roy@phri.UUCP (Roy Smith) writes: > > There has been so much talk about the Libyan air raid on all sorts >of groups (politics, general, followup, etc) lately that I think we should >create a temporary group to isolate all the traffic. >.... Amen to that! I seem to have spent weeks reading or (more recently) skipping over a (telephone bill-wise) fortune's worth of repeated pontifications by people who would be better off arguing with each other until blue in the face in a newsgroup which I can then ignore. But one is sort of OBLIGED to read and receive net.followup, so one can't dodge it! "Beware the Juggernauts, my son" (Willie Rushton) ----------------------------------------------------------------- |Steve Lademann |Phone: 44 727 59292 x326 | |Marconi Instruments Ltd|UUCP : ...mcvax!ukc!hrc63!miduet!steve | |St. Albans AL4 0JN |NRS : steve@uk.co.gec-mi-ate.mifnet | |Herts. UK | | ---------------------------------------------------------- /\H -- |"The views expressed herein do not necessarily reflect"| /__\ | |"those of my employer, and may not even reflect my own"| | | | -----------------------------------------------------------------
hijab@cad.UUCP (Raif Hijab) (05/09/86)
> > There has been so much talk about the Libyan air raid on all sorts > > of groups (politics, general, followup, etc) lately that I think we should > > create a temporary group to isolate all the traffic. This was done with > > -- > > Roy Smith, {allegra,philabs}!phri!roy > > I wholeheartedly agree. I'm sick and tired of paging through all the articles > with a Subject of 'RE: Air raid on Libya'. If and when this group is created, > Tim Thompson 414 Morton Hall Ohio University Athens, Ohio 45701 The discussion on Libya covers a current event of considerable interest to many net.people. There is great concern about the impact of the Libyan raid, its efficacy and repercussions. I do not think it is right to try to deligitimize the discussion. Hitting the "n" key should not be all that traumatic for those so inclined.
franka@mmintl.UUCP (Frank Adams) (05/10/86)
In article <243@oucs.UUCP> tim@oucs.UUCP writes: >> There has been so much talk about the Libyan air raid on all sorts >> of groups (politics, general, followup, etc) lately that I think we should >> create a temporary group to isolate all the traffic. This was done with >> net.coke when new Coke came out (net.coke *did* get removed, didn't it?) so >> why not with this stuff. >> >> There have been some suggestions in the past to create a temp >> distribution for this type of stuff; temp.libya would suit me just fine. >> Presumably, the brou-ha will settle down in a few weeks, and we can rmgroup >> it then. > >I wholeheartedly agree. I'm sick and tired of paging through all the articles >with a Subject of 'RE: Air raid on Libya'. If and when this group is created, >I could unsubscribe to it, and not listen to everyone and his brother spouting >off. Very good suggestion, Roy. I don't think the net can react quickly enough to make this kind of solution viable. It takes two weeks for the discussion to become obtrusive enough for it to be recognized as a reasonable subject for temporary group. (News moves slowly, and the greatest volumn is in follow-ups.) Another week is required for the decision to be made to create the newsgroup, and another week or two for the new group to spread through the net, and for people to start using it. By that time, interest has waned, and the number of articles is way down, anyhow. How many articles ever got submitted to the Coke(tm) newsgroup, anyhow? Frank Adams ihnp4!philabs!pwa-b!mmintl!franka Multimate International 52 Oakland Ave North E. Hartford, CT 06108
franka@mmintl.UUCP (Frank Adams) (05/10/86)
In article <2087@cbosgd.UUCP> mark@cbosgd.UUCP writes: >This is a good idea, and I should have thought of it before. >While the name net.misc.libya or even net.misc.terror is obvious, >I'm inclined to put it in net.politics.terror and consider leaving >it there as a permanent group, unless traffic dies out. > >Unless I receive significant opposing opinions in by Thursday May 8, >I'll create net.politics.terror and put something in net.announce >asking traffic to move there. I think this makes my point about net traffic speed. I didn't even see this message until May 9. On the other hand, net.politics.terror is a fine idea. The only question I have is whether net.politics.mideast might not be an even better one. (I don't think we need both.) There has been an awfully lot of Mideast discussion in net.politics, and I would love to have an easy way to avoid all of it. Any seconds? Frank Adams ihnp4!philabs!pwa-b!mmintl!franka Multimate International 52 Oakland Ave North E. Hartford, CT 06108
roy@phri.UUCP (Roy Smith) (05/10/86)
I suggested forming temp.libya, Mark Horton thought it was a good idea and proposed making it net.politics.terror, somebody else jumped the gun and sent out a newgroup message for n.p.t, and then... In article <311@cad.UUCP> hijab@cad.UUCP (Raif Hijab) writes: > I do not think it is right to try to deligitimize the discussion Who said anything about "deligitimizing" the discussion? Just give it it's own group. If anything, that lends a certain air of legitimacy to it since it shows it's important enough to be recognized. People like me who don't want to know about it get to shut it off painlessly. People who want to talk about it get a consolidated place to do so. Neither of us is right and neither of us is wrong; we just have different interests. Since everybody wins, what's the problem? -- Roy Smith, {allegra,philabs}!phri!roy System Administrator, Public Health Research Institute 455 First Avenue, New York, NY 10016
hijab@cad.UUCP (Raif Hijab) (05/12/86)
In article <2343@phri.UUCP>, roy@phri.UUCP (Roy Smith) writes: > > I suggested forming temp.libya, Mark Horton thought it was a good > idea and proposed making it net.politics.terror, somebody else jumped the > gun and sent out a newgroup message for n.p.t, and then... > > In article <311@cad.UUCP> hijab@cad.UUCP (Raif Hijab) writes: > > I do not think it is right to try to deligitimize the discussion > > Who said anything about "deligitimizing" the discussion? Just give > it it's own group. If anything, that lends a certain air of legitimacy Those who *have* been following the discussion on Libya will recognize that it branched into the Israeli-Palestinian problem, the relations with NATO allies, gun control, the rationality of U.S. foreign policy, international law, U.S. media coverage of international events, encrypted messages and Nazism, to mention a few topics. The discussion digressed and came back, as all of these are inter-related issues. How does one define the boundaries of the discussion? When is it a discussion of Libya and when is it not? When is it a discussion of terror and when is it not? These are all political issues. It seems to me those who have an aversion to them (and are loath to hit the "n" key) should either not read net.politics, or start their own circumscribed group. For whatever it is worth, that is my opinion.
osmigo1@ut-ngp.UUCP (Ron Morgan) (05/12/86)
Uh, regarding limiting a net.politics.terror to net.Libya: my vote is "no."
I have several reasons for saying this. First, Libyan terrorism, while very
salient upon the world scene, is part of a MUCH larger socio-political
context which cannot be ignored. Aspects of this context would inevitably
be drawn into the discussion, anyway, so why not allow as much comprehensive-
ness as we need to make our points?
Second, much of this context will deal with the multitude of ideologies
corresponding the various rationales for terrorism/non-terrorism. Kadafy's
hatred of our long-standing support of Zionism is a case in point. Indeed,
Zionism (esp. that from 1940 to about 1975) has been responsible for atrocities
that in many cases would make Nazism look pale in comparison, both in coldness
and in consistence. Taken as a whole since the Balfour Declaration of 1917,
Israel's sanction of wholesale slaughter and mass disspossesion makes
Kadafy's look like a church picnic. Any protracted discussion of terrorism
and hatred of the U.S./Britian will eventually have to take this sort of thing
into account, as well as a few dozen other "versions of the story" on BOTH
sides.
So, in my opinion, we should keep it at net.politics.terror, since that's what
the content will inevitably include anyway. In fact, I'd be more comfortable
with something like net.politics.mideast.
Ron Morgan
and dispossession makes Kadafy's look like a church picnic.
--
osmigo1, UTexas Computation Center, Austin, Texas 78712
ARPA: osmigo1@ngp.UTEXAS.EDU
UUCP: ihnp4!ut-ngp!osmigo1 allegra!ut-ngp!osmigo1 gatech!ut-ngp!osmigo1
seismo!ut-sally!ut-ngp!osmigo1 harvard!ut-sally!ut-ngp!osmigo1andersa@kuling.UUCP (Anders Andersson) (05/13/86)
In article <311@cad.UUCP> hijab@cad.UUCP writes: >The discussion on Libya covers a current event of considerable interest >to many net.people. There is great concern about the impact of the >Libyan raid, its efficacy and repercussions. I do not think it is right >to try to deligitimize the discussion. Hitting the "n" key should not >be all that traumatic for those so inclined. I don't think it matters how "important" an issue is. Even if the entire user community agreed on the importance of the Libyan air raid, what's wrong with important discussions in net.politics (or any other newsgroup covering the more precise subject)? The "considerable interest to many net.people" should be compared to the non-interest of all the others. I've got the impression that there are tens of thousands of net readers out there, and so far only a relatively diminutive minority has actively participated in the current "discussion". To sort out the material I want, I've subscribed to subject-specific groups. As I'm also interested in various issues not covered by specific groups, I've subscribed to net.general (and net.followup), as that's where such issues are likely to appear. This probably goes true (in theory) for most users of a communication system like this, which means *nobody* has the ability to unsubscribe with the argument "I'm not interested in this particular topic", simply because net.general has no single topic, but rather any topic. Thus, anything recognizable as belonging to a specific area of interest should be put in the proper newsgroup, and not in net.general. People interested in the subject may easily continue the discussion there (with the exception for non-worldwide newsgroups, but that's another problem). The (somewhat) hierarchical structure of newsgroups is there to assist users in their search for useful/intersting items. If hitting the "n" key is the solution to this problem, why do we then have separate newsgroups at all? -- Anders Andersson, Dept. of Computer Systems, Uppsala University, Sweden Phone: +46 18 183170 UUCP: andersa@kuling.UUCP (...!{seismo,mcvax}!enea!kuling!andersa)
ray@rochester.ARPA (Ray Frank) (05/13/86)
In article <318@cad.UUCP>, hijab@cad.UUCP (Raif Hijab) writes: > In article <2343@phri.UUCP>, roy@phri.UUCP (Roy Smith) writes: > > > > I suggested forming temp.libya, Mark Horton thought it was a good > > idea and proposed making it net.politics.terror, somebody else jumped the > > gun and sent out a newgroup message for n.p.t, and then... > > > > In article <311@cad.UUCP> hijab@cad.UUCP (Raif Hijab) writes: > > > I do not think it is right to try to deligitimize the discussion I don't believe the state run terrorists of Libya deserve their own special news group any more than I believe Charles Manson or Son of Sam deserve their own special interest group. Libya has gotten too much media attention already, which is exactly what they want. It would not be a bad idea to have perhaps a net.terrorist news group and lump Syria, Iran, Libya, and such countries together under their common doctrines. Aside from all this, discussions for and against the disciplining of Libya has chewed up too much valuable disk space of hundreds of systems around the country. Seems like a lot of unnecessary pollution to me. Libya just isn't THAT important. Now if someone suggested a net.Soviet or net.Soviet.lifestyles or net.Soviet.intentions or some such news group of this type, I could see the importance and general benefit of it. ray
mkr@mmm.UUCP (MKR) (05/14/86)
In article <243@oucs.UUCP> tim@oucs.UUCP (Tim Thompson) writes: >> >> There has been so much talk about the Libyan air raid on all sorts >> of groups (politics, general, followup, etc) lately that I think we should >> create a temporary group to isolate all the traffic. This was done with >> Roy Smith, {allegra,philabs}!phri!roy > >I wholeheartedly agree. I'm sick and tired of paging through all the articles >with a Subject of 'RE: Air raid on Libya'. If and when this group is created, >I could unsubscribe to it, and not listen to everyone and his brother spouting >off. Very good suggestion, Roy. >Tim Thompson 414 Morton Hall Ohio University Athens, Ohio 45701 I don't understand. The Libyan bombing has to be just about the hottest, most controversial, most debated, most opinion-forming current event in politics. This is net.politics. If you don't want to talk about that, then what *do* you want to talk about? If you don't want to read about hot current political issues, why are you reading net.politics? Sheeesh! --MKR
hijab@cad.UUCP (Raif Hijab) (05/15/86)
In article <940@kuling.UUCP>, andersa@kuling.UUCP (Anders Andersson) writes: > I don't think it matters how "important" an issue is. Even if the entire > user community agreed on the importance of the Libyan air raid, what's > wrong with important discussions in net.politics (or any other newsgroup > covering the more precise subject)? The "considerable interest to many > net.people" should be compared to the non-interest of all the others. > ........................ > Thus, anything recognizable as belonging to a specific area of interest > should be put in the proper newsgroup, and not in net.general. People > interested in the subject may easily continue the discussion there (with > the exception for non-worldwide newsgroups, but that's another problem). The proper newsgroup is net.politics. or an appropriate derivative. The problem is the unavailability of net.politics on the European net. Either net.politics ought to be made available in Europe, or an appropriately defined group be created worldwide. Net.politics.libya or net.politics.terror are NOT appropriate derivatives for two reasons: (1) The nature of the discussion is such that many issues are intertwined (2) The label "terror" would appear to confine the discussion or worse, placing in that category issues which do not properly belong there.