military@att.att.com (Bill Thacker, moderator) (01/21/89)
Guidelines for sci.military
(revised 1-20-89)
Following is a set of guidelines for using sci.military. By observing
these guidelines, you will help maintain the overall quality of the
newsgroup, avoid having article rejected for inappropriate content,
and save *me* a lot of headaches 8-)
CHARTER:
" sci.military Military sci. ; technology and related matters [moderated]
"
" More verbosely, sci.military is for the discussion of the technical
" and technological side of military issues. Other facets, such as
" history, tactics, and theory, are welcome to the extent that they
" relate to technological matters. Similarly, policy and political
" topics, such as arms control, are tolerated only as they impact
" military issues (e.g., missile /ABM developmemts).
"
(from the sci.military Call for Votes)
MODERATION:
I intend to make my moderation as transparent as possible. When volume is
low, I'll probably post virtually anything that is submitted; when
volume is high, I may be more picky. I intend to adhere to my earlier
suggestion:
" The moderator would be responsible primarily for ensuring that
" political debates do not rage unchecked; also, that person should
" be sure that postings fit the group's definitions. For topics that
" do not meet the requirements, the author can be referred to
" soc.politics.arms-d or talk.politics, for example. It is acknowledged
" that this is a fine line to tread; the moderator must use good
" judgement and listen to feedback from the readers.
I may accept for posting some "improper" topics from time to time; if
the readership doesn't object, and volume permits, they will then become
fair game.
j
ETIQUETTE:
Experience with the group so far has prompted the following observations:
1) Try to be sure of the facts you post. In particular, be careful
about designations, names, and acronyms. If you post an article about
the "M2 Bradstone Fighting Vehicle", I'll guarantee you'll get a half-dozen
email replies, and I'll get as many submissions, correcting your error.
As moderator, I will put in a brief editorial note whenever I detect
an error of this type; it tends to prevent the resultant flood.
2) Think twice before submitting a one- or two-line article. Are you
simply offering a correction to a small error, pointing out some
obvious point, or answering a simple question ? Odds are, several
other people are even now submitting that same response.
If you think this may be the case, wait a day or so; if you don't
see someone else address your point, then go ahead and submit.
Alternately, go ahead and answer the question, but expound upon it; give
your article some "meat", so even if someone else beats you to the answer
"C-130", your article will still be worth reading (and posting).
3) Be VERY CAREFUL about political content. By no means should you be
intentionally abrasive; try to stick to established facts, and state
them rationally. Only mention politics when it directly affects the
technological discussion. I will be very strict on this issue;
unsupported claims and unnecessary political content will result in
my returning your article for revision, delaying its posting by
several days.
4) If I reject your submission, don't take it personally; it's not
meant that way. I'll try to briefly explain my reasoning, and
suggest changes to make the article more suitable. If I seem
terse or gruff, please understand that it's because I'm trying to
process 20-30 articles daily, and I like to do it as quickly as
possible.
REFERENCES:
The content of this newsgroup will be relatively technical, filled with
facts and figures that are not considered common knowledge. When possible,
I urge posters to include references and other resources.
SECURITY:
I possess no US Government security clearance, nor have I ever applied
for one. I am unqualified to deduce whether submitted materials are, in
fact, military secrets or otherwise classifed. Knowing that many of those
subscribing to the Net have access to classified information, I urge all
posters to double-check their submissions; let's not have anyone get into
trouble over this group.
GROUP -vs- LIST:
The military discussion is carried on in two forums (fora ?): the
Usenet newsgroup "sci.military", and a private mailing list. The latter
has been added at the request of ARPANet readers; all materials posted
to sci.military will be broadcast to the List, as well. Further,
submissions to the List will be posted to the newsgroup. Thus, there
should be no need to join both the List and the group; if you can subscribe
to the newsgroup, you needn't sign up for the List.
ADDRESSES:
Submissions to the newgroups should be mailed to "military@att.att.com";
most modern versions of news software should allow you to (F)ollowup to
a posting, mailing your submission to me.
Submissions to the mailing list should be sent to the same address,
"military@att.att.com".
General questions about either the group or the list should be sent to
this address.
Requests for addition/deletion from the List should be sent to
"military-request@att.att.com", and include the keywords "pretty please
with sugar on top" 8-)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Bill Thacker moderator, sci.military military@att.att.com
"War is a matter of vital importance to the State; the province of life
or death; the road to survival or ruin. It is mandatory that it be
thoroughly studied." - Sun Tzumilitary@att.att.com (Bill Thacker, moderator) (05/09/89)
From: military@att.att.com (Bill Thacker, moderator)
Guidelines for sci.military
(revised 1-20-89)
Following is a set of guidelines for using sci.military. By observing
these guidelines, you will help maintain the overall quality of the
newsgroup, avoid having articles rejected for inappropriate content,
and save *me* a lot of headaches 8-)
CHARTER:
sci.military exists for the discussion of military technology and
related subjects. Certain peripheral topics, including history, tactics,
organization, and theory, are welcome to a limited extent, but are
considered "guests" in the "sci" heirarchy; such postings should be
factual, interesting, and as brief as possible, and will be rejected
if they are in any way imflammatory. Arms control discussions properly
belong in soc.politics.arms-d, and are not appreciated here.
MODERATION:
My main goal as moderator is to keep the newsgroup flame-free and
interesting. I also attempt to weed out redundant postings as much
as possible; my criterion is that unless a posting adds new information
to the dicussion, it's not worth posting.
I do, from time to time, insert in brackets ( [] ) moderator notes.
These may attempt to clarify a question, or head off possible flames
resulting from imprecise wording. Often, I will answer simple questions
(e.g., "What is the name of the M1 tank ?" ) simply to prevent a flood
of answers from the readership. Finally, as I enjoy contributing, myself,
I sometimes use this method to "followup" an article. I feel this makes
for somewhat faster-paced discussions, and saves a bit of bandwidth that
a separate followup message might waste.
If I reject a submission, I *always* attempt to reply to the author,
explaining my reasoning. If you submit an article and don't see it posted,
and haven't gotten mail from me, you can assume it's been lost in the
works, not rejected.
All my moderation policies are subject to debate; as they now exist, they
are simply my impression of what makes an enjoyable newsgroup for the
readership. I welcome any comment, good or bad, as to my procedures.
ETIQUETTE:
Experience with the group so far has prompted the following observations:
1) Try to be sure of the facts you post. The readers here are very
sharp, and I'll get a barrage of postings correcting any mistake 8-)
2) Think twice before submitting a one- or two-line article. If
your article says little, there's a good chance someone else will say it
before you. You might consider expounding a bit, which will make
the article more interesting, and less likely to be rejected for
duplicity.
3) Be VERY CAREFUL about political content. By no means should you be
intentionally abrasive; try to stick to established facts, and state
them rationally. Only mention politics when it directly affects the
technological discussion. I will be very strict on this issue;
unsupported claims and unnecessary political content will result in
my returning your article for revision, delaying its posting by
several days.
4) If I reject your submission, don't take it personally; it's not
meant that way. I'll try to briefly explain my reasoning, and
suggest changes to make the article more suitable. If I seem
terse or gruff, please understand that it's because I'm trying to
process many articles each day, and I like to do it as quickly as
possible.
REFERENCES:
The content of this newsgroup will be relatively technical, filled with
facts and figures that are not considered common knowledge. When possible,
I urge posters to include references and other resources.
SECURITY:
I possess no US Government security clearance, nor have I ever applied
for one. I am unqualified to deduce whether submitted materials are, in
fact, military secrets or otherwise classifed. Knowing that many of those
subscribing to the Net have access to classified information, I urge all
posters to double-check their submissions; let's not have anyone get into
trouble over this group.
GROUP -vs- LIST:
The military discussion is carried on in two forums (fora ?): the
Usenet newsgroup "sci.military", and a private mailing list. The latter
has been added at the request of ARPANet readers; all materials posted
to sci.military will be broadcast to the List, as well. Further,
submissions to the List will be posted to the newsgroup. Thus, there
is no need to join both the List and the group; if you can subscribe
to the newsgroup, you needn't sign up for the List.
Mail to the mailing list is in the form of a daily digest, mailed
every day but Saturday.
Unfortunately for those on the list, I have little skill or patience for
tracking down snags in mail-paths. Too, I find that many machines have
a tendency to go off the "air" for short periods. I therefore make no
attempt to re-send bounced digests. I do, however, archive old mail
digests, so that, should you miss one or more copies, back issues
are available.
ADDRESSES:
Submissions to the newgroups should be mailed to "military@att.att.com";
most modern versions of news software should allow you to (F)ollowup to
a posting, mailing your submission to me.
Submissions to the mailing list should be sent to the same address,
"military@att.att.com". General questions about either the group or
the list should also be sent to this address.
Requests for addition/deletion from the List should be sent to
"military-request@att.att.com", and include the keywords "pretty please
with sugar on top" 8-)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Bill Thacker moderator, sci.military military@att.att.com
"War is a matter of vital importance to the State; the province of life
or death; the road to survival or ruin. It is mandatory that it be
thoroughly studied." - Sun Tzumilitary@att.att.com (Bill Thacker, moderator) (11/13/90)
From: military@att.att.com (Bill Thacker, moderator)
Guidelines for sci.military
(revised 5-10-89)
Following is a set of guidelines for using sci.military. By observing
these guidelines, you will help maintain the overall quality of the
newsgroup, avoid having articles rejected for inappropriate content,
and save *me* a lot of headaches 8-)
CHARTER:
sci.military exists for the discussion of military technology and
related subjects. Certain peripheral topics, including history, tactics,
organization, and theory, are welcome to a limited extent, but are
considered "guests" in the "sci" heirarchy; such postings should be
factual, interesting, and as brief as possible, and will be rejected
if they are in any way imflammatory. Arms control discussions properly
belong in soc.politics.arms-d, and are not appreciated here.
MODERATION:
My main goal as moderator is to keep the newsgroup flame-free and
interesting. I also attempt to weed out redundant postings as much
as possible; my criterion is that unless a posting adds new information
to the dicussion, it's not worth posting.
I do, from time to time, insert in brackets ( [] ) moderator notes.
These may attempt to clarify a question, or head off possible flames
resulting from imprecise wording. Often, I will answer simple questions
(e.g., "What is the name of the M1 tank ?" ) simply to prevent a flood
of answers from the readership. Finally, as I enjoy contributing, myself,
I sometimes use this method to "followup" an article. I feel this makes
for somewhat faster-paced discussions, and saves a bit of bandwidth.
If I reject a submission, I *always* attempt to reply to the author,
explaining my reasoning. If you submit an article and don't see it posted,
and haven't gotten mail from me, you can assume it's been lost in the
works, not rejected.
All my moderation policies are subject to debate; as they now exist, they
are simply my impression of what makes an enjoyable newsgroup for the
readership. I welcome any comment, good or bad, as to my procedures.
ETIQUETTE:
Experience with the group so far has prompted the following observations:
1) Try to be sure of the facts you post. The readers here are very
sharp, and I'll get a barrage of postings correcting any mistake.
2) Think twice before submitting a one- or two-line article. If
your article says little, there's a good chance someone else will say it
before you. You might consider expounding a bit, which will make
the article more interesting, and less likely to be rejected for
redundancy.
3) Be VERY CAREFUL about political content. By no means should you be
intentionally abrasive; try to stick to established facts, and state
them rationally. Only mention politics when it directly affects the
technological discussion. I will be very strict on this issue;
unsupported opinions and unnecessary political content will result in
my returning your article for revision, delaying its posting by
several days.
4) If I reject your submission, don't take it personally; it's not
meant that way. I'll try to briefly explain my reasoning, and
suggest changes to make the article more suitable. If I seem
terse or gruff, please understand that it's because I'm trying to
process many articles each day, and I like to do it as quickly as
possible.
REFERENCES:
The content of this newsgroup will be relatively technical, filled with
facts and figures that are not considered common knowledge. When possible,
I urge posters to include references and other resources. Also, don't
forget that interests vary, and not everyone will be familiar with all
the technical jargon and acronyms you may mention.
FAIR USE:
It is illegal to quote in entirety a copyrighted work, unless written
permission from the copyright holder has been obtained. Please, don't send
in articles transcribed from published sources without such permission;
instead, paraphrase them into your own words and quote only the
most significant passages.
SECURITY:
I possess no US Government security clearance, nor have I ever applied
for one. I am unqualified to deduce whether submitted materials are, in
fact, military secrets or otherwise classifed. Knowing that many of those
subscribing to the Net have access to classified information, I urge all
posters to double-check their submissions; let's not have anyone get into
trouble over this group.
GROUP -vs- LIST:
The military discussion is carried on in two forums (fora ?): the
Usenet newsgroup "sci.military", and a private mailing list. The latter
has been added at the request of ARPANet readers; all materials posted
to sci.military will be broadcast to the List, as well. Further,
submissions to the List will be posted to the newsgroup. Thus, there
is no need to join both the List and the group; if you can subscribe
to the newsgroup, you needn't sign up for the List.
Mail to the mailing list is in the form of a daily digest, mailed
every day but Saturday.
Unfortunately for those on the list, I have little skill or patience for
tracking down snags in mail-paths. Too, I find that many machines have
a tendency to go off the "air" for short periods. I therefore make no
attempt to re-send bounced digests. I do, however, archive old mail
digests, so that, should you miss one or more copies, just write me,
and I'll forward it to you.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Bill Thacker moderator, sci.military military@att.att.com
"War is a matter of vital importance to the State; the province of life
or death; the road to survival or ruin. It is mandatory that it be
thoroughly studied." - Sun Tzumilitary@att.att.com (Bill Thacker, moderator) (01/25/91)
Guidelines for sci.military
(revised 12-8-90)
Following is a set of guidelines for using sci.military. By observing
these guidelines, you will help maintain the overall quality of the
newsgroup, avoid having articles rejected for inappropriate content,
and save *me* a lot of headaches 8-)
CHARTER:
sci.military exists for the discussion of military technology and
related subjects. Certain peripheral topics, including history, tactics,
organization, and theory, are welcome to a limited extent, but are
considered "guests" in the "sci" heirarchy; such postings should be
factual, interesting, and as brief as possible, and will be rejected
if they are in any way inflammatory. Arms control discussions properly
belong in soc.politics.arms-d, and are not appreciated here; history
postings should probably be addressed to soc.history.
MODERATION:
My main goal as moderator is to keep the newsgroup flame-free and
interesting. I also attempt to weed out redundant postings as much
as possible; my criterion is that unless a posting adds new information
to the dicussion, it's not worth posting.
I do, from time to time, insert in brackets [] moderator notes.
These may attempt to clarify a question, or head off possible flames
resulting from imprecise wording. Often, I will answer simple questions
(e.g., "What is the name of the M1 tank ?" ) simply to prevent a flood
of answers from the readership. Finally, as I enjoy contributing, myself,
I sometimes use this method to "followup" an article.
If I reject a submission, I *always* attempt to reply to the author,
explaining my reasoning. If you submit an article and don't see it posted,
and haven't gotten mail from me, you can assume the article or my response
has been lost in the works, and you should contact me for more information.
I reserve the right to trim what I consider to be excessive quoted
text or long .signatures. Bear in mind that several readers may be
responding to the same article you are, and that everyone will grow
tired of re-reading the same quoted material; please trim your quotes
to the bare bone. Remember, readers can refer back to the original
if they don't understand some point.
All my moderation policies are subject to debate; as they now exist, they
are simply my impression of what makes an enjoyable newsgroup for the
readership. I welcome any comment, good or bad, as to my procedures.
ETIQUETTE:
Experience with the group so far has prompted the following observations:
1) Try to be sure of the facts you post. The readers here are very
sharp, and there will be a barrage of postings correcting any mistake.
2) Think twice before submitting a one- or two-line article. If
your article says little, there's a good chance someone else will say it
before you. You might consider expounding a bit, which will make
the article more interesting, and less likely to be rejected for
redundancy.
3) Be VERY CAREFUL about political content. By no means should you be
intentionally abrasive; try to stick to established facts, and state
them rationally. Only mention politics when it directly affects the
technological discussion. I will be very strict on this issue, and
unsupported opinions and unnecessary political content will result in
my returning your article for revision, delaying its posting by
several days.
4) If I reject your submission, don't take it personally; it's not
meant that way. I'll try to briefly explain my reasoning, and
suggest changes to make the article more suitable. If I seem
terse or gruff, please understand that it's because I'm trying to
process many articles each day, and I like to do it as quickly as
possible. I process about 10-12 rejections per week, so you're
in good company.
REFERENCES:
The content of this newsgroup will be relatively technical, filled with
facts and figures that are not considered common knowledge. When possible,
I urge posters to include references and other resources. Also, don't
forget that interests vary, and not everyone will be familiar with all
the technical jargon and acronyms you may mention.
FAIR USE:
It is illegal to quote in its entirety a copyrighted work, unless written
permission from the copyright holder has been obtained. Please, don't send
in articles transcribed from published sources without such permission;
instead, paraphrase them into your own words and quote only the
most significant passages.
SECURITY:
I possess no US Government security clearance, nor have I ever applied
for one. I am unqualified to deduce whether submitted materials are, in
fact, military secrets or otherwise classifed. Knowing that many of those
subscribing to the Net have access to classified information, I urge all
posters to double-check their submissions; let's not have anyone get into
trouble over this group.
GROUP -vs- LIST:
The military discussion is carried on in two forums (fora ?): the
Usenet newsgroup "sci.military", and a private mailing list. The latter
has been added at the request of ARPAnet readers; all materials posted
to sci.military will be broadcast to the list, as well. Further,
submissions to the list will be posted to the newsgroup. Thus, there
is no need to join both the list and the group; if you can subscribe
to the newsgroup, you needn't sign up for the list.
Mail to the mailing list is in the form of a daily digest, mailed
every day but Saturday, usually.
Unfortunately for those on the list, I have little skill or patience for
tracking down snags in mail-paths. Too, I find that many machines have
a tendency to go "off the air" for short periods. I therefore make no
attempt to re-send bounced digests. I do, however, archive old mail
digests, so that, should you miss one or more copies, just write me,
and I'll forward it to you.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Bill Thacker moderator, sci.military military@att.att.com
"War is a matter of vital importance to the State; the province of life
or death; the road to survival or ruin. It is mandatory that it be
thoroughly studied." - Sun Tzu