MATON%SASK.BITNET@EVANS.UCAR.EDU (11/28/89)
There has been a lot of comment in recent times regarding postings
to 'rec.arts.tv.uk' that have nothing to do with TV.
The fact is that they do often originate from questions arising
from brit tv shows seen in N. America (and maybe elsewhere).
However, I think it is time to give a seperate sub-group for these
questions/discussions of things such as food, customs, sayings etc.
As there are many locations that do not get the '.soc' newsgroups
it would seem appropriate to have this group under the '.rec'
heading.
I suggest a discussion period to last until Dec 15th at which time
if interest seems to be there, and general proposals be agreed, a
Call for Votes would be issued.
Terry Maton
University of Saskatchewan
Saskatoon
Saskatchewan
Canada
uucp address: maton@dvinci.USask.ca
bitnet address: MATON@SASK.BITNET
******* One Planet - One People - PLEASE *******ray@philmtl.philips.ca (Ray Dunn) (11/29/89)
In article <8911281706.AA06461@ncar.UCAR.EDU> <MATON%SASK.BITNET@EVANS.UCAR.EDU> writes: > >As there are many locations that do not get the '.soc' newsgroups >it would seem appropriate to have this group under the '.rec' >heading. > Sigh.... here we go again, a totally inappropriate name just for distribution reasons. Anarchy at its worst I suppose. >There has been a lot of comment in recent times regarding postings >to 'rec.arts.tv.uk' that have nothing to do with TV. No, there has been at most a handful of comments in a newsgroup that averages about 10 postings a day. Until your call for discussion, there was only 1 posting on the subject in the last 15 days. >The fact is that they do often originate from questions arising >from brit tv shows seen in N. America (and maybe elsewhere). So, in fact there is a strong argument that the postings are perfectly valid. >However, I think it is time to give a seperate sub-group for these >questions/discussions of things such as food, customs, sayings etc. Why is a sub-group required in a newsgroup with a daily traffic of 10 postings? -- Ray Dunn. | UUCP: ray@philmt.philips.ca Philips Electronics Ltd. | ..!{uunet|philapd|philabs}!philmtl!ray 600 Dr Frederik Philips Blvd | TEL : (514) 744-8200 Ext : 2347 (Phonemail) St Laurent. Quebec. H4M 2S9 | FAX : (514) 744-6455 TLX : 05-824090
jmdoyle@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Jennifer Doyle) (12/07/89)
In article <1989Dec5.142855.7945@dvinci.usask.ca> (Terry Maton) writes: >In article <1989Nov28.233823.13658@aqdata.uucp> (Michael T. Sullivan) writes: >>In article <8911281706.AA06461@ncar.UCAR.EDU> (Terry Maton) writes: TM: As there are many locations that do not get the '.soc' newsgroups TM: it would seem appropriate to have this group under the '.rec' TM: heading. MS: Is this a good enough reason to make, what looks to me to be, a soc group MS: a rec group? This inquiring mind wants to know. No, this is exactly the wrong reason to put a group in a hierarchy, as has been pointed out, and has been witnessed recently with the foo.aquaria flamewar TM: I feel that the difference between 'rec' & 'soc' is in this case TM: very slight due to the nature of the questions and discussions TM: and how they originate. ie. most discussions start out from TM: things seen on British TV shows. The discussion may *start* that way, but it does not then include comments on tv. They are inspired by, but not related to tv shows. The discussion of food, (coinage, language, schools, etc.) is the type of discussion that belongs in a soc group. [ `>' from here on represents Terry Maton] > I would point out that there does not seem to be much point in > starting up a new group if a large number of the people who > would be interested and who would participate are unable to > do so because it is in a section that is not available to them. I would point out that there does not seem to be much point in starting up a new group if a large number of the people who would be interested and who would participate are unable to do so because their sysadmins have refused to carry the group because it is clearly in the wrong hierarchy. > Maybe the new group should be an immediate sub-group of > rec.arts.tv.uk such as 'rec.arts.tv.uk.culture'? Why not instead call it soc.culture.british? Do you get the soc groups? Do you know of large numbers of people who would want to participate but who do not get the soc groups? The group could always be archived and sent to people who do not get soc groups. >I do hope we can get something agreed upon to take to a vote! So do I. I'd also like to see the group. But I think that the support will be greater if the group is proposed with the right name, in the right hierarchy. Jen -- "Make mine a root beer, Mike. Thanks. To communication! <CRASH>" ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Jennifer Doyle // Princeton '92 // jmdoyle@phoenix.princeton.edu Disclaimer: I am a student, I represent the future.