Okay, to begin with, we *want* you to post here. We *want* conversation. We *want* new people to feel welcome. The problem is that we just got new carpet, and we're asking you to take your shoes off. Well, not quite. We don't *own* the newsgroup. We can't *make* you do anything. The thing is some of us have been reading and posting to rec.arts.comics.* for a long time, and we have found that there are certain little conventions that make life easier, not just by excluding certain topics from certain groups, but by consolidating those topics as well.
You want to sell your books? Well, rec.arts.comics.marketplace exists *solely* to help you do that. It's there to get you together with your customers. But the other groups aren't for that. Nobody who isn't reading rec.arts.comics.marketplace cares. We know about rac.mp, and if we want to buy a comic, we'll wander over there, but please keep "for sale" posts off the other groups. It's like smoking in a restaurant or a changing room for babies in church. Certain areas are designated for certain things, and it impedes the enjoyment of others if you post in the wrong areas.
Case in point: movie castings. The *main* reason rac.other-media was proposed was to get rid of that stuff. You think it's neat to discuss casting the X-Men movie? So did we, the first fifteen or so times. The fifteenth time was back in 1991, however, and it's starting to wear a bit thin. However, in rec.arts.comics.other-media you will find people who *want* to discuss this type of thing.
The same general principle is true of every group in the hierarchy. They have good reasons for existing, and we, as a community, would ask you to respect that should you choose to participate. If you don't have one of the groups listed below, then ask your system administrator to create it. It's considered bad manners to post anyway simply because you don't happen to get a particular group. These groups are all valid, and they all passed votes. Your sysadmin would probably be willing to add them.
Anyway, here's a brief summary of the groups in rec.arts.comics.* and examples of the sorts of things that might go there. (Note: these aren't the charters, these are actual examples.)
o rec.arts.comics.alternative: Non mainstream stuff. Posts on Thieves & Kings, Cerebus, Electric Girl, American Splendour, Mini comics. You would *not* post on Invisibles here because there's a group devoted to Vertigo.
(Note that Marvel and DC are *NOT* the only mainstream comics companies. Please exercise some judgement. Archie, schlock horror, bad girl ninjas, and so-called "American manga" are not alternative. There's actually a manga group: rec.arts.manga, but they don't consider the American stuff to be real manga, and they're prepared to be unpleasant about it. Just use rec.arts.comics.misc. :))
o rec.arts.comics.creative: Stories about characters which are created by the posters of racc. Take note, you don't post fanfic using trademarked characters (Spider-Man, Batman, Icon, whoever) here, there's an alt.* group for that. (It's called "alt.comics.fan-fiction," and if you don't get it at your site, ask your system administrator to create it.)
This group became moderated in December 1996 in order to enforce the charter. Russ Allberry is the head moderator.
o rec.arts.comics.dc.lsh: Posts on Legion of Super-Heroes go here and nowhere else unless there's a reason to crosspost.
o rec.arts.comics.dc.universe: Batman, Superman, Green Lantern, New Gods, Wonder Woman, Impulse. Anything that takes place in the shared world of the DC publishing company goes here. Wildstorm/ABC/Homage doesn't go here because that's not part of the DC universe. (Pop over to rec.arts.comics.misc. They have a multitude of interesting threads there). Also, LSH and Vertigo have their own groups and don't go here.
o rec.arts.comics.dc.vertigo: Easy. If it has Vertigo written on it, it goes here. This means, by the way, that stuff that has Paradox on it *doesn't* go here (it goes in rac.misc).
o rec.arts.comics.elfquest: Posts about all the different titles (past, present, and future; from the original quest to Jink, The Rebels, and beyond) and characters under the Elfquest banner goes here.
o rec.arts.comics.european: Posts about comics produced in Europe and intended for the European market and by European creators. UK comics are included, but not when they were produced for the American market or by an American publisher.
o rec.arts.comics.info: Purely informational articles like news and FAQs (Frequently Asked Questions lists) are the main posts to this group. Everything posted to this group is subject to approval by the moderator, Martin Wisse. You can send posts directly to him at mpwi...@ad-astra.demon.nl
o rec.arts.comics.marketplace: Any post offering to buy, sell or auction anything comics related goes here, and *ONLY* here. This is the big one. Please take this stricture seriously.
o rec.arts.comics.marvel.universe: Spiderman, Hulk, Dr Strange, etc. Marvel mutant books have their own group, to wit:
o rec.arts.comics.marvel.xbooks: Marvel Mutant stuff goes here. Wolverine, Gambit, Cable, X-men, etc.
o rec.arts.comics.misc: anything that doesn't go in another *comics* group, goes here. Image, Wildstorm, Valiant, Disney, Acclaim, Topps, Milestone, Bongo, Fawcett, Archie, what have you. Also, stuff about creators and the industry goes here.
o rec.arts.comics.other-media: If something about a comic book has been turned into something that isn't a comic book, such as an action figure or a novel or a movie or a cartoon or a statue or a line of clothing or... it gets posted here. Any speculations about such stuff, like the next action figure you would like to see from the Batman collection who should play Hulk or Sandman in the movies goes here and only here too. Also, the Jason-like, can't be killed, always resurrected discussion about superheroes in song (Sunshine Superman was by Donovan, before you decide to ask :)) goes here until it gets its own group :):)
o rec.arts.comics.reviews: Reviews of anything that's appropriate for discussion in any other group in the hierarchy. Moderated by Peter B. Juul. You can send posts directly to him at racr-ad...@enzym.rnd.uni-c.dk
o rec.arts.comics.strips: Post something here if it deals with short-form comic strips or panels of the sort found in newspapers (editorial or funny pages) or other periodicals. Web comics of this type are also on-topic.
That's a ton of groups. Figuring out what goes where can be kinda tricky sometimes. Try thinking about it this way. There are basically four types of groups.
The first type has complete precedence. If it could possibly belong in these groups, it belongs in no other group at all, period, full stop. That's because these groups hold threads which a lot of people find *really* annoying. The three groups here are rac.creative, rac.marketplace and rac.other-media.
The second type has high precedence. These are the specialist groups like rac.elfquest, rac.dc.lsh, rac.dc.vertigo, and rac.marvel.xbooks. Posts go here if they don't go in the first group and they are about the specialist topic. Try not to do much crossposting into or out of these groups.
The third type has middle precedence, so figuring out where an ambiguous post goes can be ambiguous. These are the rac.dc.universe and rac.marvel.universe groups. Posts go here if they're about DC or Marvel comics or characters but they don't fit into the specialist groups. rac.strips and rac.european are also middle precedence groups because they're more specialized than rac.alternative or rac.misc but their topics are still quite broad.
The fourth type has minimal precedence. Posts go here only if you're certain that they don't go anywhere else. These groups are rac.alternative and rac.misc, and rac.misc probably has precedence over raca within this category.
(Rac.info and rac.reviews don't fit into this categorization, since they're set up so that news and reviews from all the other groups fit here in addition to wherever they fit in the rest of the hierarchy.)
For clarity's sake (and for those of you with nested newsreaders) here is a map of the rac.* hierachy which was drawn by Paul O'Brien.
Posting to more than one group is allowed fairly liberally if you have a good reason. If you don't think it's self-evident, you might want to provide an explanation. For example: when Mike Chary posted on ICON 30, he crossposted to rec.arts.comics.misc and to the DC and Marvel universe groups because it contained a parody of several characters from those companies. His reasoning was that there would inevitably be discussion of those characters. It didn't take place in the universes, but it was *related* to those universes. If Icon fights Hulk, you can crosspost to rac.marvel.u and rac.misc, for example.
...
>o rec.arts.comics.misc: anything that doesn't go in another *comics* > group, goes here. Image, Wildstorm, Valiant, Disney, Acclaim, Topps, > Milestone, Bongo, Fawcett, Archie, what have you. Also, stuff about > creators and the industry goes here.
So howcome PJ Gladnick is allowed to discuss POLITICS here and hype his POLITICALLY-oriented non-paper-printed WEB cartoon strip ad naseum? Does he even get a "please don't do that" from the moderator?
I really wouldn't object, but PJ suppliments the above with CONSTANT criticism of the REAL comics medium, that most of us here know and love. I have found it really damn annoying. There oughta be a law.
>o rec.arts.comics.reviews: Reviews of anything that's appropriate for > discussion in any other group in the hierarchy. Moderated by Peter > B. Juul. You can send posts directly to him at > racr-ad...@enzym.rnd.uni-c.dk
Seems to me this is now an almost-dead ng.
>o rec.arts.comics.strips: Post something here if it deals with > short-form comic strips or panels of the sort found in newspapers > (editorial or funny pages) or other periodicals. Web comics of this > type are also on-topic.
Tell PJ.
>Which brings me to the next thing. The point of *this* post is to >enable you to post without annoying anyone.
Tell PJ.
>Even complete darkness must come to an end somewhere...
Tell PJ.
signed Bim master of the exploding cigar trick 8^-' (bang!) 8^* ". . .that story took me less than an hour to write. The best ones are the flash inspiration stories and I NEVER rewrite. The first time is the best time." -Paul J Gladnick
Quinn Biminy wrote: >>o rec.arts.comics.misc: anything that doesn't go in another *comics* >> group, goes here. Image, Wildstorm, Valiant, Disney, Acclaim, Topps, >> Milestone, Bongo, Fawcett, Archie, what have you. Also, stuff about >> creators and the industry goes here. > So howcome PJ Gladnick is allowed to discuss POLITICS here and hype his > POLITICALLY-oriented non-paper-printed WEB cartoon strip ad naseum? Does he > even get a "please don't do that" from the moderator?
No, because there's no moderator.
The only moderated groups in the rac* hierarchy are rac.info, rac.reviews, and rac.creative.
I thought you realized that.
> I really wouldn't object, but PJ suppliments the above with CONSTANT criticism > of the REAL comics medium, that most of us here know and love. I have found it > really damn annoying. There oughta be a law.
It *is* annoying. Unfortunately, criticism of the comics medium *is* on-topic.
>>o rec.arts.comics.strips: Post something here if it deals with >> short-form comic strips or panels of the sort found in newspapers >> (editorial or funny pages) or other periodicals. Web comics of this >> type are also on-topic. > Tell PJ.
> >o rec.arts.comics.reviews: Reviews of anything that's > > appropriate for discussion in any other group in the hierarchy. > > Moderated by Peter B. Juul. You can send posts directly to > > him at racr-ad...@enzym.rnd.uni-c.dk
> Seems to me this is now an almost-dead ng.
Thanks Quinn. This was actually something I wanted to discuss if at all possible.
I'm curious about the rationale for the rac.reviews policy. It does seem like it's been dying lately. I'd reason that that could be because many reviewers are taking their reviews to the web rather than usenet (although Randy and Don are still posting them to usenet as well...) I could be wrong but it seems like Mr. Juul's policy is that only the text of a review is welcome in rac.reviews I wanted to post a link to the reviews at Sequential Tart for this month (9 people reviewing approximately 75 comic books) but my post was rejected. It looked like this:
Melanie Johnson-- Jack's Luck Runs Out; Strangers In Paradise #27;
Katherine Keller-- Dignifying Science and Two Fisted Science; Rat Bastard; Hellblazer; The Copy and Plot Devices
Barb Lien-- JLA 80 page #1; Akiko #35; Quantum and Woody #35; Superman Adventures #38; Finals #4; Maison Ikkoku, Part 9, # 5; Batman: Shadow of The Bat # 88; The Books Of Faerie: Molly's Story # 1; Evil And Malice # 2; Starman # 57; Siren # 1; Chassis # 0-3; The Authority # 4; The Tick: Heroes of the City #2; Jonny Double # 3; Muktuk Wolfsbreath: Hard-Boiled Shaman # 2 & 3; Gen13: Magical Drama Queen Roxy # 3; Legends Of Camelot: Excalibur # 1; A Distant Soil # 19, # 22, # 25; Love In Tights # 3; Whiteout # 1- 4; Lethargic Lad #2; Concrete: Killer Smile # 1-3; Troublemakers: Issues 1, 3, 10, 11, 12, 14; The Brave And The Bold # 161; Deathstroke: The Terminator: 1992 Annual # 1; The Brave and the Bold # 86; Brother Power: The Geek # 1 & 2; Jimmy Olsen # 113 80 page Giant; Action Comics: # 434; Green Arrow # 67; House Of Mystery Presents I...Vampire # 313; Wasteland # 3; The Question # 27
Christy Trever-- Whiteout TPB; Lenore #6; I Feel Sick #1; The Big Book of Grimm
Lauren Vega-Rasner-- Aria; Planetary #6; Invisibles # 6; Preacher #56; 100 Bullets #5; Hellblazer #142; Whiteout Melt; The Tick Big Halloween Special 3; Impulse #55; The Tick - Heroes of the City #5; Crimson #13; Finals #4; Transmetropolitan #28
Lisa Webster-- Gloom Cookie #2; Oni Double Feature #13; Rising Stars #2; The Witchfinder #1
Reviews can be found from the main page or under Culture Vultures! Enjoy!
-----
But was rejected. This is a different post entirely than the HYPE post which I sent to racm. It's not an ad... IMO. I figured this would be a valuable thing for rac.reviews since there's such a range of material evidenced... and no way can I paste all those reviews into one big message :)
So-- Thoughts? Todd, Chary, anyone out there in the know-- is this a bad thing to want to post to rac.reviews?
> o rec.arts.comics.strips: Post something here if it deals with > short-form comic strips or panels of the sort found in newspapers > (editorial or funny pages) or other periodicals. Web comics of this > type are also on-topic.
Hey, whadyaknow? We've been updated! And here I thought no one was listening...
> Thanks Quinn. This was actually something I wanted to discuss if at all > possible.
Let me just mention before we really get started, that every single actual review I receive is being approved. I have in my time as moderator only willingly rejected one review-article, which was not really a review, more like a Previews solicitation for a comic book I never heard about (and the poster didn't reply to the mail I sent to explain the rejection.) And then there was the X-Axis-situation, which has been sorted out by now.
> I'm curious about the rationale for the rac.reviews policy.
The policy is whatever we can agree on here on rec.arts.comics.misc. If you people want URLs on racr, you'll get them. It's not like I have a hidden agenda.
It's open for discussion.
-- Peter B. Juul, o.-.o "Ten plagues of Egypt on both your houses!" The RockBear. ((^)) -Andrew Rilstone reviewing 'The Mummy' I speak only 0}._.{0 for myself. O/ \O
My opinion: I think URLs only are a bad idea. I think every article in rac.reviews should be an actual review.
Johanna List Owner, Legion-List Discussion of all eras and incarnations of the Legion of Super-Heroes comic book and characters from DC Comics. Friendly and welcoming to all LSH fans.
>[racr] >> > Seems to me this is now an almost-dead ng. >"Lisa Webster" <tsw...@mindspring.com> writes: >> Thanks Quinn. This was actually something I wanted to discuss if at all >> possible.
I used to frequently post my reviews to r.a.c.reviews (I haven't lately because I haven't been writing many), and it was almost always an effortless process, even when my news server was felched up. Except for one article that wasn't approved (and which in retrospect, I had to admit shouldn't have been), it always went smoothly.
I suspect part of the problem was that we didn't have a smooth transition of the moderation. The successor that Jeremy initially selected for r.a.c.reviews went MIA and a new one had to be selected. I assume that there was some interruption of r.a.c.r approvals at the time, causing people to bypass it. Reviewers also don't like to wait for approvals, so they bypass it. And there have been some distinct problems since Peter took over, with the Followups-To issue and comments from him that fall short of the level of service that Jeremy used to provide "back in my day". The result of which seems to be that some reviewers don't bother with r.a.c.reviews any more.
>Todd VerBeek <VerB...@bigfoot.com> writes: >> Reviewers also don't like to wait for approvals, so >> they bypass it.
My pal Peter B. Juul said:
>I think all the regulars are whitelisted by now.
Glad to hear it. But I was talking mostly about why people might have =stopped= posting to r.a.c.reviews. And clearly, some have.
>> And there have been some distinct problems since Peter >> took over, with the Followups-To issue >You are still the only one who has complained about the >Followups-issue.
I know you don't normally read r.a.c.misc, but if you did, you would've heard more about it.
>furthermore, we're talking about two messages _a_ _week_ that are >replies to articles. Can't be that much of a problem...
Maybe not to you, but it's certainly a problem to the people whose replies get hijacked by the moderation process and therefore never get posted (unless they repost them several days later when they finally get your rejection). The fact that your rejection form letter blames the victim only makes it more annoying.
And has it occurred to you that the reason you're not getting more replies posted to r.a.c.reviews is that there aren't that many =articles= getting posted to r.a.c.reviews? The reviews that are posted only to the discussion groups "solve" this problem pretty nicely, eh?
>> and comments from him that fall >> short of the level of service that Jeremy used to provide "back in my >> day". >Please elaborate on this one. I don't think I've heard it before.
Sure you have; I explained it in my prior e-mail exchange with you, and just alluded to it in my previous message. Every review I submitted to Jeremy got posted properly, crossposted to the appropriate newsgroups and with followups set correctly. Even though I e-mailed them, which doesn't support Newsgroups and Followups-To lines in the headers (I included that info for him in the body). Apparently he did a good enough job fixing messages that weren't submitted properly, that it's suddenly become a problem in his absence. He didn't say (as you did to me) "I am not going to add Followups-to lines to the messages. That would be far too much work." It was obvious that he cared about making r.a.c.reviews work as well as practical; frankly, I don't get that impression from you. You seem to want to get by with the least possible effort, addressing problems only if you get overwhelmed by more complaints than you can easily brush off.
>[1] It looks like this:
>Your message has been rejected because it is off topic of the >moderated group rec.arts.comics.reviews.
.... And as I said when I got the earlier draft of this message:
'No, my message was rejected because followups were not set correctly on the message to which I was replying. Messages posted to r.a.c.r should have a "Followups-to" line that redirects them to the appropriate discussion group, so that people (such as I) won't accidentally try to post replies to r.a.c.r. If the folks who submit the original article don't include a "Followups-to" line, the moderator should add one.'
Todd VerBeek <VerB...@bigfoot.com> writes: > >You are still the only one who has complained about the > >Followups-issue.
> I know you don't normally read r.a.c.misc, but if you did, you would've > heard more about it.
I've been reading it daily ever since you sent me that notice, but it _is_ a high volume group, so I may have missed it. I do try to catch whatever racr-related pops up here, however.
(Note to all: If you write about racr, you are very welcome to email me to make certain I'm aware of it. I _do_ care :-) )
> Maybe not to you, but it's certainly a problem to the people whose replies > get hijacked by the moderation process and therefore never get posted > (unless they repost them several days later when they finally get your > rejection).
Since the mails end up in my regular mailbox, I typically react within half an hour on weekdays in european daytime. In weekends up to 36 hours _may_ pass, yes, but several days sounds mildly exaggerated.
> The fact that your rejection form letter blames the victim > only makes it more annoying.
"Victim"... You don't think you are blowing this just a tad out of proportion?
> And has it occurred to you that the reason you're not getting more replies > posted to r.a.c.reviews is that there aren't that many =articles= getting > posted to r.a.c.reviews? The reviews that are posted only to the > discussion groups "solve" this problem pretty nicely, eh?
Sure. And if we disbanded the rac-hierarchy and let everyone post in rec.arts.comics just like long ago, we would have no problems with crossposts or people posting to dcu, when they should post to dcv.
> with followups set correctly. Even though I e-mailed them, which doesn't > support Newsgroups and Followups-To lines in the headers (I included that > info for him in the body).
And a great big thank you to Jeremy for doing all that work. He doesn't anymore. If someone wants to, he's welcome.
> work." It was obvious that he cared about making r.a.c.reviews work as > well as practical; frankly, I don't get that impression from you. You > seem to want to get by with the least possible effort, addressing problems > only if you get overwhelmed by more complaints than you can easily brush > off.
You're absolutely right. And I remind you once again: I took up the mantle because no one else would. Anyone who wants to take over is welcome. Meanwhile I want to keep racr running smoothly, and by smoothly I mean that I want the following things to be true:
1) People get whitelisted quickly. 2) The group is spamfree. 3) What gets posted is what people on racm can agree on as being ontopic. 4) I have as little manual work to do as possible.
Oh, and let me just note: The demand for whitelisting (which seems rather widespread) and the demand for manual editing (which seems quite localized) are contradictory. -- Peter B. Juul, o.-.o "'You've been a great pal' says Anakin, to C3P0, The RockBear. ((^)) speaking for action figure collectors everywhere." I speak only 0}._.{0 -Andrew Rilstone reviewing 'The Phantom Menace' for myself. O/ \O
>Todd VerBeek <VerB...@bigfoot.com> writes: >> Maybe not to you, but it's certainly a problem to the people whose replies >> get hijacked by the moderation process and therefore never get posted >> (unless they repost them several days later when they finally get your >> rejection).
Peter B. Juul said:
>Since the mails end up in my regular mailbox, I typically react within >half an hour on weekdays in european daytime. In weekends up to 36 >hours _may_ pass, yes, but several days sounds mildly exaggerated.
Yes, my recollection of the delay was exaggerated. I misposted a reply to r.a.c.reviews on a Friday and got a reply back Sunday morning. That was a matter of "days" in my mind, but you're right: it was closer to 36 hours.
>> The fact that your rejection form letter blames the victim >> only makes it more annoying. >"Victim"... You don't think you are blowing this just a tad out of >proportion?
Perhaps. Are you willing to admit you're being just a tad apathetic about it? Having a message I thought I could trust to be spooled to the public newsfeed instead bounced back to me with a rude explanation that blames me for it, sure felt like I'd been screwed (albeit gently). Then there was your reply to my response, which was downright cold and indifferent to me.
>> And has it occurred to you that the reason you're not getting more replies >> posted to r.a.c.reviews is that there aren't that many =articles= getting >> posted to r.a.c.reviews? The reviews that are posted only to the >> discussion groups "solve" this problem pretty nicely, eh? >Sure. And if we disbanded the rac-hierarchy and let everyone post in >rec.arts.comics just like long ago, we would have no problems with >crossposts or people posting to dcu, when they should post to dcv.
I was being sarcastic, Peter.
Obviously it's =not= a solution, but you seemed to be crowing about the lack of a problems with r.a.c.r, when part of the reason is that people aren't =using= it.
>> with followups set correctly. Even though I e-mailed them, which doesn't >> support Newsgroups and Followups-To lines in the headers (I included that >> info for him in the body).
>And a great big thank you to Jeremy for doing all that work. He >doesn't anymore. If someone wants to, he's welcome.
The only reason I didn't volunteer to do so myself when Jeremy announced his impending resignation is the technical hurdle: I don't have access to a system that could run the robomoderator. (I'm trying to figure out how to get a dedicated net connection to my home, which would allow me to run my own Linux box and solve this problem in the process, but that's gonna take some creative budgeting.)
>> work." It was obvious that he cared about making r.a.c.reviews work as >> well as practical; frankly, I don't get that impression from you. You >> seem to want to get by with the least possible effort, addressing problems >> only if you get overwhelmed by more complaints than you can easily brush >> off. >You're absolutely right.
Thanks for admitting it.
>Oh, and let me just note: The demand for whitelisting (which seems >rather widespread) and the demand for manual editing (which seems >quite localized) are contradictory.
No, they're not. A reasonable moderator would only "whitelist" those contributors who've been told the rules and demonstrated that they'll follow them. Those rules include: only posting real reviews, labeling their messages correctly, crossposting appropriately, and including a valid Followups-To line. Anybody else would have their messages screened manually, and either rejected or (preferably) fixed, with a polite, helpful explanation of what the problem was.
I think you'd find that by investing a little more of your time at the front end, you'd end up spending less time down the line. And maybe even those trivial, unimportant, who-cares-about-them accidental replies to r.a.c.reviews would diminish from a couple a week to =none=.
Todd VerBeek <VerB...@bigfoot.com> writes: > Perhaps. Are you willing to admit you're being just a tad apathetic about > it?
Of course. I've been saying that all the time: I want this to take as little time of mine as possible.
> Having a message I thought I could trust to be spooled to the public > newsfeed instead bounced back to me with a rude explanation that blames me > for it, sure felt like I'd been screwed (albeit gently).
BTW: Those messages are exact copies of those I received from Jeremy when I took over. Only the name and the URL has been changed.
> Then there was > your reply to my response, which was downright cold and indifferent to me.
you sent me a mail that said, that if there was no FUT-header, then the moderator should insert one. I replied that I would not do that extra checking and editing, when the number of "mislaid replies" was no higher than it was. And is.
I think it was quite a neutral reply. And I still think a poster should always double-check where he is posting.
> >Sure. And if we disbanded the rac-hierarchy and let everyone post in > >rec.arts.comics just like long ago, we would have no problems with > >crossposts or people posting to dcu, when they should post to dcv. > I was being sarcastic, Peter.
so was I, Todd.
-- Peter B. Juul, o.-.o "A number of religions in Ankh-Morpork still The RockBear. ((^)) practiced human sacrifice, except that they I speak only 0}._.{0 didn't really need to practice any more because for myself. O/ \O they had got so good at it."
In article <19991102125840.10921.00001...@ng-fl1.aol.com>, queb...@aol.com (Quinn Biminy) sat on the sofa and said:
>>o rec.arts.comics.misc: anything that doesn't go in another *comics* >> group, goes here. Image, Wildstorm, Valiant, Disney, Acclaim, Topps, >> Milestone, Bongo, Fawcett, Archie, what have you. Also, stuff about >> creators and the industry goes here.
>So howcome PJ Gladnick is allowed to discuss POLITICS here and hype his >POLITICALLY-oriented non-paper-printed WEB cartoon strip ad naseum? Does he >even get a "please don't do that" from the moderator?
Note that a moderator isn't listed for most of the newsgroups in the rac.* hierarchy. In fact, the only moderated ones are rac.info, rac.reviews, and rac.creative.
>I really wouldn't object, but PJ suppliments the above with CONSTANT criticism >of the REAL comics medium, that most of us here know and love. I have found it >really damn annoying. There oughta be a law.
In that case, killfile anything posted by him, and killfile any threads about him or his works or his views. It's that simple. With my newsreader, I see headers first, and it's *really* obvious which ones he's involved in.
Other than that, email his ISP.
>>o rec.arts.comics.reviews: Reviews of anything that's appropriate for >> discussion in any other group in the hierarchy. Moderated by Peter >> B. Juul. You can send posts directly to him at >> racr-ad...@enzym.rnd.uni-c.dk
>Seems to me this is now an almost-dead ng.
In which case, why not start posting your own reviews?
In article <7vndpm$qt...@nntp5.atl.mindspring.net>, "Lisa Webster" <tsw...@mindspring.com> sat on the sofa and said:
>But was rejected. This is a different post entirely than the HYPE post which >I sent to racm. It's not an ad... IMO. I figured this would be a valuable >thing for rac.reviews since there's such a range of material evidenced... >and no way can I paste all those reviews into one big message :)
IMHO, it's a bad thing to post to rac.* reviews. If I'm reading rac.reviews, I want to see the reviews! I don't want to have to fire up my copy of Netscape and wait for a page elsewhere to load-- I want the text right in front of me.
The policy of the former moderator, who also moderated rac.info, was that ads for web pages would be rejected in toto. Even Aardy's ad for the Comic Book Awards Almanac was rejected, because it was a *pointer* to content, and not actual *content* itself.
See what I mean?
I would like to get back into reviewing, but I don't have the time. Between teaching, and a night class, etc, I'm swamped and stressed. It's to the point where Aardy (who used to be 3 months behind in reading), has now passed me, and now I'm reading books a week late!
But I do appreciate the reviews others have on the board, and wish that more were here on Usenet and not only on the web...
kate. who just added Todd VerBeek's "How to Make RAC work for you" and Andrew Black's "Guide to posting on rac.*" to her rac-faq website.
On Tue, 02 Nov 1999 11:53:15 -0800, Darren 'Gav' Bleuel
<g...@nuc.berkeley.edu> wrote: >Andrew Black wrote:
>> o rec.arts.comics.strips: Post something here if it deals with >> short-form comic strips or panels of the sort found in newspapers >> (editorial or funny pages) or other periodicals. Web comics of this >> type are also on-topic.
>Hey, whadyaknow? We've been updated! And here I thought no one was >listening...
As I only rarely visit r.a.c.strips I wasn't aware of the need for an update until it was kindly pointed out to me by Mark Jackson.
I'm happy to explore any suggestions I'm given, and (provided they seem to make sense to me) incorporate them into the FAQ.
