RFD - Tall Ships
C J Brady
With regards to the recent somewhat secretive posting:
> REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
> unmoderated group rec.boats.tallships
>
>Newsgroups line:
>rec.boats.tallships Tall Ships and all related issues.
>
snip
>
As a tall ship enthusiast of quite some number of voyages, albeit in
European waters, I have to say that what surprised me most about this RFD
is its almost total lack of international bias. As most tall ship
enthusiasts know sailing tall ships is very much an international affair.
Yet this RFD is almost totally biased towards tall ship sailing in the
USA. European web sites on tall ships must out number those in the US by
at least 10 to 1 - which is also reflected in a similar ratio of tall
ships currently being sailed or being constructed in those respective
continents. Yet no mention of European tall ships is made in the RFD,
except an incorrect statement about the Matthew. [The Matthew's
sea-trials actually finished at least a year ago and she has now
completed her visit to Newfoundland!!] It doesn't even mention the
international Cutty Sark Tall Ship Races!!!
Therefore on this issue alone I must oppose the creation of the proposed
newsgroup.
However I also question as to whether 'rec.boats' is the right newsgroup
hierarchy. Certainly in Europe a tall ship would NEVER be termed a
'boat,' for the same reason sailing a tall ship would NEVER be termed
'boating.' Perhaps in the USA tall ships are thought of as boats but
certainly not anywhere else in the world!!
Therefore for this reason too I must oppose the creation of
rec.boats.tallships.
I have tried to correspond with the author of the RFD but emails have
been ignored.
My own suggestion is for a newsgroup called rec.sailing.tallships, which
would be part of a new hierarchy rec.sailing.* in the manner of
rec.scuba.* and others of that ilk. Failing that a newsgroup
alt.sailing.tallships (there is already an alt.sailing.* hierarchy).
>
>This group is not to be used for discussion of issues common to
>generalrecreational boating or commercial shipping. All issues
>should be specifically and primarily of interest to the Tall
>Ships community.
>
Thirdly I must object to this ruling. In the matters of safety at sea,
navigation, weather interpretation, ship wrighting, etc., tall ships
share as many issues as general receational boating and/or commercial
shipping. These issues even if pertinant to a more general audience
should also be discussed in such a newsgroup.
In summary I don't think that this RFD reflects the huge *international*
interest that there is in tall ships or maritime history - and the vast
majority of this is not in the USA. I also think that it should not have
the misleading and somewhat irrelevant term 'boats' in its name.
Chris Brady.
P.S. The spelling and grammer in the RFD also needs looking at.
t.r.mcloughlin
C J Brady wrote:
>
> With regards to the recent somewhat secretive posting:
>
> > REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
> > unmoderated group rec.boats.tallships
> >
> >Newsgroups line:
> >rec.boats.tallships Tall Ships and all related issues.
Apparently, some fols are having trouble with their news readers
or servers. Here's the headers of the offical post in
news.announce.newgroups. Note the Newsgroups: header...
From: Gregg Germain <gr...@clark.harvard.edu>
Newsgroups: news.announce.newgroups, news.groups, rec.boats,
rec.boats.building, rec.boats.racing, rec.boats.cruising,
rec.boats.electronics, sci.military.naval,
misc.transport.marine
Subject: RFD: rec.boats.tallships
Message-ID: <8861861...@isc.org>
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 1998 18:48:23 GMT
If you know of any other groups that should be included,
please post, especially if you email is not reaching the proponent.
> As a tall ship enthusiast of quite some number of voyages, albeit in
> European waters, I have to say that what surprised me most about this RFD
> is its almost total lack of international bias.
Interesting interpretation. The first line of the charter is:
CHARTER: rec.boats.tallships
rec.boats.tallships will be for the open discussion of all issues
relating to the Tall Ships of the world.
Can't get much more international than that. And in the rest of the
charter I'm not seeing any reference to any specific country or vessel.
Examples given in the Rationale section of the RFD are only intended
to get the discussion going and guide people who are unaware
of the topic. Clearly, you know that tall ships are international,
and there's nothing in the proposal that would limit or discourage
any tall ship discussion.
> Therefore on this issue alone I must oppose the creation of the proposed
> newsgroup.
I hope that you re-read the charter and reconsider. If you do have
suggestions for the Charter, please feel free to post them.
> However I also question as to whether 'rec.boats' is the right newsgroup
> hierarchy. Certainly in Europe a tall ship would NEVER be termed a
> 'boat,'
rec.boats.* is a result of the evolution of usenet. Namespace is
a balance between specificty and convenience. At one extreme,
the "best" name would be sailing.tallships (or maybe just
tallships. why not start its own hierarchy?) and at a the
other the "best" name would be a set of groups:
rec.boats.sailing.wooden.large.anachronistic.tall.sails
rec.boats.sailing.wooden.large.anachronistic.tall.rigging
rec.boats.sailing.wooden.large.anachronistic.tall.training
rec.boats.sailing.wooden.large.anachronistic.tall.advocacy
rec.boats.sailing.wooden.large.anachronistic.tall.misc
etc.
> My own suggestion is for a newsgroup called rec.sailing.tallships, which
> would be part of a new hierarchy rec.sailing.* in the manner of
> rec.scuba.* and others of that ilk.
Creating a new 2nd level hierarchy usually demands a demand.
You have to be able to imagine a large number of groups that
would fall under it in order to make it useful. (Not a dozen,
think along the lines of soc.culture.* or rec.music.*). Remember
that namespace is not a value judgement or political recognition,
it's really a file storage structure. If you really must oppose
this based on the lack of a 2nd level sailing directory, then
so be it. But I hope not.
> >This group is not to be used for discussion of issues common to
> >generalrecreational boating or commercial shipping. All issues
> >should be specifically and primarily of interest to the Tall
> >Ships community.
> Thirdly I must object to this ruling. In the matters of safety at sea,
> navigation, weather interpretation, ship wrighting, etc., tall ships
> share as many issues as general receational boating and/or commercial
> shipping. These issues even if pertinant to a more general audience
> should also be discussed in such a newsgroup.
The key is that they are *in common* with other disciplines of
boating, sailing, shipping, etc. and therefore belong in
the common groups (e.g., rec.boats or misc.transport.marine),
not the specialized group. Certainly, there's no international
court of justice that will sanction you for talking about the
weather in r.b.tallships, but if you really want to have a weather
discussion there are better groups to use.
Anyway, I hope that this comes across well. Any ideas are welcome.
> P.S. The spelling and grammer in the RFD also needs looking at.
Hmmm, no spelling flags in my spell checker, and ... D-oh!
t "hook, line, and sinker" rm
OSDS Staffing
C J Brady wrote:
>
> With regards to the recent somewhat secretive posting:
Geez, I had no problems finding it!!
>
> > REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
> > unmoderated group rec.boats.tallships
> >
> >Newsgroups line:
> >rec.boats.tallships Tall Ships and all related issues.
> >
> snip
> >
>
> As a tall ship enthusiast of quite some number of voyages, albeit in
> European waters, I have to say that what surprised me most about this RFD
> is its almost total lack of international bias. As most tall ship
> enthusiasts know sailing tall ships is very much an international affair.
> Yet this RFD is almost totally biased towards tall ship sailing in the
> USA.
Heaven forfend! 8 ships were mentioned, 3 nominally UK and 5 in the
U.S., I expect that the discussions will reflect those ships actually
sailing. You better not mention the USS Constitution is sailing under
it's own steam OOPS sail and the HMS Victory can't or he'll really get
upset.
European web sites on tall ships must out number those in the US by
> at least 10 to 1 - which is also reflected in a similar ratio of tall
> ships currently being sailed or being constructed in those respective
> continents. Yet no mention of European tall ships is made in the RFD,
> except an incorrect statement about the Matthew. [The Matthew's
> sea-trials actually finished at least a year ago and she has now
> completed her visit to Newfoundland!!] It doesn't even mention the
> international Cutty Sark Tall Ship Races!!!
>
> Therefore on this issue alone I must oppose the creation of the proposed
> newsgroup.
>
> However I also question as to whether 'rec.boats' is the right newsgroup
> hierarchy. Certainly in Europe a tall ship would NEVER be termed a
> 'boat,' for the same reason sailing a tall ship would NEVER be termed
> 'boating.' Perhaps in the USA tall ships are thought of as boats but
> certainly not anywhere else in the world!!
>
> Therefore for this reason too I must oppose the creation of
> rec.boats.tallships.
(Wish I could be this sure of my self and have good reasons to oppose
what seems to be a good suggestion)
>
> I have tried to correspond with the author of the RFD but emails have
> been ignored.
>
> My own suggestion is for a newsgroup called rec.sailing.tallships, which
> would be part of a new hierarchy rec.sailing.* in the manner of
> rec.scuba.* and others of that ilk. Failing that a newsgroup
> alt.sailing.tallships (there is already an alt.sailing.* hierarchy).
(How about alt.sailing.tallships.Europeancommunity and
alt.sailing.tallships.bloodycolonials ?)
>
> >
> >This group is not to be used for discussion of issues common to
> >generalrecreational boating or commercial shipping. All issues
> >should be specifically and primarily of interest to the Tall
> >Ships community.
> >
I concur with this, keep the charter relatively tight, as noted in the
RFD and the following comment there are other groups available for
general discussions.
>
> Thirdly I must object to this ruling. In the matters of safety at sea,
> navigation, weather interpretation, ship wrighting, etc., tall ships
> share as many issues as general receational boating and/or commercial
> shipping. These issues even if pertinant to a more general audience
> should also be discussed in such a newsgroup.
>
Can't make up his mind about what is more important to object to.
> In summary I don't think that this RFD reflects the huge *international*
> interest that there is in tall ships or maritime history - and the vast
> majority of this is not in the USA. I also think that it should not have
> the misleading and somewhat irrelevant term 'boats' in its name.
>
> Chris Brady.
>
> P.S. The spelling and grammer in the RFD also needs looking at.
Yeah, you colonials need to realize that "ship wrighting" is the more
correct way to spell shipwrighting and of course "grammer" (my Dad's
mum) in the RFD is far more important than the grammar used in the RFD.
I was just going to ignore this guy, clearly he doesn't intend to
participate in such a mis-named group, but when he raised the spelling
flag and brought "grammer" into the fray, I had to inject my tuppence
worth, Two cents for you uncivilised colonials.
I think it is a good idea, maybe it should be in alt.sailing.* but as
the suggestion was rec.boats first, leave it there.
1. Whether the discussions tend to ships on this side of the pond or
are more international in nature will depend on the degree of
participation and interest of the discussers. I would expect that as
noted the discussions will be far more international than parochial
because the vast majority of sail training ships are owned by
"furriners".
2. Keep the topics tight in to Tall Ships. This will tend to keep the
discussions more technical in nature and that will also avoid most
nationalistic fervor. (Unless you get into discussions about how the
Swededs tended toward one method in the Baltic, the Brits did it
differently because they had to be able to respond to a wider variety of
weather conditions, and US makers did it a different way because they
used different materials. Rules of the Road discussions should be
off-topic unless you can show a tall ships reason, Fore& Aft rigged
ships were more responsive than square rigged ships in certain right of
way scenarios, (does it matter? if neither had enough crew usually to
really maneuver the ship to it's capability? etc) I can't wait to see
the slings, arrows and chain-shot that will start flying over the
definition of a "Tall Ship".
3. The only other comment I would make would be to establish a
companion binaries group at the same time. This is a natural subject
matter to include still pictures of whole ships, video clips, sound
bites (see the San Diego Maritime museum for a clip of the Star of India
undersail (International enough???named after a former colony, built in
the UK and living in the States), also line and other engineering
drawings, pictures of rigging amechanical details, and so on. This
might be a natural group to include binaries but there are a lot of
fanatics that want to shoot binaries on sight whether or not the charter
clearly allows them. Avoif start a binaries group at the same time.
The only problem is some ISP's don't carry any Alt.binaries.* groups
Gregg Germain
OSDS Staffing (osds...@htsc.com) wrote:
: Heaven forfend! 8 ships were mentioned, 3 nominally UK and 5 in the
: U.S., I expect that the discussions will reflect those ships actually
: sailing.
The reason for mentioning ships at all was to convince those who
may require convincing that there are enough ships out there to
warrant the creation of a group. As noted by a previous reply, I said
the purpose of the group was to discuss the tall ships of the world.
C.J. Brady wrote:
: > except an incorrect statement about the Matthew. [The Matthew's
: > sea-trials actually finished at least a year ago and she has now
: > completed her visit to Newfoundland!!] It doesn't even mention the
: > international Cutty Sark Tall Ship Races!!!
: >
I'm mortified that I did not update the status of the Matthew
in the RFD and will do so. As for the Cutty Sark races the idea of an
RFD is to put forth a proposal for discussion. the fact that the list
of ships may not accurately reflect the balance of ships from each
country does not, I believe, limit the kids of discussions you can
have in the newsgroup.
C.J. Brady wrote:
: > However I also question as to whether 'rec.boats' is the right newsgroup
: > hierarchy. Certainly in Europe a tall ship would NEVER be termed a
: > 'boat,' for the same reason sailing a tall ship would NEVER be termed
: > 'boating.' Perhaps in the USA tall ships are thought of as boats but
: > certainly not anywhere else in the world!!
As I answered you via email, I was told that the odds of
getting a second level newsgroup formed are very small. We all
understand the usage of the term "boats".
C.J. Brady wrote:
: >
: > I have tried to correspond with the author of the RFD but emails have
: > been ignored.
: >
Incorrect. I replied ot every one yousent. I tried to
explain to you my rationale for each of yoru objections.
: > My own suggestion is for a newsgroup called rec.sailing.tallships, which
: > would be part of a new hierarchy rec.sailing.* in the manner of
: > rec.scuba.* and others of that ilk.
That was my first choice too, as I mentioned to you. However I
was dissuaded.
C.J. Brady wrote:
: >
: > Thirdly I must object to this ruling. In the matters of safety at sea,
: > navigation, weather interpretation, ship wrighting, etc., tall ships
: > share as many issues as general receational boating and/or commercial
: > shipping. These issues even if pertinant to a more general audience
: > should also be discussed in such a newsgroup.
: >
There will always be some overlap in discussion. Especially
since I'm proposing that the group NOT be moderated. I fully expect
that those weather issues relevant to Tall Ship handling will be
discussed. But I also expect there will be some leakage over into the
other sailing realms.
It was suggested to me by other peol ewho successfully
launched newsgroups that it's best to put that kind of verbiage in the
charter even though you know there will be some overlap.
: > In summary I don't think that this RFD reflects the huge *international*
: > interest that there is in tall ships or maritime history - and the vast
: > majority of this is not in the USA.
This is not the purpose of the RFD.
: > Chris Brady.
: >
: > P.S. The spelling and grammer in the RFD also needs looking at.
^^^^^^^
Oh my.
: Yeah, you colonials need to realize that "ship wrighting" is the more
: correct way to spell shipwrighting and of course "grammer" (my Dad's
: mum) in the RFD is far more important than the grammar used in the
RFD.
Heh. C.J. is from the UK ;^)
: I was just going to ignore this guy, clearly he doesn't intend to
: participate in such a mis-named group, but when he raised the spelling
: flag and brought "grammer" into the fray, I had to inject my tuppence
: worth, Two cents for you uncivilised colonials.
*I* am the uncivilized colonial and I thank you for the
conversion. ;^)
: 1. Whether the discussions tend to ships on this side of the pond or
: are more international in nature will depend on the degree of
: participation and interest of the discussers. I would expect that as
: noted the discussions will be far more international than parochial
: because the vast majority of sail training ships are owned by
: "furriners".
This is how I thought it would work.
: 2. Keep the topics tight in to Tall Ships. This will tend to keep the
: discussions more technical in nature and that will also avoid most
: nationalistic fervor.
Nationalistic fervor is ok, to some degree. ;^)
: the slings, arrows and chain-shot that will start flying over the
: definition of a "Tall Ship".
Been waiting for that myself. ;^) I tried to give a cogent
yet general definition in the RFD. I spoke with a number of captains
and in fact, none of them like the word "tallships" but since most
folks ashore use that terms and through usage it really has pretty
well precisely defined what kinds of ships we're talking about, and
since they all want to attract shore folk to their ships, they all
agreed that that's the word to use. Perhaps it could use some
tweaking: happy to hear comments.
: 3. The only other comment I would make would be to establish a
: companion binaries group at the same time.
This may be required. I'll confess that my rationale for NOT
including binaries or a separate binary group is that most tallships
these days have web pages with just those kinds of things.
Can we really justify the creation of a binaries group?
Happy to hear comments.
--- Gregg
"I don't want to die, baby.
gr...@head-cfa.harvard.edu but if I gotta die......
Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics I'm gonna die last."
Phone: (617) 496-7237 Robert Mitchum
t.r.mcloughlin
A bit of usenet nostalgia:
Gregg Germain wrote:
> I spoke with a number of captains
> and in fact, none of them like the word "tallships" but since most
> folks ashore use that terms and through usage it really has pretty
> well precisely defined what kinds of ships we're talking about, and
> since they all want to attract shore folk to their ships, they all
> agreed that that's the word to use.
Aaaah. I read that and had a bittersweet remembrance
af the heady, late June days of usenet past.
The historic RFD stats seem to show that September has
ended and we're in a usenet winter. Perhaps this is a
harbinger of a new usenet Spring?
trm