re-creation of alt.ql.creative
M.K.Kwong
[DISCLAIMER: I am merely *borrowing* this account, with permission.
Any views expressed in this post do not reflect the views of
M.K. Kwong or the Argonne Nat'l Lab.]
Lately, I've been considering the re-creation of alt.ql.creative.
Since so many sites don't receive this group, re-creating it will
possibly allow more sites to get it.
When this group was originally created, nothing was ever posted
alt.config regarding its proposal/creation. This has led more
than one sysadmin to complain that they can't even pick up a.q.c.
because it was never announced properly in the first place.
And while the archive does allow those without access to pick up
the posted stories, they cannot post themselves, nor comment.
Does this seem a good idea? I could post on alt.config with a
modified copy of the a.q.c. Charter, and explain the reasons for
its re-creation (I still do not know how to actually *create*
the group, myself, but we'll deal with that when we come to it).
A.q.c. has been getting decent traffic so far, which is a point
in our favor.
Would this be helpful, or merely a waste of effort? Please let
me know what you think.
Robin C. Kwong ("er)
Tracy E. Finifter
How many sites that get r.a.s.t don't get a.q.c? a.q.c comes in fine on all
my newsservers here. I think the major access problem people have been having
comes mostly from sites which don't have any alt.* access at all. For those
people, those of us who do have alt.* access are more than happy to mail any
postings to those who want them (I remember when a.q.c first started, I tried
to set up a mailing list to send new postings, but somebody else had beaten
me to it. Now I just send Roundtable articles upon request. The same is true
for anybody who wishes to post an article).
Since alt.ql.creative HAS had a decent amount of traffic, I think that we
don't really have to worry that access has been too limited. Maybe a better
method of action at first would be for those with alt.* access who DON'T have
a.q.c to check with their sysadmins to see *why* they don't have it. If it
turns out that a lot of alt.* available sites didn't get it due to some problem
in its creation, then you might want to try to recreate it, but for the time
being I don't think it really is necessary.
Keep leaping...
--
* Tracy Finifter | "But he loved pure and chaste from *
* fini...@gandalf.rutgers.edu | afar... Well, that part was never *
* Douglass College, Rutgers University | big with me, either." *
* Any opinions are meaningless dribble. | - Al, "Quantum Leap" *
Newton Loui
fini...@gandalf.rutgers.edu (Tracy E. Finifter) writes:
kw...@procyon.mcs.anl.gov (M.K.Kwong) writes:
>[DISCLAIMER: I am merely *borrowing* this account, with permission.
>Any views expressed in this post do not reflect the views of
>M.K. Kwong or the Argonne Nat'l Lab.]
>Robin C. Kwong ("er)
How many sites that get r.a.s.t don't get a.q.c? a.q.c comes in
fine on all my newsservers here. I think the major access problem
people have
been having comes mostly from sites which don't have any alt.*
access at all.
Not quite. I can get a.q.c at this site (where I'm posting this
followup), but I can't get it at my MIT site (note that I did *not*
say "at MIT"). I would have to ask my newsadmin to get it, but I
won't since (1) I can read it here if I want to, and (2) apparently,
no one else at my site wants to read it. BTW, both sites get r.a.s.t.
and get a lot of *strange* alt groups, like ... well, never mind.
[rest of Tracy's post deleted]
War.
nml
--
Newton Loui n...@hq.lcs.mit.edu n...@lcs.mit.edu n...@athena.mit.edu
n...@csa.bu.edu (non-work related)
cassandra yuk ip kam
Yes! Although I think that the QL archive is a good idea (its new location is
at where again?) it's a pain to go and FTP stuff all the time rather than just
putting in the command to read and post to a newsgroup. I was personally
disappointed that our (Robin's and mine) particular site did not pick up this
group, especially since Robin proposed it. I am all in favor of the group's
recreation. Not to say that the person who created it is at fault, just that
it would be nice if other places could pick up this group, too.
:>
Cassandra
Paul Broe
> In article <7337062...@procyon.mcs.anl.gov> kw...@procyon.mcs.anl.gov (M.K.Kwong) writes:
> >
> group, especially since Robin proposed it. I am all in favor of the group's
> recreation. Not to say that the person who created it is at fault, just that
> it would be nice if other places could pick up this group, too.
>
> :>
> Cassandra
I just wish it was alt.tv.ql.creative since I already get alt.tv.*.
(I guess I will have to try to add alt.ql to my feed eventually.)
--
----
Paul Broe
Internet: br...@plains.nodak.edu A2024
UUCP: uunet!plains!prototype!k9!doctor (My Amiga 2500/20) AmigaUUCP 1.16D
BIX: pb...@bix.com Compu$erve: too expensive. AmigaOS 2.05
ec...@indyvax.iupui.edu
> In article <Apr.2.10.26....@gandalf.rutgers.edu>
> fini...@gandalf.rutgers.edu (Tracy E. Finifter) writes:
> kw...@procyon.mcs.anl.gov (M.K.Kwong) writes:
> >[DISCLAIMER: I am merely *borrowing* this account, with permission.
> >Any views expressed in this post do not reflect the views of
> >M.K. Kwong or the Argonne Nat'l Lab.]
> [stuff deleted about re-creating alt.ql.creative]
> >Robin C. Kwong ("er)
>
> How many sites that get r.a.s.t don't get a.q.c? a.q.c comes in
> fine on all my newsservers here. I think the major access problem
> people have
> been having comes mostly from sites which don't have any alt.*
> access at all.
>
everything EXCEPT the alt.* groups. I get in through another gateway (which is
why, as I stated in an earlier post, my access to this group is rather
erratic). The official reason for the lack of access to the alt.* groups, btw,
is lack of space. However, the *rumoured* reason (and it is just a rumor) is
that they wanted to omit the alt.sex.* groups without appearing to censor them
(grin).
Ellen - the crime doctor