Really Old SCTV Newsgroup Articles here
Otto Parts
1982, when there were only a handful of lists. The SCTV list was the
only one dedicated to a TV show! mclure at SRI-UNIX was the list
coordinator. You out there, mclure?
AND, net.sctv was the first newsgroup dedicated to a single TV show!
There was quite a bit of controversy about this (see below). The group
was renamed net.tv.sctv, and was the first subgroup in the net.tv hierarchy!
We started the concept of having a newsgroup dedicated to one show! What
do you think of that?
Sadly, shortly thereafter, there was a request that n.t.s be removed because
it hadn't been used in 4 months and was too specific. mclure rmgrouped
n.t.s on 11/26/82 and its demise was reported on net.general on 12/5/82.
The ARPANET list seems to have survived for a while longer.
(And beside the point, do you remember there was an American TV version
of Fawlty Towers in 1983, called Amanda's, starring SCTV's Tony Rosato?)
The entire thread on net.sctv had some interesting posts on newsgroup
creation, here are some of them, but first the origin of "hoser":
Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utcsrgv.UUCP
From: tu...@utcsrgv.UUCP (Stephen Hull)
Newsgroups: net.nlang
Subject: hoser -- an alternate Canadian viewpoint, eh?
Message-ID: <31...@utcsrgv.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 23-Jan-84 05:11:39 EST
Article-I.D.: utcsrgv.3182
Posted: Mon Jan 23 05:11:39 1984
Date-Received: Mon, 23-Jan-84 05:51:46 EST
Organization: CSRG, University of Toronto
Lines: 27
When Dave Thomas and Rick Moranis began this whole thing
on SCTV they unleashed a real can of worms. From other
Canadians situated about the country (and even the province)
I've heard several interpretations. However, I have my
own (naturally), which dates back to my high school days in
Kitchener, Ontario (about 60 miles west of Toronto -- that's ~100km).
I think hoser must be a variant of a common insult we traded in
those not-quite-halcyon days: "hosebag." "Hosebag" didn't have any
specific interpretation, it was just a good, general-purpose insult.
For those of you not conversant with the term, it is a synonym for
"douchebag." And "douchebag" is a term used to describe, somewhat
less scatologically, a plastic envelope containing fluids
used in (ahem) vaginal irrigation.
Granted, the similarity may be only coincidental, but I would state
this in my case: Dave Thomas went to high school in my general area
of the country (southwestern-to-central-southern Ontario), and it's
possible he was within the same sphere of linguistic influence as I.
Beauty, eh? Way to go! Decent!!
steve hull
--
UUCP { linus ihnp4 allegra utzoo decwrl cornell
floyd watmath uw-beaver ubc-vision }!utcsrgv!tugs
{ decvax cwruecmp duke research floyd }!utzoo!utcsrgv!tugs
Message-ID: <bnews.hao.246>
Newsgroups: net.sctv,net.news.groups
X-Path: utzoo!decvax!cca!hplabs!menlo70!hao!woods@sri-unix
From: woods@sri-unix
Date: Sat May 29 06:46:18 1982
Subject: Re: Proliferation of Newsgroups
X-Google-Info: Converted from the original B-News header
Posted: Thu May 27 12:06:51 1982
Received: Sat May 29 06:46:18 1982
This is in reply to my previous article protesting the creation
of net.sctv, a newsgroup devoted to one individual TV show. I have received
several responses by mail, and all but one expressed the same sentiment
as I: we like the SCTV show but don't feel that it justifies its own group.
And as for Andy Tannenbaum, you don't have to get so hostile. I was just under
the impression that a
netnews guru had to approve the creation of new newsgroups, but people seem
to be creating them at will right-and-left. And your implication that I am
that restrictive is totally ridiculous, I never suggested anything of the sort.
I still feel that a single TV show is too restrictive for its own high-level
newsgroup. What I AM suggesting is something like net.tv.sctv, so that someone
who is not interested in television could shut off all those groups without
the necessity of 50 !net.sctv type things in .newsrc .
And there is a very good reason why we shouldn't have an infinitude of
newsgroups-- my options line in .newsrc is already as long as our hacked v6
system will allow (about 256 chars, I think). I cannot unsubscribe to any
more newsgroups, so I have a very legitimate reason for being opposed to
unlimited proliferation of newsgroups.
Mark--Would you PLEASE state publicly what the official policy is on
creation of new newsgroups is so we can avoid rehashing the same discussion we
already had on this topic a while back. I for one would like to see the number
of newsgroups controlled, for reasons already stated above.
GREG (ucbvax!menlo70!hao!woods)
Message-ID: <bnews.hao.255>
Newsgroups: net.news
X-Path: utzoo!decvax!cca!hplabs!menlo70!hao!woods@sri-unix
From: woods@sri-unix
Date: Sun Jun 27 23:34:06 1982
Subject: Re: Selection of Articles
X-Google-Info: Converted from the original B-News header
Posted: Mon Jun 21 16:25:07 1982
Received: Sun Jun 27 23:34:06 1982
Oh, well, here we go again! I apologize if I have missed some of this
discussion, because hplabs, through whom most of our news comes, has been
down for some time. In any case, the problem with allowing arbitrary creation
of newsgroups is that many systems, including ours, have limits as to how long
the options line in the .newsrc file can be. I have already unsubscribed
to as many groups as I can, and cannot cut off any more. This means I have to
endlessly page through many articles that I know I am not interested in.
The more newsgroups that are created, the worse this situation becomes.
Some people have suggested that I do my options line in reverse, i.e.
stating the groups I do want instead of those I don't. Not a bad idea, except
that the number of newsgroups is so large now that I can't do that either for
the same reason, with the additional difficulty that I won't get any new
groups that I may be interested in.
My proposal, which I have stated before, is to have a tree-structured
group system similar to a real UNIX file system, instead of the type we
have now where many groups hang directly off the root when they would better
fit off one of the branches where they could be subscribed or unsubscribed
to en masse. (Case in point: the recent argument about net.sctv .)
I wish to HELL someone (Mark?) would state a policy on new group creation,
bearing these difficulties with the .newsrc file in mind. My own personal
opinion is that NO group should be created until there has been some discussion
on whether the topic really merits its own group, and then the group should
be tacked on as far down the tree as possible. If such an official statement
was in fact made in the last 2-3 weeks while we were cut off from the net news,
I would appreciate someone mailing me a copy. I really hate rehashing this
again and again. Doesn't anyone else have this difficulty with limited options
lines? If so, where the *&%#@ are you during this discussion?
GREG (ucbvax!menlo70!hao!woods)
Message-ID: <bnews.hao.375>
Newsgroups: net.news
X-Path: utzoo!decvax!cca!hplabs!hao!woods@sri-unix
From: woods@sri-unix
Date: Wed Dec 8 05:19:12 1982
Subject: Re: Digestification
References: <bnews.alice.1265>
X-Google-Info: Converted from the original B-News header
Posted: Tue Dec 7 11:26:51 1982
Received: Wed Dec 8 05:19:12 1982
I agree with Adam (alice!sjb) that digestification is a hindrance to the
speed and convenience of the net. The newspaper as separate pieces in the
envelope analogy is not quite accurate to describe non-digest newsgroups. It's
more like your newspaper arriving in a filing cabinet with everything neatly
organized.
I would like to point out that we have already had a similar debate once
before on USENET regarding net.space vs. fa.space, and at that time there was
a very strong consensus that the individual artice format was preferred. I see
no reason to think that has changed. PLease lets find another way. I don't
want to see everything digestified.
And as for newsgroup removal, I am glad to see Adam has the guts to do
something about it. The flak he has taken makes it very clear that we need to
set some sort of policy regarding creation/deletion of newsgroups. So far
I have seen suggestions that only a small elite be allowed to create/delete
newsgroups, and the way it is now anyone can. I think it is clear we need
a happy medium of some kind, and it is also clear we need desparately to do
*something*. At the very least the software should be robust enough to prevent
a new group from being created by a typo (e.g. net.joke). I think expiring
newsgroups is an excellent idea, combined with at least some restiriction
on the creation of extremely specific, low volume groups (e.g. net.wobegon,
net.sctv).
GREG
ucbvax!{hplabs,menlo70}!hao!woods
harpo!seismo!hao!woods
decvax!brl-bmd!hao!woods