net.religion.test.afterburner anyone?
Catherine Hampton
I'm posting this for two reasons.
First, I've decided that "voting" is cumbersome, so instead I'm going to
create new newsgroups whose longevity I have questions about as
net.religion.test.*. I'll move them to net.religion.* if, after a
couple of months, they have regular posters and an ongoing conversation
sufficient to justify the group, IMHO. If they're dead after that time,
they die.
Second, I've gotten requests from a bunch of people, including the man
himself (Afterburner) to create net.religion.afterburner. Apparently
the problems with alt.religion.afterburner are due to ongoing hassles
with moderated alt.* groups, which some news admins (including the
admin at erols.com) insist is an oxymoron and refuse to create as
moderated. Now, while groups like alt.religion.sillygroup-of-your-choice
may look... silly... some of them are also well populated and active.
(alt.religion.monica, for one.) So, if no one here has a major objection,
I thought I'd give it a try with net.religion.test.afterburner.
Any serious objections, or can we actually create a newsgroup? ;>
--
Catherine Hampton <net-reli...@hrweb.org>
Net Religion Czar, Despot, Chief Cook and Bottlewasher ;>
(Please note that the address in the From: line exists, is valid,
and is also used as a spamtrap. Send email to the address in my
signature if you want me to see it any time soon.)
Jim Kingdon
> I thought I'd give it a try with net.religion.test.afterburner.
Sounds good to me.
I mean, if Afterburner is behind it, who am I to argue? (I also think
it is a cool idea, and have liked what I've seen on
alt.religion.afterburner, but why dwell on that when we can talk about
driving flayed spammers through the underworld and all kinds of groovy
stuff?).
> Any serious objections, or can we actually create a newsgroup? ;>
We allow that in net.*. Just as long as no one posts to it once it is
created :-).
Jeremy.
In net.religion.policy, Catherine Hampton (x...@hrweb.org) said...
>Second, I've gotten requests from a bunch of people, including the man
>himself (Afterburner) to create net.religion.afterburner. Apparently
>the problems with alt.religion.afterburner are due to ongoing hassles
>with moderated alt.* groups, which some news admins (including the
>admin at erols.com) insist is an oxymoron and refuse to create as
>moderated. Now, while groups like alt.religion.sillygroup-of-your-choice
>may look... silly... some of them are also well populated and active.
>(alt.religion.monica, for one.) So, if no one here has a major objection,
>
I'll only repeat that I like net.subculture.afterburner much better. Just
becase you can persuade people to use misclassified groups doesn't mean
they're necessarily a good idea. Well, IMHO at least, I see a possible
argument that high S/N traffic is good no matter what the group is called
or how it's classified. I guess my reason is that, of the various definitions
for religion, for example,
1a (1): the service and worship of God or the supernatural
1a (2): commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
1b: the state of a religious <a nun in her 20th year of religion>
2: a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes,
beliefs, and practices
3 archaic: scrupulous conformity: CONSCIENTIOUSNESS
4: a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and
faith
the only one I can see as even coming close is the 4th one, and that's only
for a rather generous understanding of ardor and faith.
That's it though, I won't complain any more if you still want to create
the group. I'll read it no matter what, I just wish it were in
net.subculture.
-J.
--
"A little Consideration, a little Thought for Others, makes all the
difference. Or so they say... If you've been invited to a party, it's
probably a mistake. Make sure they don't blame you if it rains."
-- Eeyore (A. A. Milne)
Bryan C. Andregg
On 8 May 1998 11:47:55 -0700, <whi...@caprice.Stanford.EDU> wrote:
>
> I'll only repeat that I like net.subculture.afterburner much better. Just
> becase you can persuade people to use misclassified groups doesn't mean
> they're necessarily a good idea. Well, IMHO at least, I see a possible
> argument that high S/N traffic is good no matter what the group is called
> or how it's classified. I guess my reason is that, of the various definitions
> for religion, for example,
I'm going to have to agree with Jeremy on this one. I mean, I believe in AB
and all; I have no doubts about his existence. I don't however, worship AB
(though some may) and see him more as a subculture hero.
--
Bryan C. Andregg * <band...@redhat.com> * Red Hat Software
"Hey, wait a minute, you clowns are on dope!"
-- Owen Cheese in 'Shakes the Clown'
Catherine Hampton
Jeremy. <whi...@caprice.Stanford.EDU> wrote:
: I'll only repeat that I like net.subculture.afterburner much better. Just
<good, well thought out reasons snipped>
I like it better, too, but someone else is in charge of net.subculture,
and the group in question is an alt.religion group, so I figured what
would it hurt? ;> A few misclassified groups that are actually getting
posted to would give this hierarchy a much-needed shot in the arm. :>
I think I'll do the test group, anyway, assuming Afterburner or the
current alt.religion.afterburner moderator agrees to moderate it, or
assuming they agree that it doesn't need to be. (I think they moderated
it just to keep out the spam, and that isn't nearly as big a problem
here.)
Russ Allbery
Catherine Hampton <x...@hrweb.org> writes:
> First, I've decided that "voting" is cumbersome, so instead I'm going to
> create new newsgroups whose longevity I have questions about as
> net.religion.test.*. I'll move them to net.religion.* if, after a
> couple of months, they have regular posters and an ongoing conversation
> sufficient to justify the group, IMHO. If they're dead after that time,
> they die.
Out of curiosity, what's gained by the .test part of the name versus
simply creating the group "in place" and removing it if it doesn't get
enough traffic?
--
Russ Allbery (r...@stanford.edu) <URL:http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
Peter da Silva
In article <6ivgpn$ls4$1...@nntp1.ba.best.com>,
Catherine Hampton <x...@hrweb.org> wrote:
>I thought I'd give it a try with net.religion.test.afterburner.
"Yes, this is where we test the afterburner. Just stand right there..."
(running footsteps)
--
This is The Reverend Peter da Silva's Boring Sig File - there are no references
to Wolves, Kibo, Discordianism, or The Church of the Subgenius in this document
| "Open": a warning label on a product or organization to let you know that |
| it is more proprietary and restrictive than its competitors. |
Peter da Silva
In article <6ivk0r$q...@BOFH.Stanford.EDU>,
Jeremy. <whi...@caprice.Stanford.EDU> wrote:
>I'll only repeat that I like net.subculture.afterburner much better.
I agree. net.religion.finagle, however...
stare master
In article <m3ogx8j...@windlord.stanford.edu>,
Russ Allbery <r...@stanford.edu> wrote:
>Catherine Hampton <x...@hrweb.org> writes:
>> First, I've decided that "voting" is cumbersome, so instead I'm going to
>> create new newsgroups whose longevity I have questions about as
>> net.religion.test.*. I'll move them to net.religion.* if, after a
>> couple of months, they have regular posters and an ongoing conversation
>> sufficient to justify the group, IMHO. If they're dead after that time,
>> they die.
>Out of curiosity, what's gained by the .test part of the name versus
>simply creating the group "in place" and removing it if it doesn't get
>enough traffic?
Remember the lesson of trial.*.
rone
or something
--
fuck, i'm so fucking full of angst i think i'll go read generation x so many
times i have it memorized and it just oozes out of my pores like so much of
the empty pseudophilosphy and religion i willingly embrace and espouse to my
peers and mentors. - Patrick J. Finerty <zi...@zifi.genetics.utah.edu>