Test Baloon: rec.toys
E. Kontei
Toys. They serve as reminders of our past. They educate.
They show us the dreams and illusions of children of ages past.
They can be valuable collectibles. They can be enjoyed by
people of all ages.
I'd like to propose a newsgroup for the discussion of toys. Dolls
and action figures, Lego/Erector sets, "executive toys", toy cars,
the whole lot.
If there's enough interest, I'll write an RFD.
--
E n r i q u e C o n t y
The Flip-Flip Man
co...@cbnewsl.att.com
Disclaimer: You're not dealing with AT&T
Ron Asbestos Dippold
>I'd like to propose a newsgroup for the discussion of toys. Dolls
>and action figures, Lego/Erector sets, "executive toys", toy cars,
>the whole lot.
There's already a somewhat active alt.toys.lego group that was
_really_ busy for a while. That might be one to move over. In any
case, perhaps rec.toys.misc to that splits aren't a pain, as I can see
this happening pretty fast. I support it!
--
We are all cast in the same mold, but some are moldier than others.
Thumper
>Toys. They serve as reminders of our past. They educate.
>They show us the dreams and illusions of children of ages past.
>They can be valuable collectibles. They can be enjoyed by
>people of all ages.
>I'd like to propose a newsgroup for the discussion of toys. Dolls
>and action figures, Lego/Erector sets, "executive toys", toy cars,
>the whole lot.
The recent success of alt.toys.lego would seem to indicate a need.
Perhaps rec.toys.misc would be a safer choice?
=Thumper
--
geo...@Dartmouth.EDU - Computing Support Consultant, Tuck School of Business
"Don't have a stegasaurus, man"
-Dino Bart, "The Simpsons"
Peter Kaminski
>I'd like to propose a newsgroup for the discussion of toys. Dolls
>and action figures, Lego/Erector sets, "executive toys", toy cars,
>the whole lot.
Go for it, definitely! I've been wanting to do this myself. As others
have noted, though, I think we should leave room for expansion. Note
also the pre-existence of "rec.games.*", so you'll need to differentiate
between "toys" and "games".
Some more categories to contemplate (but not necessarily proposals for
separate subgroups):
antique baby building collector crafts educational licenses models musical
outdoor radio-control riding science sports toddler trains vehicles wooden
Pete
E. Kontei
> In <C5yHF...@cbnewsl.cb.att.com> co...@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (E. Kontei) writes:
>
> Go for it, definitely! I've been wanting to do this myself. As others
> have noted, though, I think we should leave room for expansion. Note
> also the pre-existence of "rec.games.*", so you'll need to differentiate
> between "toys" and "games".
Games have rules, goals, and penalties. Toys have none of those.
> Some more categories to contemplate (but not necessarily proposals for
> separate subgroups):
>
> antique baby building collector crafts educational licenses models musical
> outdoor radio-control riding science sports toddler trains vehicles wooden
Some of them are duplicated elsewhere, but most of these are good...
Lawrence C Smith
>In <C5yHF...@cbnewsl.cb.att.com> co...@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (E. Kontei) writes:
>>Toys. They serve as reminders of our past. They educate.
>>They show us the dreams and illusions of children of ages past.
>>They can be valuable collectibles. They can be enjoyed by
>>people of all ages.
>>I'd like to propose a newsgroup for the discussion of toys. Dolls
>>and action figures, Lego/Erector sets, "executive toys", toy cars,
>>the whole lot.
>The recent success of alt.toys.lego would seem to indicate a need.
>Perhaps rec.toys.misc would be a safer choice?
I believe a real proposal would have to include
rec.toys.misc
rec.toys.systems
The latter to serve as a home for Lego, Erector sets, and so forth the "system"
construction sets, although Lego alone might still deserve its own group,
especially since they have one already. Making it a heirarchy from the first
is a smart move, since toys are obviously all over the place. I like the idea.
Larry Smith (sm...@ctron.com) No, I don't speak for Cabletron. Need you ask?
-
Liberty is not the freedom to do whatever we want,
it is the freedom to do whatever we are able.
E. Kontei
>
> I believe a real proposal would have to include
>
> rec.toys.misc
> rec.toys.systems
I'd rather not try and guess sub-group names right now. We don't KNOW
which groupings will have enough traffic to merit their own newsgroups,
and I'm afraid that we're in a situation in which we can't find out
until we see what happens in the newsgroup, when (and if) it's created.
I like the idea of having a rec.toys.misc from the start. Is there
a precedent on naming a group ".misc", when it is the only newsgroup in
its branch of the hierarchy? Would there be any problems if I proposed
it that way?
Christopher Davis
LCS> I believe a real proposal would have to include
LCS> rec.toys.misc
LCS> rec.toys.systems
LCS> The latter to serve as a home for Lego, Erector sets, and so forth
LCS> the "system" construction sets, although Lego alone might still
LCS> deserve its own group, especially since they have one already.
rec.toys.construction? Lego, Capsela, Meccano, Erector...
LCS> Making it a heirarchy from the first is a smart move, since toys are
LCS> obviously all over the place. I like the idea.
Agreed. We should definitely start out with at least a misc group.
--
* Christopher Davis * <c...@eff.org> * <c...@kei.com> * [CKD1] * MIME * RIPEM *
"Those who cannot remember history are doomed to repost it every month,
with diffs marked with change bars." --Ed Vielmetti <e...@msen.com>
Ron Asbestos Dippold
>I like the idea of having a rec.toys.misc from the start. Is there
>a precedent on naming a group ".misc", when it is the only newsgroup in
>its branch of the hierarchy?
I don't see any examples in the non-.alt groups. Usually something
goes to misc when a group has to be split and people realize "whoops!
need to make this all at the same level." I just did this for a
group I created in the first place. Guilty as charged.
Even worse, you can get wierdnesses like in the anime reorganization
where the group _doesn't_ get renamed to .misc. It's just Usenet,
but I'm sure that somehow the Universe is warped when this occurs.
>Would there be any problems if I proposed it that way?
The repercussions for us actually showing some foresight in advance
(redundancy alert!) could be horrendous, I'm sure! But with a subject
covering such a wide area, and with the popularity of alt.toys.lego, I
think we can be fairly safe in assuming it'll split sooner or later,
and thus this is a good idea. After all, it's not as if
"rec.toys.misc" is somehow inaccurate. I can't imagine anyone
opposing it (although I know someone probably will).
--
Must be getting close to town - we're hitting more people.
Lawrence C Smith
>In article <1rm1va...@ctron-news.ctron.com>, sm...@ctron.com (Lawrence C Smith) writes:
>> I believe a real proposal would have to include
>> rec.toys.misc
>> rec.toys.systems
>I'd rather not try and guess sub-group names right now. We don't KNOW
>which groupings will have enough traffic to merit their own newsgroups,
>and I'm afraid that we're in a situation in which we can't find out
>until we see what happens in the newsgroup, when (and if) it's created.
I disagree, Enrique. Lego fans already have alt.toys.lego, and the group
has fair volume, I don't think it would be fair or practical to require them
to go back to .misc for rec.toys. rec.toys.systems is my proposal to some-
what genericize the name for the type of toy legos are, but we at least need
to acknowledge them with rec.toys.lego. I don't think we need any _more_
groups at the start, but I think it's a slap at a.t.l if they aren't included
in any proposal.
Lawrence C Smith
>LCS> == Lawrence C Smith <sm...@ctron.com>
> LCS> I believe a real proposal would have to include
> LCS> rec.toys.misc
> LCS> rec.toys.systems
> LCS> The latter to serve as a home for Lego, Erector sets, and so forth
> LCS> the "system" construction sets, although Lego alone might still
> LCS> deserve its own group, especially since they have one already.
>rec.toys.construction? Lego, Capsela, Meccano, Erector...
That was my first thought, but I think it's a bit too long and can get confused
with things like toy hammers and so forth. The idea behind "system" was that
some given toy could become a part of a larger set when combined with other
toys or sets from the same line. Lego, Casela, Erector, etc are all good
system toys. Barbie might also fall into the same class, since there is an
enormous line associated with her, but I expect the former type to dominate,
and I had a sort of ulterior idea in the proposal: encouraging people to talk
about combining various systems. Clever ideas for combining Erector sets with
Capsela parts with Lego parts, and so on, to multiply the value of all the
sets.
I don't have any strong feeling about the name, though. If people like
"construction" I can go along with it. Barbie can find her own group. ;)
> LCS> Making it a heirarchy from the first is a smart move, since toys are
> LCS> obviously all over the place. I like the idea.
>Agreed. We should definitely start out with at least a misc group.
This seems to a consensus.
Eric Zeisel
there in legoland have seen or played with a toy called fischer*technik.
FischerTechnik is a german construction toy, sort of erector-set like,
but made from nylon. FT structures are much stronger than Lego structures,
because the fastening method doesn't just snap off, but you slide studs
into deep grooves or turn rivets... There are gears, motors, chains, cams,
all sorts of structural pieces... beautiful stuff. Also lots of electronic
modules and computer interfaces. I had amassed a bunch of
it as a kid, but now that I got the urge to build an automaton of some
sort I can't find it anywhere in my parents' houses, and they stopped
importing it in US a few years ago. So I'm stuck with Lego Technic.
( This is not so bad! Lego has much more aesthetic appeal. It just isn't
very strong. )
Any Fischer*Technik fans out there?
-- Eric Zeisel (wea...@gauss.stanford.edu)
.
Chris Ambler -- Phish
>co...@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (E. Kontei) writes:
>>I like the idea of having a rec.toys.misc from the start. Is there
>>a precedent on naming a group ".misc", when it is the only newsgroup in
>>its branch of the hierarchy?
>
>I don't see any examples in the non-.alt groups. Usually something
>goes to misc when a group has to be split and people realize "whoops!
>need to make this all at the same level." I just did this for a
>group I created in the first place. Guilty as charged.
Check out comp.bbs.misc. In fact, comp.bbs.waffle was created first, if
I'm not mistaken, and comp.bbs.misc added later. To date, there should be
no "official" comp.bbs as it stands.
--
cam...@zeus.calpoly.edu | Author, FSUUCP 1.32 | Home of the 37K .plan file
ch...@toys.fubarsys.com | Secretary, BBSC | Finger at your own risk, and
-------------------------^---------------------| pipe through more is most
Looking for "Land of the Lost" on video. Got? | highly recommended.
Ron Asbestos Dippold
>>I don't see any examples in the non-.alt groups. Usually something
>>goes to misc when a group has to be split and people realize "whoops!
>Check out comp.bbs.misc. In fact, comp.bbs.waffle was created first, if
>I'm not mistaken, and comp.bbs.misc added later. To date, there should be
>no "official" comp.bbs as it stands.
Right, there are a couple examples of an entire group of subs
appearing without hopping "down" from a level above, or cross
migration like you mention. What I was looking for is a foo.bar.misc
group (in the main heirarchies) that's all by its lonesome, with no
foo.bar.whatever groups along with it. Anyone find one? If
comp.bbs.misc came before c.b.waffle, that'd still qualify.
--
Job placement: Telling your boss what he can do with your job.
Carl M Kadie
get its own group (i.e. rec.toys.lego).
For other toys, I think rec.toys.misc would be good for now until we
see the interest in other topics.
- Carl
p.s. Other groups I'd eventually like to see:
rec.toys.flying
rec.toys.construction
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent any organization; this is just me.
= ka...@cs.uiuc.edu =
Brian Harvey
>> LCS> rec.toys.systems
Too easy to mistake this for rec.systems.toys, a newsgroup about
DOS and Apple System 7!
Paul Allen Baker
[article deleted]
>Any Fischer*Technik fans out there?
I was a wanna be Fischer*Technik fan as a small child (does that count?).
I remember going into an exclusive little toy shop that sold them some years
back and drooling over the sets, but I did the same for capsula *shrug*.
My parents opted for legos because of thier avalibility, timelessness (thier
basic compatibility to itself over the years), and mostly price (I mostly got
small sets (My parents never believed in extravagance)). Oh well, such is life.
Lasse Hiller|e Petersen
Smith) wrote:
> rec.toys.systems is my proposal to some-
> what genericize the name for the type of toy legos are, but we at least need
> to acknowledge them with rec.toys.lego. I don't think we need any _more_
> groups at the start, but I think it's a slap at a.t.l if they aren't included
> in any proposal.
Perhaps. Also it may be worthwhile from alt.toys.lego's point of view to go
mainstream, in terms of wider distribution, etc. Certainly alt.models seems
to have been succesful in this way, when it turned into rec.scale.models a
few months ago. And, like alt.models, alt.toys.lego has proved itself one
of the steady going alt groups. I had my doubt in the beginning :-)
rec.toys.lego IMO should be part of a CFV. (And of course, if
rec.toys.systems was created, LEGO-folks could tell people into
Fischer-technik, LEGO-clones and the like, to go talk _there_ :-)
But maybe rec.toys.misc and rec.toys.lego will suffice for a start.
If "system" toys get too prevalent in rec.toys.misc, they can always go
solo.
Follow up to news.groups
--
Lasse Hiller|e Petersen - las...@imv.aau.dk ! "He, who desires, but acts
Department of Information & Media Science ! not, breeds pestilence"
Aarhus University, DENMARK ! -Blake
John B. Bunch
>
> rec.toys.misc
> rec.toys.systems
>
> The latter to serve as a home for Lego, Erector sets, and so forth the "system"
> construction sets, although Lego alone might still deserve its own group,
> especially since they have one already. Making it a heirarchy from the first
> is a smart move, since toys are obviously all over the place. I like the idea.
>
I think just start with rec.toys and if there is a need then break it up
further. I like the idea for a toys group though.. ;-)
John
{...}
--
John B. Bunch * 280 Quail St. * JB's Mail and News
Atari * Apt 1. * Owner And Operator
3b1 * Albany, NY 12208 * (518)436-3810
UUCP: jbu...@myst.uucp or uunet!myst!jbunch
Geoff Bronner
>I think just start with rec.toys and if there is a need then break it up
>further. I like the idea for a toys group though.. ;-)
If there is reason to expect future expansion it seems silly not to create
rec.toys.misc now and avoid the trouble of rmgrouping rec.toys at some
point in the future.
See the disastrous result of the rec.arts.anime reorg for a concrete
example of how much trouble this can be down the road.
->-> Thumper
--
geo...@Dartmouth.EDU - Computing Support Consultant, Tuck School of Business
People with narrow minds usually have broad tongues.