Shouldn't Enterprise posts be in rec.arts.sf.tv?
Annie Keitz
ton of Trekkie groups maybe? At any rate the moron who is starting
threads crossposted to all of the above should cut it out, who does he
think he is, Dan Tropea or something?
Annie
ra...@joesbar.cc.vt.edu
I'll agree about the cross-posting, but since I don't read the
StarTrek groups, a few Enterprise related threads in RAT is
appreciated. God knows there are enough of non-television
threads here that a few about an actual TV show shouldn't
be considered out of place.
--
Bill Ranck
Blacksburg, Va.
Elyse
a few Enterprise related threads in RAT is appreciated. God knows there are
enough of non-television threads here that a few about an actual TV show
shouldn't be considered out of place.
Touche. After all, what are posts about politics doing here? Certianly have
seen TOO many of those over the years. Most ENTERPRISE posts are in the sci-fi
group, but hey, if it's tv, it can be talked here to lure fans off to other
newsgroups if they're new.
E
KarolusMagnus2710
Annie Keitz wrote:
Who do you think you are? A net nazi?
Lynn
> >
> > Just a thought, considering it's a Sci-Fi show. Or post stuff to the
> > ton of Trekkie groups maybe?
> >
>
> I'll agree about the cross-posting, but since I don't read the
> StarTrek groups, a few Enterprise related threads in RAT is
> appreciated. God knows there are enough of non-television
> threads here that a few about an actual TV show shouldn't
> be considered out of place.
Crossposting doesn't bother me. It's better than multiposting, because once
it's marked as read, it doesn't show up in other groups. I just subscribed
to ra.sf.tv. Looks like the same core crew from rat. The group used to
have a rather nasty reputation, but all I saw was LAGuy beating up people
with bad camera work.
--
Lynn
http://www.lynnsland.com
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~
Mediocrity knows nothing higher than itself; but talent instantly recognizes
genius... -Arthur Conan Doyle, "The Valley of Fear"
============================================================================
* Netiquette: http://www.lynnsland.com/Netiquette.html *
* West Wing: http://www.lynnsland.com/Tww.html *
**********************************************************
Adam H. Kerman
>Just a thought, considering it's a Sci-Fi show. Or post stuff to the
>ton of Trekkie groups maybe?
Sheesh. An "Enterprise" group was started several months ago, because they
refused to use rec.arts.startrek.current. Thirty "Star Trek" groups...
Default User
> The group used to
> have a rather nasty reputation, but all I saw was LAGuy beating up people
> with bad camera work.
And we all know how painful it is to be beaten with bad camera work.
KalElFan
news:kon6rtkl68c005c2h...@4ax.com...
> Just a thought, considering it's a Sci-Fi show.
Has this group been renamed rec.arts.tv-except-sci-fi?
Does the rec.arts.tv charter preclude discussion of sci-fi?
Has rec.arts.sf.tv been renamed rec.arts.tv.sf, making it a subgroup
in the rec.arts.tv hierarchy, with a directive in one of the group's
charters making sf posts more appropriate in the subgroup?
Not that it would matter, but is there even a demonstrated consensus
that sci-fi shows, or Enterprise specifically, should be completely
banished?
Hint: The answer is no across the board.
I note there are Angel, Dark Angel, Roswell and Enterprise posts
here in the last few days, and that's just based on a very cursory
review. Moreover, the line between sf and non-sf is subjective
(Touched By An Angel anyone?) and many shows have sought
to avoid being pigeonholed in the genre. Enterprise dropped the
Star Trek, and has a god-awfully inappropriate opening theme,
apparently because some PTB somewhere seriously think they
can branch out beyond the traditional sf and Star Trek fan base.
> Or post stuff to the ton of Trekkie groups maybe?
How about posting it where it's on-topic, to groups that the poster
subscribes to and where the intent is to inform, invite comment or
discussion from the readers of those groups? You know, using
Usenet as it was intended?
> At any rate the moron who is starting threads crossposted to all
> of the above should cut it out...
You seem to have an incorrect and unsupportable attitude towards
crossposting. It's already been pointed out in the thread that it's
entirely appropriate, indeed preferable, to crosspost rather than
post separately. For a further primer on your misconceptions
about this (and where it comes from -- it's widespread) see my
post yesterday to the Enterprise group in alt.tv.*:
www.google.com/groups?as_umsgid=okts7.7923%24%25r.2...@news20.bellglobal.com
> who does he think he is, Dan Tropea or something?
I've heard the name, but don't know him. Is he nazi-like, as
one poster suggested you were acting?
> Annie
Well, Annie, hope this post helps correct your misconception
about crossposting and the like. As for my being a moron, I
tried my best on that GMAT 23 years ago but could only manage
a 744. That's the only one of those test thingies I can remember
taking, and I think it's a wee bit above moron level. But a lot
of my brain cells have died since then, and I doubt I could get
it up that high nowadays! I'm sure yours is bigger, eh?
BTW, even morons can post here. :-). Nothing in the
charter prohibits that. In fact I think I've actually seen the
occasional moron besides me post on Usenet. :-/
For anyone here besides Annie who's really, really averse to sf
or crossposting, killfile the following two-character string in the
thread title and you'll never see a thread like that started by me,
or any of the responses unless a responder sabotages it:
+]
That's because I've adopted [ENT+], [DA+] and so on as
a label identifying crossposts, so killfiling +] will always filter
the whole lot. As for other people's posts, can't help you
there unless they adopt the label too. But Annie you might
try killfiling "Enterprise" in the thread title for starters.
Final point. I've been continuously subscribed to rec.arts.tv.
for well over a year, and at various times for years prior to
that. I've often followed Tiny Dancer's ratings posts for
example. I would not crosspost to any group I did not follow
or subscribe to. I don't follow alt.startrek for example, so
I don't include it in the crosspost list. The four I am cross-
posting to are major groups where Enterprise is always on
topic, and that I subscribe to.
--
Anthony Michael Walsh
KalE...@scifipi.com
jere7my tho?rpe
<ke...@his.com> wrote:
*Just a thought, considering it's a Sci-Fi show. Or post stuff to the
*ton of Trekkie groups maybe?
Well, since I see Annie Keitz posts in "Hillary makes an ass of
herself" and "Negative impact of pacifism", I'm thinking that maybe a
few threads on "Enterprise" are sufficiently on-topic for rec.arts.tv.
;)=
----j7y
--
*********************************** <*> ***********************************
jere7my tho?rpe / 734-769-0913 "Oh, yeah. Old guys becoming pandas --
c/o kesh...@umich.edu _that's_ the future." Mike Nelson, MST3K
Ian J. Ball
> "Annie Keitz" <ke...@his.com> wrote in message
> news:kon6rtkl68c005c2h...@4ax.com...
>
> > Just a thought, considering it's a Sci-Fi show.
>
> Has this group been renamed rec.arts.tv-except-sci-fi?
>
> Does the rec.arts.tv charter preclude discussion of sci-fi?
Actually, this is a semi-serious debate. Some people around here claim that the
creation of rec.arts.sf.tv pretty much precludes the discussion of SFTV in this
newsgroup.
Personally, I think that this viewpoint is silly in its extremeness.
But I do think that most (all?) SFTV posts that start threads should be crossposted
to rec.arts.sf.tv as a matter of course. What you do with "Follow-ups" is up to
you...
The Man-o-licious Codswalloper Mr. Hole
> Just a thought, considering it's a Sci-Fi show. Or post stuff to the
Annie, you can't possibly ruin Dan's high with complaints -- as he's
said in the past, to him the start of the new Fall TV Season is akin
to opening Christmas presents every day!
--
Signature
David
Alright who's the wiseass who got me "Emeril"!?
Mortis
<3bb3b1c0...@netnews.worldnet.att.net>, wherein
BAM!
Mortis
Master of the Unknown, KPS
Nebulosis Defunctus
"I'm going to tap three Mountains
to pump up Jesus with Firebreathing."
-Legomancer
Ann Keitz
wrote:
>"Annie Keitz" <ke...@his.com> wrote in message
>news:kon6rtkl68c005c2h...@4ax.com...
>
>> Just a thought, considering it's a Sci-Fi show.
>
>Has this group been renamed rec.arts.tv-except-sci-fi?
>
>Does the rec.arts.tv charter preclude discussion of sci-fi?
>
>Has rec.arts.sf.tv been renamed rec.arts.tv.sf, making it a subgroup
>in the rec.arts.tv hierarchy, with a directive in one of the group's
>charters making sf posts more appropriate in the subgroup?
>
>Not that it would matter, but is there even a demonstrated consensus
>that sci-fi shows, or Enterprise specifically, should be completely
>banished?
>
> Hint: The answer is no across the board.
Sci-fi show dicussion isn't "banned" but OTOH it's often encouraged to
be herded into the appropriate group if it begins to flood the group.
There's nowhere near the number of posts about Roswell in this group.
>> Or post stuff to the ton of Trekkie groups maybe?
>
>How about posting it where it's on-topic, to groups that the poster
>subscribes to and where the intent is to inform, invite comment or
>discussion from the readers of those groups? You know, using
>Usenet as it was intended?
Hello, Star Trek show? Belong in newsgroup for Star Trek maybe?
>> At any rate the moron who is starting threads crossposted to all
>> of the above should cut it out...
>
>You seem to have an incorrect and unsupportable attitude towards
>crossposting. It's already been pointed out in the thread that it's
>entirely appropriate, indeed preferable, to crosspost rather than
>post separately. For a further primer on your misconceptions
>about this (and where it comes from -- it's widespread) see my
>post yesterday to the Enterprise group in alt.tv.*:
>
>www.google.com/groups?as_umsgid=okts7.7923%24%25r.2...@news20.bellglobal.com
Enterprise group? Whatever happened to waiting until second season
renewal? But you post it NOT a proper rationale for what you've done,
just because you say it's okay doesn't make it so. I've NEVER read the
google guidelines, instead I've read the usenet guidelines written
before Steve Case made his first million.
Here's a clue for ya dude -- USE THE FOLLOWUP FIELD TO DIRECT
CROSSPOSTS TO THE APPROPRIATE GROUP NOT GROUPS.
>> who does he think he is, Dan Tropea or something?
>
>I've heard the name, but don't know him. Is he nazi-like, as
>one poster suggested you were acting?
He was an infamous Usenetian who insisted on inappropriately
crossposting to groups to "spread discussion" and had his own warped
logic to justify it. You seem to be channeling him.
>Well, Annie, hope this post helps correct your misconception
>about crossposting and the like. As for my being a moron, I
>tried my best on that GMAT 23 years ago but could only manage
>a 744. That's the only one of those test thingies I can remember
>taking, and I think it's a wee bit above moron level. But a lot
>of my brain cells have died since then, and I doubt I could get
>it up that high nowadays! I'm sure yours is bigger, eh?
Yea I thought you were a moron but now I realize you're just fucking
clueless about manners <g>. I know a ton of "bright" Ph.d. at work
but they too are dumb as dirt....
>BTW, even morons can post here. :-). Nothing in the
>charter prohibits that. In fact I think I've actually seen the
>occasional moron besides me post on Usenet. :-/
OOOH one thing you've said that's right. But even morons should
attempt to follow Usenet manners.
>For anyone here besides Annie who's really, really averse to sf
>or crossposting, killfile the following two-character string in th
>thread title and you'll never see a thread like that started by me,
>or any of the responses unless a responder sabotages it:
>
>+]
Or the clueless who use Outlook who break that....
>That's because I've adopted [ENT+], [DA+] and so on as
>a label identifying crossposts, so killfiling +] will always filter
>the whole lot. As for other people's posts, can't help you
>there unless they adopt the label too. But Annie you might
>try killfiling "Enterprise" in the thread title for starters.
Or the clueless who use Outlook who break that. I don't wish to
killfile Enterprise, I merely wish to nip unwise crossposts in the bud
-- mixing groups with vastly different cultures and customs are a
receipe for trouble.
>Final point. I've been continuously subscribed to rec.arts.tv.
>for well over a year, and at various times for years prior to
>that. I've often followed Tiny Dancer's ratings posts for
>example. I would not crosspost to any group I did not follow
>or subscribe to. I don't follow alt.startrek for example, so
>I don't include it in the crosspost list. The four I am cross-
>posting to are major groups where Enterprise is always on
>topic, and that I subscribe to.
Well that's just bully for you. You subscribed and read but didn't
comprehend....
Annie
Annie Keitz
ke...@his.com
KalElFan
news:3BB3A6E1...@san.rr.com...
> KalElFan wrote:
>
> > "Annie Keitz" <ke...@his.com> wrote in message
> > news:kon6rtkl68c005c2h...@4ax.com...
> >
> > > Just a thought, considering it's a Sci-Fi show.
> >
> > Has this group been renamed rec.arts.tv-except-sci-fi?
> >
> > Does the rec.arts.tv charter preclude discussion of sci-fi?
>
> Actually, this is a semi-serious debate. Some people around here claim that the
> creation of rec.arts.sf.tv pretty much precludes the discussion of SFTV in this
> newsgroup.
>
> Personally, I think that this viewpoint is silly in its extremeness.
It's also incorrect. Neither charters nor alleged "conventions"
carry any weight across hierarchies. If a movie aired on TV
last night, it's on-topic in rec.arts.tv but it's also on-topic in
rec.arts.movies.past-films. Period. Plus it's on-topic in some
alt.* groups, and may be on topic in both rec.arts.sf.tv and
rec.arts.sf.movies if the genre fits. It's just a fact that you have
overlap, in this case between a genre hierarchy (sf) and a
medium hierarchy (tv).
> But I do think that most (all?) SFTV posts that start threads
> should be crossposted to rec.arts.sf.tv as a matter of course.
> What you do with "Follow-ups" is up to you...
I do crosspost there, but in the hypothetical case where a
person reads this group but does not read or care about
the sf group, I don't think they should crosspost. I think
the key should be whether you read and subscribe to a
group.
The follow-ups point is an interesting one, and I know some
people think follow-ups should be set to one group. In
some cases that might be fine, but in the typical case where
the approach in the last paragraph is taken, the poster is
inviting responses from all groups. I think it's inappropriate
to invite discussion in that way, and then effectively suggest
to the responder they should respond in a group they may
not necessarily care about. I think it's best to let responders
do as they see fit, and so on for subsequent responses.
That said, if the initiator wants to note [follow-ups set to...]
at the start of the post, then at least anyone responding knows
that. If they don't subscribe to the other group they can just
avoid the thread, or respond but reset follow-ups.
Ian J. Ball
diml...@worldnet.att.net (David) wrote:
Spoken like someone who hasn't gotten "One on One" wrapped in a gaudy
little bow...
--
Ian J. Ball | "What's not to understand? You think you're the first guy
TV lover, and | who ever rolled over, saw what was lyin' next to him,
Usenet slacker | and went 'Gueeeyah!'" - The Host, from "Angel"
ib...@socal.rr.com | http://members.aol.com/IJBall/WWW/TV.html
Daniel Damouth
> KalElFan wrote:
>
>> "Annie Keitz" <ke...@his.com> wrote in message
>> news:kon6rtkl68c005c2h...@4ax.com...
>>
>> > Just a thought, considering it's a Sci-Fi show.
>>
>> Has this group been renamed rec.arts.tv-except-sci-fi?
>>
>> Does the rec.arts.tv charter preclude discussion of sci-fi?
>
> Actually, this is a semi-serious debate. Some people around here
> claim that the creation of rec.arts.sf.tv pretty much precludes the
> discussion of SFTV in this newsgroup.
>
> Personally, I think that this viewpoint is silly in its extremeness.
Well, when a subgroup splits off from a main group, it's often because
traffic has gotten very high in the main group (I don't know if that was
the case here). Then it is logical to say that posts which relate only
to the topic of the subgroup should be in the subgroup, and not the main
group. Otherwise it defeats the entire purpose.
Dan Damouth
mat...@vax.hanford.org
KalElFan <KalE...@scifipi.com> wrote:
>It's also incorrect. Neither charters nor alleged "conventions"
>carry any weight across hierarchies. If a movie aired on TV
>last night, it's on-topic in rec.arts.tv but it's also on-topic in
>rec.arts.movies.past-films. Period.
A theatrical movie? I don't really think theatrical movies are on topic
for rec.arts.tv.
Then that means that rec.arts.tv(.past-films) essentially could be subsumed
into rec.arts.tv, with all of the various cable channels showing movies!
(Gee, I watched a DVD on my TV last night.. is it on topic?? JUST JOKING
about this one..)
--
mat...@area.com
KalElFan
> In article <WtQs7.11901$%r.31...@news20.bellglobal.com>,
> KalElFan <KalE...@scifipi.com> wrote:
> >It's also incorrect. Neither charters nor alleged "conventions"
> >carry any weight across hierarchies. If a movie aired on TV
> >last night, it's on-topic in rec.arts.tv but it's also on-topic in
> >rec.arts.movies.past-films. Period.
>
> A theatrical movie? I don't really think theatrical movies are on topic
> for rec.arts.tv.
If it's running theatrically, it's not on-topic in a TV group (nor in
the past-films group, it would be on topic in r.a.m.current-films).
But the example I gave specifically talked about a movie airing
on TV last night.
> Then that means that rec.arts.tv(.past-films) essentially could be
> subsumed into rec.arts.tv, with all of the various cable channels
> showing movies!
I would not argue that every movie that ever aired on any TV
channel can be fairly considered on-topic here. The spirit of the
charter is that this is a TV group, and I think that argues for some
meaningful TV element to what's posted. If a major network
carried a movie last night, I think that's clearly on topic and I've
seen commentary and discussion here on once-theatrical movies
after they have their network airing.
Technically, an obscure movie that aired latenight in Kalamazoo
would be on-topic, but no one's likely to care much. With
major shows in first run they do. I've noted some Wolf Lake
posts here, another example of a show with an sf element.
Same with X-Files in the past
KalElFan
news:6fj7rtc52cr11iarm...@4ax.com...
> Sci-fi show discussion isn't "banned" but OTOH it's often encouraged to
> be herded into the appropriate group if it begins to flood the group.
There is no single appropriate group. There are many appropriate
groups. This is one of them. It's not for you or anyone to decide
which is most appropriate. It's up to the poster to decide where
they post or crosspost, likewise responders.
> There's nowhere near the number of posts about Roswell in this group.
So? There's no ban on popular shows. The premiere was last night,
it was much anticipated, it drew 12.5 million viewers, Star Trek has
a large online fandom, and so around now you're going to see more
people who subscribe to and frequent this group posting here about
Enterprise. This is as it should be, and in my case I've given you the
perfect way to killfile it. Failing that, it's easy to eyeball and ignore it.
> Enterprise group? Whatever happened to waiting until second season
> renewal?
There's no such rule, and in the case of Enterprise it didn't even draw any
pointless rmgroups from alt.config.
> ... instead I've read the usenet guidelines written before Steve Case made
> his first million.
There's no such thing as "the" Usenet guidelines, and "a" set of Usenet
guidelines has the same authority as any other, which is to say no
authority at all. In some cases they may be downright unsupportable,
e.g.:
> Here's a clue for ya dude -- USE THE FOLLOWUP FIELD TO DIRECT
> CROSSPOSTS TO THE APPROPRIATE GROUP NOT GROUPS.
Feel free to do that for your crossposting. As I noted in my response to
Ian, when I invite comment or discussion from the groups I crosspost to,
I see it as inappropriate and rude to suggest people in those groups go
elsewhere to follow discussion flowing from their response. Why you
might think otherwise is not my concern. Why the writer of delusional
edicts, capitalized or not, might think otherwise is likewise not my
concern.
> [Dan Tropea] was an infamous Usenetian who insisted on inappropriately
> crossposting to groups...
Well, that may be for all I know, the operative word being "inappropriately".
If he was crossposting to groups where it was off-topic, I would agree that's
inappropriate. If he was crossposting to groups he had no interest in, I
would agree that's inappropriate. On the other hand he may simply have
run across an individual who hadn't a clue what she was talking about,
and was prone to aggressively display her cluelessness while labelling
other people morons. Such is Usenet.
> Yea I thought you were a moron but now I realize you're just fucking
> clueless about manners <g>.
You did fire first. Calling people morons is hardly polite, neither is the
above and so I assume that <g> is simply acknowledging your obvious
(i.e., ridiculously obvious) hypocrisy.
> OOOH one thing you've said that's right. But even morons should
> attempt to follow Usenet manners.
What, no grin or smiley? Ignorance of hypocrisy is bliss I guess.
> ... I don't wish to killfile Enterprise, I merely wish to nip unwise
> crossposts in the bud
Setting aside the incredible arrogance in that, and the continuing
misconception about crossposting, it's not what you said originally.
You didn't want Enterprise posts here. It says so right in this
thread title you started.
If you don't like crossposts or Enterprise posts or any other
appropriate posts, just ignore them. Reserve netcop attempts
for inappropriate posting, especially when you try to netcop
as aggressively as you did here with the moron label. You
thought you were right, and may still refuse to see let alone
acknowledge you were wrong, but I've explained why you
were and stomping up and down insisting otherwise won't
change it.
Final point Annie. I am not trying, and I wouldn't support
anyone else trying, to crosspost in a way that results in
group cultures clashing. But especially with the + high-
lighting it, I think it's easy for people to participate in a
civil way that respects the different cultures that might
exist. The Enterprise alt.tv.* group has a culture very
tolerant of off-topic chat, but the people there generally
avoid that in crossposted threads, and may even remove
the crossposts and just respond to that group. Their
choice, and I see no evidence that it can't work just fine
here.
KalElFan
news:Xns9129C1465E5A...@24.25.193.27...
That's correct, but there is no subgroup involved here. The
groups crossposted to are in different hierarchies, in the case
of alt.* it's even a different top-level hierarchy.
Daniel Damouth
news:6rSs7.12077$%r.32...@news20.bellglobal.com:
> "Daniel Damouth" <dam...@san.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns9129C1465E5A...@24.25.193.27...
[...]
>> Well, when a subgroup splits off from a main group, it's often
>> because traffic has gotten very high in the main group (I don't know
>> if that was the case here). Then it is logical to say that posts
>> which relate only to the topic of the subgroup should be in the
>> subgroup, and not the main group. Otherwise it defeats the entire
>> purpose.
>
> That's correct, but there is no subgroup involved here. The
> groups crossposted to are in different hierarchies, in the case
> of alt.* it's even a different top-level hierarchy.
The issue that I was reponding to was whether sf tv posts are appropriate
here instead of rec.arts.sf.tv. r.a.s.t. is categorically a subgroup of
r.a.t., although it is not, hierarchically. This is a manifestation of
ontological dissonance and a demonstration of Gödel's Incompleteness
Theorem.
Dan Damouth
Tony Calguire
>
>
> There is no single appropriate group. There are many appropriate
> groups. This is one of them. It's not for you or anyone to decide
> which is most appropriate. It's up to the poster to decide where
> they post or crosspost, likewise responders.
>
rec.arts.startrek.current is the single appropriate group for Star Trek
posts.
Ubiquitous
wrote...
Well, it IS a TV show...
--
"I enjoy Spam. It's a meat that comes in a can. I have not tried
the Internet kind, but I'm sure it's just as tasty as the original"