New Wargaming Newsgroup!
Danny Holte
Hi,
You wanted it - You got it!
alt.games.wargames
Check it out!
-Danny
ThMaverick
In article <4ve0j7$7...@argentina.earthlink.net>, dan...@earthlink.net
(Danny Holte) writes:
>You wanted it - You got it!
Did I? I sure didn't need another newsgroup to read...
>alt.games.wargames
Does that mean I can't post wargames messages here anymore? Do I have to
cross-post everything? Isn't it a scientific fact that all topics of
interest can be covered in a total of 453 newsgroups and all additional
newsgroups are superfluous? ;-)
the Mav
Chris Fawcett
Yeah, this seems like a completely pointless gop of redundancy. >-)
Markus Stumptner
In article <4ve0j7$7...@argentina.earthlink.net>, dan...@earthlink.net (Danny Holte) writes:
>You wanted it - You got it!
>
Who's "you"? :-)
I sure hope this does not mean people will now start posting their
wargames articles in an alt newsgroup with minimal distribution instead
of here where they should be.
--
Markus Stumptner m...@dbai.tuwien.ac.at
Technische Universitaet Wien m...@vexpert.dbai.tuwien.ac.at
Paniglg. 16, A-1040 Vienna, Austria vexpert!m...@relay.eu.net
You may just have missed your last chance for incremental garbage collection.
Danny Holte
>> the Mav
>Yeah, this seems like a completely pointless gop of redundancy. >-)
Then don't subscribe. What's your point?
jimmy
Danny Holte wrote:
>
> >> the Mav
>
> >Yeah, this seems like a completely pointless gop of redundancy. >-)
>
It's out there but it sets up differently than here.
I found it through <http://www.iTools.com/find-it/>
which is the "find it" page.Then I went looking.
Is it true you gotta get in through the back door
to some of this funky stuff 'cause yer server won't
let ya go there direct?
If so, then a good idea to bookmark many search engine
listings-there was one in the northwest U.S. I used to
use that got me onto webcrawler FAST when webcrawler
everywhere else was slow.
Jan Wybesse Stiles Spoor
<<<warning: rant follows>>>
In article <4vje81$1...@uruguay.earthlink.net>, dan...@earthlink.net
(Danny Holte) wrote:
> >> the Mav
>
> >Yeah, this seems like a completely pointless gop of redundancy. >-)
>
>
> Then don't subscribe. What's your point?
The point is, someone advertised a new newsgroup, under the claim "You
wanted it - You got it!" and advised people to read it.
This entitles people to ask the important question "WHY!" (i'd put that in
bigger type and boldface, but newsreaders won't do that.)
Is there some _problem_ with r.g.b? Is there some special constituency
that is being left out? Does alt. somehow provide some service that rec.
does not? Has the (invisible and nonexistent, but let's not count him out,
because goodness knows even paranoids have enemies) moderator of r.g.b
suppress legitimate speech? Or is this just another example of the
pointless and really annoying human tendency to to make things much more
complicated and confusing than they need to be (otherwise known as the
Principle of Douglas Adams's Razor)? Gee, with this tendency to fragment
things without reason and divide a perfectly happy and unified group into
a confused mess, I'd think I was dealing with the Spanish government,
circa 1935.
Chris Camfield
In article <4vje81$1...@uruguay.earthlink.net>,
Danny Holte <dan...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>>> the Mav
>
>>Yeah, this seems like a completely pointless gop of redundancy. >-)
>
>
>Then don't subscribe. What's your point?
The point is that you've created a newsgroup
- whose content overlaps that of rec.games.board
- whose propagation is worse than rec.games.board
I cannot see any real advantage to reading the new newsgroup. Sure,
you're not going to have Scrabble and Monopoly posts. Big deal:
there aren't that many of them, and you could use a killfile.
So all I can really see the newsgroup doing is siphoning off
potential contributors to rec.games.board...
Chris
--
Christopher Camfield - ccam...@uwaterloo.ca - BMath Joint CS/C&O
"And the Crow and the Jackal and the Jackfish
Are suited up to go another round / I'll be up to my ticker in dead-beats
When the cold steel hammer swings down" (BRJ)
Van_...@mk.com
> Chris Fawcett <Chris_...@em.fcnbd.com> writes:
> Yeah, [alt.games.wargames] seems like a completely pointless gop of
> redundancy. >-)
Not necessarily. Perhaps this is where rules governing brothel hexes can
be posted.
1 2
| The Midnight Skulker
9 * 3 a.k.a. Van_...@mk.com
6
Danny Holte
>Is there some _problem_ with r.g.b? Is there some special constituency
>that is being left out? Does alt. somehow provide some service that rec.
>does not? Has the (invisible and nonexistent, but let's not count him out,
>because goodness knows even paranoids have enemies) moderator of r.g.b
>suppress legitimate speech? Or is this just another example of the
>pointless and really annoying human tendency to to make things much more
>complicated and confusing than they need to be (otherwise known as the
>Principle of Douglas Adams's Razor)? Gee, with this tendency to fragment
>things without reason and divide a perfectly happy and unified group into
>a confused mess, I'd think I was dealing with the Spanish government,
>circa 1935.
You're right - We're caught!
We are the 1935 Spanish government, and the creation of alt.games.wargames
is just the first step in our bid for world power.
Since every question you ask is rampant with completely baseless
abuse and garbage, it deserves the following answer:
Markus Stumptner
In article <4vje81$1...@uruguay.earthlink.net>, dan...@earthlink.net (Danny Holte) writes:
>
>>> the Mav
>
>>Yeah, this seems like a completely pointless gop of redundancy. >-)
>
>
>Then don't subscribe. What's your point?
The point is, I guess, that it's nonsense to needlessly split wargaming
traffic between this group and an alt group that will reach only part of
the sites on the net.
I still have not seen any justification of what this group is supposed to
bring that was not there before, except make it impossible for those who
don't get every alt group to read the traffic that the new group would draw
off r.g.b. (And of course if it doesn't draw off any traffic, it makes no
sense.)
RICHARD IRVING
Danny Holte (dan...@earthlink.net) wrote:
: Hi,
: You wanted it - You got it!
: alt.games.wargames
: Check it out!
Anyone care to start a pool on the date of the first Scot Peterson post
telling all the wargamers to get out because we have our own group? ;-)
BTW, I'd love to visit but my news server has no alt.* groups :-(
--
Richard Irving rr...@pge.com
I don't like disclaimers, but I have to put them in. The opinions here
are my own and not necessarily PG&E's.
(As if it had any opinions about this stuff!)
Made with recycled electrons.
Chris Camfield
Having received an email message from Greg Nichols, I withdraw my
opposition to the new newsgroup somewhat. If this is what it takes to
get diehard wargamers (like those in CONSIM-L) who can't deal with
mixed-game discussion onto Usenet, that's not so bad.
I hope that if the newsgroup is a success, maybe rec.games.board.war or
rec.games.board.historical (or something like that) can be created.
It is kind of difficult to separate games, though. (e.g. Civilization
is a historical game but not really a war game, and Ogre is a non-
historical wargame.)
Danny Holte
ccam...@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca (Chris Camfield) wrote:
>The point is that you've created a newsgroup
> Chris
>--
> Christopher Camfield - ccam...@uwaterloo.ca - BMath Joint CS/C&O
> "And the Crow and the Jackal and the Jackfish
> Are suited up to go another round / I'll be up to my ticker in dead-beats
> When the cold steel hammer swings down" (BRJ)
Then you have no point. Who said I created it?
-Danny
Markus Stumptner
In article <DwM8t...@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca>, ccam...@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca (Chris Camfield) writes:
>In article <4vje81$1...@uruguay.earthlink.net>,
>Danny Holte <dan...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Yeah, this seems like a completely pointless gop of redundancy. >-)
>>
>>
>>Then don't subscribe. What's your point?
>
>
>- whose propagation is worse than rec.games.board
>
>I cannot see any real advantage to reading the new newsgroup. Sure,
>you're not going to have Scrabble and Monopoly posts. Big deal:
>there aren't that many of them, and you could use a killfile.
>
>So all I can really see the newsgroup doing is siphoning off
>potential contributors to rec.games.board...
Indeed.
Actually, as I've heard from Danny, there is a hidden agenda behind
this group creation, which I did not previously suspect, and no, I don't
agree that it justifies the group. However, since I'm not going to post
his personal email, he'll either have to announce the truth himself or
simply take the justified flames...
Bruno Wolff III
From article <DwrJA...@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca>, by ccam...@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca (Chris Camfield):
] Having received an email message from Greg Nichols, I withdraw my
] opposition to the new newsgroup somewhat. If this is what it takes to
] get diehard wargamers (like those in CONSIM-L) who can't deal with
] mixed-game discussion onto Usenet, that's not so bad.
]
] I hope that if the newsgroup is a success, maybe rec.games.board.war or
] rec.games.board.historical (or something like that) can be created.
] It is kind of difficult to separate games, though. (e.g. Civilization
] is a historical game but not really a war game, and Ogre is a non-
] historical wargame.)
If they want to include rec.games.board in order to get a full distribution
while not having to deal with lighter games, they can read just
alt.games.wargames but crosspost their stuff to rec.games.board.
Stephen Graham
In article <DwrJA...@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca>,
Chris Camfield <ccam...@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca> wrote:
>Having received an email message from Greg Nichols, I withdraw my
>opposition to the new newsgroup somewhat. If this is what it takes to
>get diehard wargamers (like those in CONSIM-L) who can't deal with
>mixed-game discussion onto Usenet, that's not so bad.
An alt group is still the wrong way to go about this.
alt.games.wargames has been in existence for a few days and it's already
been spammed. That's a fact of life for alt groups. I've seen no traffic
that's actually on-topic.
If a wargame specific group is wanted, going through the process to
create rec.games.board.war would be best.
--
Stephen Graham
gra...@ee.washington.edu
gra...@cs.washington.edu uw-beaver!june!graham
Markus Stumptner
In article <DwrJA...@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca>,
Chris Camfield <ccam...@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca> wrote:
>Having received an email message from Greg Nichols, I withdraw my
>opposition to the new newsgroup somewhat. If this is what it takes to
>get diehard wargamers (like those in CONSIM-L) who can't deal with
>mixed-game discussion onto Usenet, that's not so bad.
Actually, that's not what it takes - I have seen many consim-l members
here over time who apparently have no problems with this group (and the
people behind this creation are apparently for the most part not consim-l
members). Having looked at the traffic for a bit (the actual traffic,
not the spams), the noise level is actually higher than on consim-l.
Also, getting a group of people on Usenet whose members explain their
reasons for a newgroup creation only by sporadic emails to individuals
(and otherwise make fun of those who want to know what the whole thing
is supposed to be about) is not necessarily an improvement. In fact this
is about the worst way to create a group.
quixote2
i cant get alt.games.wargames from my site... why?
G. Nichols
In article <5028gf$8...@news.tuwien.ac.at> m...@dbai.tuwien.ac.at (Markus Stumptner) writes:
>From: m...@dbai.tuwien.ac.at (Markus Stumptner)
>Subject: Re: New Wargaming Newsgroup!
>Date: 28 Aug 1996 20:00:15 GMT
>In article <DwrJA...@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca>,
>Chris Camfield <ccam...@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca> wrote:
>>Having received an email message from Greg Nichols, I withdraw my
>>opposition to the new newsgroup somewhat. If this is what it takes to
>>get diehard wargamers (like those in CONSIM-L) who can't deal with
>>mixed-game discussion onto Usenet, that's not so bad.
>Actually, that's not what it takes - I have seen many consim-l members
>here over time who apparently have no problems with this group (and the
>people behind this creation are apparently for the most part not consim-l
>members). Having looked at the traffic for a bit (the actual traffic,
>not the spams), the noise level is actually higher than on consim-l.
[snip]
One problem currently is getting on the new newsgroup. My connection through
the University has not picked up the new group. This has been a problem for
others as well.
I've said in the past that I think consim-l should have moved over to a
newsgroup as the daily message rate is often too high for e-mail. I know of
two long-time posters to consim-l that have recently moved over to the digest
format and I'm about to as well. And we know, changing to the digest format
is typically one step away from resigning.
Of course this may all be a waste of bandwidth if John Krantz' Virtual
Wargamer Discussion Board takes off (http://www.manzana.com/webx). It's a
slick interface and he's pulling in a few company reps (Gene Billingsley of
GMT for one). This entire issue will shake itself out as these things do
and my guess is that consim-l will become far less important in the months
ahead. And as Martha would say - that's a good thing.
-Greg
_______________________________ ______ ____ ____ ______
Greg Nichols / / /
University of Michigan ___ ___/ ___ ___
Harlan Hatcher Graduate Library / \ /
room 100 ______/ \ _____ ______/
Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1205
E-mail: gnic...@umich.edu
Staff HP: http://www-personal.umich.edu/~gnichols/staff/index.html
GLG HP: http://www-personal.umich.edu/~gnichols/glg/index.html
"Life is what happens to you when you're busy making other plans..."
-- John Lennon
Psalm 100
Chris Camfield
In article <5020vr$3...@nntp4.u.washington.edu>,
Stephen Graham <gra...@maxwell.ee.washington.edu> wrote:
[chop]
>If a wargame specific group is wanted, going through the process to
>create rec.games.board.war would be best.
Oh, I definitely agree.
Chris
--
Christopher Camfield - ccam...@uwaterloo.ca - BMath Joint CS/C&O
"And the Crow and the Jackal and the Jackfish
Are suited up to go another round / I'll be up to my ticker in dead-beats
When the cold steel hammer swings down" (Big Rude Jake)
Markus Stumptner
In article <gnichols.1...@umich.edu>, gnic...@umich.edu (G. Nichols) writes:
>I've said in the past that I think consim-l should have moved over to a
>newsgroup as the daily message rate is often too high for e-mail.
I have no problem with it - even Mac and Windows mailreaders now offer
options to shift messages to different mailfiles. My consim-l messages
are cleanly separated from my work mail. The problem with newsgroups is
and always has been that the signal-to-noise ratio is much worse on
newsgroups. Reading a newsgroup and reading mail is not much different
to me - I get a list of subjects and see the articles I click on. There
is no problem in handling 100 mails just as there is no problem in
handling 100 messages in a newsgroup.
>I know of
>two long-time posters to consim-l that have recently moved over to the digest
>format and I'm about to as well. And we know, changing to the digest format
>is typically one step away from resigning.
>Of course this may all be a waste of bandwidth if John Krantz' Virtual
>Wargamer Discussion Board takes off (http://www.manzana.com/webx). It's a
>slick interface and he's pulling in a few company reps (Gene Billingsley of
>GMT for one).
I fear that as well. The VWDB is significantly inferior for me at least
to either the newsgroup or mailing list, as unlike the others it
requires me to wait during downloading. And while the limited
traffic has not made this a problem so far, the "discussion" nature
of the board means that within a discussion messages are not grouped
by subject, i.e., you have to read through all articles and the set
of subjects is limited, fixed, and the topics are therefore necessarily
quite general (i.e., WWII). This is a step five years backwards, possibly
conducive to happy bantering, but not really to on-topic discussions.
That the Web makes it possible to combine this with graphics is
no advantage, it just slows down.
>This entire issue will shake itself out as these things do
>and my guess is that consim-l will become far less important in the months
>ahead. And as Martha would say - that's a good thing.
I've always wondered why people want to have to collect the same
information from, say, five sources, when they could just as well
get it from two or three.
Markus Stumptner
In article <506lnn$3...@news.tuwien.ac.at>, m...@dbai.tuwien.ac.at (Markus Stumptner) writes:
>In article <gnichols.1...@umich.edu>, gnic...@umich.edu (G. Nichols) writes:
>>Of course this may all be a waste of bandwidth if John Krantz' Virtual
>>Wargamer Discussion Board takes off (http://www.manzana.com/webx). It's a
>>slick interface and he's pulling in a few company reps (Gene Billingsley of
>>GMT for one).
>
>I fear that as well. The VWDB is significantly inferior for me at least
>to either the newsgroup or mailing list, as unlike the others it
>requires me to wait during downloading. And while the limited
>traffic has not made this a problem so far, the "discussion" nature
>of the board means that within a discussion messages are not grouped
>by subject, i.e., you have to read through all articles and the set
>of subjects is limited, fixed, and the topics are therefore necessarily
>quite general (i.e., WWII). This is a step five years backwards, possibly
>conducive to happy bantering, but not really to on-topic discussions.
>That the Web makes it possible to combine this with graphics is
>no advantage, it just slows down.
I should add though that the discussion format may have one advantage -
it may be less susceptible to flame wars. Of course, that could be
a result of the relatively limited readership at the moment.
Dave Kohr
In article <gnichols.1...@umich.edu>,
G. Nichols <gnic...@umich.edu> wrote:
>I've said in the past that I think consim-l should have moved over to a
>newsgroup as the daily message rate is often too high for e-mail.
Yes, definitely.
>Of course this may all be a waste of bandwidth if John Krantz' Virtual
>Wargamer Discussion Board takes off (http://www.manzana.com/webx). It's a
>slick interface
Actually, when I visited this site it became apparent to me that the whole
effort is amazingly silly (IMHO). Following ongoing threads of discussion
using existing USENET facilities is much faster and easier than dealing
with their Web-based interface, because the tools (newsreaders) are
customized for this. All they're doing is duplicating the functionality of
USENET or a mailing list in a less convenient form. Makes me wish they
would just create rec.games.board.consim instead....
Dave Kohr Hacker/Researcher Argonne National Laboratory, MCS Division
Building 203, Room C-246 Phone: (630) 252-4243 E-mail: ko...@mcs.anl.gov
See also my WWW Home Page: http://www.mcs.anl.gov/home/kohr/index.html
"Surfing the Silicon Prairie."
Danny Holte
m...@dbai.tuwien.ac.at (Markus Stumptner) wrote:
>In article <DwrJA...@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca>,
>Chris Camfield <ccam...@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca> wrote:
>>Having received an email message from Greg Nichols, I withdraw my
>>opposition to the new newsgroup somewhat. If this is what it takes to
>>get diehard wargamers (like those in CONSIM-L) who can't deal with
>>mixed-game discussion onto Usenet, that's not so bad.
>Actually, that's not what it takes - I have seen many consim-l members
>here over time who apparently have no problems with this group (and the
>people behind this creation are apparently for the most part not consim-l
>members). Having looked at the traffic for a bit (the actual traffic,
>not the spams), the noise level is actually higher than on consim-l.
>Also, getting a group of people on Usenet whose members explain their
>reasons for a newgroup creation only by sporadic emails to individuals
>(and otherwise make fun of those who want to know what the whole thing
>is supposed to be about) is not necessarily an improvement. In fact this
>is about the worst way to create a group.
Markus,
That is not a fair or accurate statement. There's been no "making fun" of
anyone. But I'll be damned if I'm going to respond to rude, abusive posts like
the ones that were posted (and worse were emailed) just over the creation
of a stupid newsgroup. Get a life, people. It's amazing how "tough" some
people can get when they're not within arms reach.
The wargaming group on an online service decided to move to a different
forum, and wading into the morass of rec.games.board did not seem the
way to go, and also we did not want to create any negative sentiment
about said online service; it was a great venue for several years (since
the old Prodigy days). There were just greener pastures. We decided
to create a newsletter (computer-wargaming@) and a newsgroup, and
see which worked better.
'No big conspiracy, and there's been no "making fun" or attempt to hide
anything. If anyone had asked politely (which only happened from two
people by email - you and Eric Pass), I would have posted the above
answer. As it was, I was not compelled to answer, 'cause I don't have
the time or inclination to deal with whiners.
-Danny
Danny Holte
>An alt group is still the wrong way to go about this.
>alt.games.wargames has been in existence for a few days and it's already
>been spammed. That's a fact of life for alt groups. I've seen no traffic
>that's actually on-topic.
Then you don't get up to date posts (5 days+ behind?) or this is an
innaccurate statement.
>If a wargame specific group is wanted, going through the process to
>create rec.games.board.war would be best.
>--
Too much grief to get it through the 'half-empty' types, and this was a whole
group moving over to the internet from an online service.
-Danny
Stephen Graham
In article <509g9c$5...@peru.earthlink.net>,
Danny Holte <dan...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>An alt group is still the wrong way to go about this.
>
>>alt.games.wargames has been in existence for a few days and it's already
>>been spammed. That's a fact of life for alt groups. I've seen no traffic
>>that's actually on-topic.
>
>Then you don't get up to date posts (5 days+ behind?) or this is an
>innaccurate statement.
The group has certainly been spammed (by the "Don't Vote Republican"
thread). When I posted my note, there hadn't been any on-topic traffic.
I've checked several times since then and there's been some on-topic
traffic but not much. By the way, I cross-checked on two different
service providers, each of whom had a different selection of articles,
except those cross-posted to rec.games.board.
>>If a wargame specific group is wanted, going through the process to
>>create rec.games.board.war would be best.
>
>Too much grief to get it through the 'half-empty' types, and this was a whole
>group moving over to the internet from an online service.
Danny, you haven't ever tried to create a Usenet group to my knowledge.
You have very little information to base your judgement on. If you are
in fact moving a number of people from a different service, it should be
very easy to create rec.games.board.wargames. I would be willing to work
with you on the proposal.
In the meantime, the hobby would be better served by using
rec.games.board.
Steven Al Hartzell
gra...@maxwell.ee.washington.edu (Stephen Graham) wrote:
Stephen,
Please inform me of the specifics, as I am the one who
orchestrated the move from DELPHI and would definitely
be interested in setting up a specific computer wargaming
group on the rec.games.board.
I can be reached at hart...@enteract.com
Steven...
Former HOST of DELPHI Computer Wargaming & Military Strategy Forum
Current Keeper of the Computer Wargaming List
Gary J. Robinson
In article <50crtc$1...@206.54.252.2>, hart...@enteract.com (Steven Al
Hartzell) wrote:
> Stephen,
>
> Please inform me of the specifics, as I am the one who
> orchestrated the move from DELPHI and would definitely
> be interested in setting up a
> specific computer wargaming group on the rec.games.board.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^
Say what?
This is a big problem with alt.games.wargames already, it carries both
computer wargaming and board wargaming traffic on one group. Groups
already exist for discussion of strategic (wargame) computer games. If a
new group _is_ formed, it should be board wargaming only, as separate
groups already exist for computer wargaming and historical miniatures
wargaming.
I can't speak for anyone else, but I would vote against a group which
lumped board wargaming and computer wargaming together in one group. I
would much rather read rec.games.board, and occasionally
comp.sys.mac.games.strategic, than rec.games.board,
comp.sys.mac.games.strategic, AND rec.games.wargames.
--
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Gary J. Robinson Ga...@Games.lover.org |
| Gary's Wargaming Web Page: http://www.concentric.net/~wiggler/ | +-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|>>>Lawyer*Librarian*Programmer*Libertarian*Macintosh*Wargamer*Lizards<<<<|
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Markus Stumptner
In article <50crtc$1...@206.54.252.2>, hart...@enteract.com (Steven Al Hartzell) writes:
>gra...@maxwell.ee.washington.edu (Stephen Graham) wrote:
>
>>In the meantime, the hobby would be better served by using
>>rec.games.board.
>
> orchestrated the move from DELPHI and would definitely
> be interested in setting up a specific computer wargaming
> group on the rec.games.board.
I think there is some fundamental confusion here. rec.games.board
is not so named because it is a bboard (therefore you can't set up
any groups "on it" either). Instead it is a newsgroup and it is named
"rec.games.board" because it is a newsgroup that deals with BOARDGAMES.
This group is not the place to discuss computer games (war and other).
You can of course create subgroups, but being in the rec.games.board
hierarchy, these would then still be aimed at BOARD games and not at
COMPUTER games. Newsgroups for the discussion of computer wargames
already exist, and don't need to be created or sidetracked.
I recommend you take a look at news.announce.newusers for finding
out about the notion of newsgroup hierarchies. (Note, this is not a flame,
but I seem to sense some pretty deep misunderstandings here.) I do not
know how topics at Delphi were organized, but the hierarchy here is well
established and it is adhered to is because it is generally considered
useful.
Markus Stumptner
In article <509gmh$q...@bolivia.earthlink.net>, dan...@earthlink.net (Danny Holte) writes:
>m...@dbai.tuwien.ac.at (Markus Stumptner) wrote:
>>In article <DwrJA...@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca>,
>>reasons for a newgroup creation only by sporadic emails to individuals
>>(and otherwise make fun of those who want to know what the whole thing
>>is supposed to be about) is not necessarily an improvement. In fact this
>>is about the worst way to create a group.
>
>
>Markus,
>
>That is not a fair or accurate statement. There's been no "making fun" of
>anyone.
If you say so, so be it.
>But I'll be damned if I'm going to respond to rude, abusive posts like
>the ones that were posted (and worse were emailed) just over the creation
>of a stupid newsgroup. Get a life, people. It's amazing how "tough" some
>people can get when they're not within arms reach.
Danny, I consider it rude when someone tells me to go to a new
newsgroup "I always wanted" when I exactly know I did not. As far
as I am concerned, the rudeness started with the creation of that
group. (I completely accept you were not intentionally rude.) I
don't really see how hotheaded reactions benefit anyone, but I see where
they come from.
>The wargaming group on an online service decided to move to a different
>forum, and wading into the morass of rec.games.board did not seem the
>way to go,
Why "morass", actually? It's no worse that virtually any other
nonprofessional newsgroup I can think of.
>and also we did not want to create any negative sentiment
>about said online service; it was a great venue for several years (since
>the old Prodigy days). There were just greener pastures. We decided
>to create a newsletter (computer-wargaming@) and a newsgroup, and
>see which worked better.
I have no problem with that service, or your group (of people). I merely
think your remedies are inappropriate and your moves were ill-announced.
Trying to provide a semi-private forum on Usenet by creating an alt group is
a forlorn hope at best. Doing it though by creating a group that directly
involves the topics of an existing morass, the denizens of the morass will
understandably ask you why you want to draw their green slime off and fill
it in your unheated alt pool next door when the current morass already has
nice pockets of green and brown slime next to each other. Especially when
you tell them about it only when the pumps are supposed to start bubbling.
Gregory "Sturmer" Smith
I think the well-wishing outsiders are confused. :) This group,
alt.games.wargames, was in fact specifically designed to discuss both
board and wargames, and was started by JDunn for that purpose.
If someone doesn't want to read about computer games AND board games I
suggest they go away. :)
I, for one, enjoy both, and I'd much prefer to hang out here than read
the trash on comp.sys.spam.
Just my .02 :)
-Sturmer
Gary J. Robinson
In article <aggZxGAJ...@rodent.demon.co.uk>, Julian Barker
<jul...@rodent.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> I can't agree. I play both board and computer games and due to PBEM I
> don't see a real distinction.
Well, I sure do. I play boardgames face-to-face. Computer wargames are
something I do when I can't get a real game going.
> >I can't speak for anyone else, but I would vote against a group which
> >lumped board wargaming and computer wargaming together in one group. I
> >would much rather read rec.games.board, and occasionally
> >comp.sys.mac.games.strategic, than rec.games.board,
> >comp.sys.mac.games.strategic, AND rec.games.wargames.
> >
>
> What if the charter for rec.games.wargames included all wargames? You
> wouldn't need to read any other groups to read wargame related articles
> regardless of the sort of wargames you are interested in. Dividing up
> the hobby simply results in loads of crossposting etc.
I find that board wargames and other boardgames have a lot more in common
than board wargames and computer wargames do. Obviously tastes differ,
but in my case I am much more likely to be interested in a non-war
boardgame than in a military computer game. And I have zero interest in
miniatures. I just like boardgames, especially war-related ones. I
suspect many people on rec.games.board feel the same way, but only a vote
will tell.
Gary Robinson
RobertG444 (rober...@aol.com) wrote:
: After reading all these posts I'd like to throw in my two cents worth.
: first of all I happen to know the individual that did set up this forum
: and it was very much his intention to allow discussion of ALL sorts of
: wargaming, both board and computer. He comes from, as do I, a forum on the
: Delphi on-line service, that was dedicated to free thought and expression
: of ideas. We managed to stay away from all these silly little turf wars
: I've been reading about here.
You are confused. It is one thing to say everyone should be in the phone
book; it is another to say the book should not be alphabetized. No one is
attempting to restrict the free expression of ideas. The only thing being
discussed is in what manner those ideas should be expressed. The concept
is similar to deciding whether, in a library full of free expression, a
history of France in WWII should be filed under France, History, or WWII.
There is nothing "silly" about organization. It makes it easier to find
things.
: This whole thing reminds me of a bad grade
: "B" LA gang movie, where all the little groups are trying to enforce their
: petty little territorial claims and enforcing their exclusion zones.
Since no one owns or controls newsgroups, I don't understand what you are
referring to. If anyone is under some delusion of "petty little
territorial claims" it is you, for you seem to be claiming that the
creator of this group has a right to determine what is discussed on it,
which is quite undemocratic.
: I'm still tring to figure out who this great "wise council" is that
: votes on everything and bestows the sacred topics on the rabble beneath
: their feet.
Everyone is entitled to a vote on the creation of newsgroups. If you are
rabble, it is only in your own mind and by your own choice.
: I can see that this whole group is probably going to go
: nowhere, but I must confess watching all the little Mussilinis running
: around here is quite entertaining.
I wonder how you can possibly associate Mussolini, the dictator, with the
free, democratic, and open voting process that is behind the creation of
non-alt newsgroups. Your ignorance comes shining through.
Instead of insulting people, why don't you read up on the creation
process? On the purpose of the UseNet hierarchy? The idea is that
someone who wants to read about a certain topic only has to check one
newsgroup for posts on that topic, not two or three. If you seek to make
alt.games.wargames the appropriate forum for discussion of all wargames,
then you are in effect changing the definition of other groups such as
rec.games.board and comp.sys.mac.games.strategic, and naturally the
readers of those groups are going to have something to say about it. That
hardly makes them Mussolinis. It makes them concerned net citizens,
active and informed and willing to participate in the ongoing democratic
process that is UseNet. By mocking this process you dishonor yourself,
not the people you are aiming at.
If you want a private, cozy little group, use a mailing list, not a UseNet
newsgroup.
Gary
JD
In a recent article, Gregory \Sturmer\ Smith wrote:>
> I think the well-wishing outsiders are confused. :) This group,
> alt.games.wargames, was in fact specifically designed to discuss
> both board and wargames, and was started by JDunn for that purpose.
Well, since I'm starting to get decent feed on this group I'll throw
in my .02 as well. But first I'd like to assure everybody that this
is the last time I will cross post to .boardgames unless my post has
something to do specifically with that topic.
Alt.games.wargames is there to handle that portion of the Delphi
Custom 24 refugees <that forum being recently deceased> who do not
like dealing with list servers... and of course any and all who would
care to join us.
In the group charter, I _did_ specify computer AND board wargaming,
in oreder to express the fact that many of our members are not averse
to discussions along cardboard lines... not to compete with the REC
group. I'm sure most of the board game discussion will be crossposted
to REC anyway. But unless you were all lurking on Delphi, anything
from alt.games.wargames that's missed in rec.games.board, would have
been missed anyway <g>.
And to the gentleman who suggested that comp.sys <yattayattayatta>
strategic already handles computer wargaming discussion... well,
unless you are into games like Civilisation2, Warcraft, Settlers,
Master of Orion, and stuff like that, you haven't visited
c.s.i.p.g.strategic lately, have you? <g>
If the type and quality of discussion that was prevelant on Delphi's
Custom 24 carries over to alt.games.wargames, you'll find that group
to be vastly different from anything that currently exists <in one
place> on the usenet. It may not have the mass appeal to warrant a
REC or COMP group on it's own <no, it really doesn't Steven, but if
you'd like to try anyway, Email me for the procedures>, but we tended
to like it the way it was.
Regards, JD
Isaac Kuo
Count me in among those who feel board wargames have more
in common with "other" board games than computer wargames and
that computer wargames have more in common with "other"
computer videogames than with board wargames.
Since computer/video games are all around so much more
popular than board games in all genres, I wouldn't even
bother reading a newsgroup purporting to disuss both (I
like traditional wargames but don't play computer/video
wargames).
Leave rec.games.board be. It's already dominated by us
wargamers, so why rock the boat?
--
_____ Isaac Kuo (k...@bit.csc.lsu.edu,isaa...@tyrell.net)
__|_>o<_|__
/___________\ "Just as Jesus was a Jew, the opening
\=\>-----</=/ theme to Macross was not J-pop."
Stephen Graham
In article <VA.0000017e.0215cc0c@default>, JD <kb...@snet.net> wrote:
>Alt.games.wargames is there to handle that portion of the Delphi
>Custom 24 refugees <that forum being recently deceased> who do not
>like dealing with list servers... and of course any and all who would
>care to join us.
>
>In the group charter, I _did_ specify computer AND board wargaming,
>in oreder to express the fact that many of our members are not averse
>to discussions along cardboard lines... not to compete with the REC
>group. I'm sure most of the board game discussion will be crossposted
>to REC anyway. But unless you were all lurking on Delphi, anything
>from alt.games.wargames that's missed in rec.games.board, would have
>been missed anyway <g>.
There's a point there, but you're no longer on Delphi.
Usenet already has its well-established groups that cover exactly what
you propose to cover. Either your group is going to wither away as
people discover greener pastures or the existing groups will be hurt as
traffic is diverted from them.
Alt groups have a lot of disadvantages, some of which have already been
demonstrated. Do you like spam? You're going to get a lot of it if you
stay in alt.
>And to the gentleman who suggested that comp.sys <yattayattayatta>
>strategic already handles computer wargaming discussion... well,
>unless you are into games like Civilisation2, Warcraft, Settlers,
>Master of Orion, and stuff like that, you haven't visited
>c.s.i.p.g.strategic lately, have you? <g>
Groups are what you make of them.
>If the type and quality of discussion that was prevelant on Delphi's
>Custom 24 carries over to alt.games.wargames, you'll find that group
>to be vastly different from anything that currently exists <in one
>place> on the usenet. It may not have the mass appeal to warrant a
>REC or COMP group on it's own <no, it really doesn't Steven, but if
>you'd like to try anyway, Email me for the procedures>, but we tended
>to like it the way it was.
Rather than go off and form your own group, why not join what already
exists? It's unlikely you'll be able to recreate what existed on
Delphi.
Kevin J. Maroney
k...@bit.csc.lsu.edu (Isaac Kuo) wrote:
>Count me in among those who feel board wargames have more
>in common with "other" board games than computer wargames and
>that computer wargames have more in common with "other"
>computer videogames than with board wargames.
This sounds like the sentiment of someone who hasn't played Panzer
General or Steel Panthers. Have you?
--
Kevin J. Maroney | Crossover Technologies | ke...@crossover.com
Games are my entire waking life.
Kevin J. Maroney
gra...@maxwell.ee.washington.edu (Stephen Graham) wrote:
>>And to the gentleman who suggested that comp.sys <yattayattayatta>
>>strategic already handles computer wargaming discussion... well,
>>unless you are into games like Civilisation2, Warcraft, Settlers,
>>Master of Orion, and stuff like that, you haven't visited
>>c.s.i.p.g.strategic lately, have you? <g>
>
>Groups are what you make of them.
Not to mention the fact that there is a *lot* of discussion of Panzer
General and its kin (Steel Panthers, Fantasy General, Close Combat,
Against the Reich, Third Reich 'n Roll, etc.) on
comp.sys.pc.ibm.game.strategic.
Isaac Kuo
In article <322db1b9...@news.crossover.com>,
>>Count me in among those who feel board wargames have more
>>in common with "other" board games than computer wargames and
>>that computer wargames have more in common with "other"
>>computer videogames than with board wargames.
>This sounds like the sentiment of someone who hasn't played Panzer
>General or Steel Panthers. Have you?
This implies that anyone who hasn't played Panzer General or Steel
Panthers is an idiot unqualified to make any judgemenst about
computer wargames in general. To that implication, I politely
request that you "stuff it". Please back up your assertion with
some argument more substantive than, "I inhaled and you didn't."
Need an example of how it's done? Here's an example:
Have you ever played Risk? The rules for the board and computer
versions may be the same, but the feel and appeal for the two are
completely different! The board game, Risk, feels and plays like
a board game. The computer game, Risk, feels and plays like a
computer/video game. Computer gamers who don't like rolling dice
and cleaning up counters wouldn't like the board game Risk, and
board wargamers who like playing against 3 or 4 other _humans_
aren't likely to enjoy the computer game as much.
I personally have little interest in playing any computer wargames,
the above mentionned titles included. My favorite computer game
is Reversi, which on a computer I find a stimulating pseudo-arcade
game which can be played in under two minutes. OTOH, I don't like
playing normal Reversi/Othello since I find playing it on a board
tedious and boring.
Konig Der Krim
> From: gra...@maxwell.ee.washington.edu (Stephen Graham)
> Usenet already has its well-established groups that cover exactly
>what you propose to cover. Either your group is going to wither away
>as people discover greener pastures or the existing groups will be
>hurt as traffic is diverted from them.
Stephen,
At well over two hundred posts per day on the
ibm.strategic.tonso'stuff newsgroup which contained a _lot_ of
discussion as to what should and should not be allowed in there,
I personally fail to see what error if any has been made in
the creation of this newsgroup. Actually, I fail to comphrehend
why you are here at all if you find it to be a detriment to
the hobby. Just ignore us, perhaps we'll go away. <G>
> Alt groups have a lot of disadvantages, some of which have already
>been demonstrated. Do you like spam? You're going to get a lot of it
>if you stay in alt.
A good newsreader is capable of filtering most of such if one
is so inclined. And if one has the capability, it is only the
initial offending post/poster which would slither through the cracks.
As well, "alt" groups are unmoderated which from my perspective means
_uncensored_ which was one of the most important aspects of Delphi's
Custom 24 (Wargaming) Forum. This made for some _classic_ "flames"
over the years, as well as allowing those of us who didn't have the
time to watch the 6-O'Clock news, to keep abreast of the latest
developments in baseball. <G>
A moderated newsgroup also contributes to delays in the posting
of items in a newsgroup. With some delays approaching several days,
contributing to this problem, albeit unintentionally, does the
subscribers to the newsgroup no good service.
> Rather than go off and form your own group, why not join what already
> exists? It's unlikely you'll be able to recreate what existed on
> Delphi.
This sounds an awful lot like "Why don't you go along with 'the
program', kid'?" You're not a member of "the establishment", are ya?
Why not just go back to whichever newsgroup you personally don't
find unsettling and leave us to our own devices? Or, as Oddball
would say: "What's with the negative waves, man?"
Cliff Holmes
Gary Robinson
Konig Der Krim (cho...@xensei.com) wrote:
[garbage deleted]
So, I think we can conclude:
a) the "Delphi crew" think it is quite clever to write something rude and
then put "<G>" or ":-)" at the end;
b) they think rec.games.board is moderated;
c) they like to talk about baseball on a wargaming group, and think that
is acceptable, even good, behavior;
d) they think anyone who takes an interest in a proposed change in where
wargames are discussed is a "Mussolini" "gang member" or "elite
establishment member;"
e) they think everyone else should "just go away."
Frankly, I am inclined to take their advice and ignore alt.games.wargames
from now on. I don't think I'll be missing much.
Gary
Markus Stumptner
In article <VA.00000070.007c98a2@default>, Konig Der Krim <cho...@xensei.com> writes:
>> From: gra...@maxwell.ee.washington.edu (Stephen Graham)
>
>> Usenet already has its well-established groups that cover exactly
>>what you propose to cover. Either your group is going to wither away
>>as people discover greener pastures or the existing groups will be
>>hurt as traffic is diverted from them.
> This sounds an awful lot like "Why don't you go along with 'the
>program', kid'?" You're not a member of "the establishment", are ya?
Actually, it's more akin to "Why don't you drive on the right side
of the road?". It's great that in the little village you came from
the town council could agree on everything and you could always agree
with a fella on which side to pass him on the road. This is a larger
environment, and therefore works differently.
By now, it's become apparent to me that your newsgroup was actually
intended more as a side road, but neither the group creators nor
the group name made that clear. Unfortunately, that's not
everyone else's fault.
--
Markus Stumptner m...@dbai.tuwien.ac.at
Stephen Graham
In article <VA.00000070.007c98a2@default>,
Konig Der Krim <cho...@xensei.com> wrote:
>> From: gra...@maxwell.ee.washington.edu (Stephen Graham)
>As well, "alt" groups are unmoderated which from my perspective means
>_uncensored_ which was one of the most important aspects of Delphi's
>Custom 24 (Wargaming) Forum.
So are rec.games.board and the various comp groups. What's your point?
> This sounds an awful lot like "Why don't you go along with 'the
>program', kid'?" You're not a member of "the establishment", are ya?
> Why not just go back to whichever newsgroup you personally don't
>find unsettling and leave us to our own devices? Or, as Oddball
>would say: "What's with the negative waves, man?"
Usenet doesn't have an establishment, if you hadn't noticed.
Why the negative waves? Well, you did something that annoyed me and I'm
letting you know. I'm even being polite about it.
Jellicle
JD wrote:
> Alt.games.wargames is there to handle that portion of the Delphi
> Custom 24 refugees <that forum being recently deceased> who do not
> like dealing with list servers... and of course any and all who would
> care to join us.
Is it just me, or does anyone else see something fundamentally wrong
with a bunch of refugees from an on-line service setting up a usenet
group for their semi-private use? Hey guys, get a listserv and get a
life. Usenet is worldwide, usenet is for everyone (who owns a computer
and a modem, anyway). Trying to carve your own little niche is both
foolish and naive.
-- Jellicle
David Kohr
In article <VA.00000070.007c98a2@default> cho...@xensei.com writes:
> At well over two hundred posts per day on the
>ibm.strategic.tonso'stuff newsgroup which contained a _lot_ of
>discussion as to what should and should not be allowed in there,
>I personally fail to see what error if any has been made in
>the creation of this newsgroup.
One big mistake is that it's an "alt" group, which means, for example, that
I can't read it on my main account, but have to go to this one instead.
Many sites don't get all of the "alt" groups, which limits participation,
and partially defeats the purpose of having a "public" group. In addition,
traffic on these groups can be unreliable--I still haven't seen the
original message in the thread about PBEM games.
>> From: gra...@maxwell.ee.washington.edu (Stephen Graham)
>> Alt groups have a lot of disadvantages, some of which have already
>>been demonstrated. Do you like spam? You're going to get a lot of it
>>if you stay in alt.
>
> A good newsreader is capable of filtering most of such if one
>is so inclined.
The short answer to this is "no". Spammers often go to some length to
defeat such measures, and in any case this imposes an additional burden on
every reader of the group. The best protection against spam (short of
putting spammers up against the walll and shooting them :-) ) is automated
cancelbots that seek out and destroy spam. And guess what, because many of
the sites running cancelbots don't get all the alt groups, many alt groups
lack this protection.
>As well, "alt" groups are unmoderated which from my perspective means
>_uncensored_ which was one of the most important aspects of Delphi's
>Custom 24 (Wargaming) Forum.
So is rec.games.board. BTW in case you have no experience with USENET
moderation, it is almost always a benefit to a newsgroup because it screens
out the tremendous amount of "junk" that appears on USENET. It's very rare
that "censorship" becomes a problem.
>This made for some _classic_ "flames" over the years
The level of flaming on a given newsgroup is mostly a function of
the "culture" of the newsgroup. rec.games.board doesn't have much,
and this is generally a good thing.
>> Rather than go off and form your own group, why not join what already
>> exists? It's unlikely you'll be able to recreate what existed on
>> Delphi.
>
> This sounds an awful lot like "Why don't you go along with 'the
>program', kid'?" You're not a member of "the establishment", are ya?
USENET simply isn't Delphi. Stephen is right, you're not going to be able
to recreate what you had on Delphi with a newsgroup. For one thing, the
discussion is open to many, many more people (including the spammers).
Whether or not people from the RGB "establishment" participate in this
group, you'll soon find that its character will diverge from whatever
existed on Delphi, as old-timers leave and newbies who haven't even heard
of Delphi join.
I'm beginning to wonder if it isn't worthwhile after all to try to create a
group named "rec.games.wargames" or some such thing to cover the genre of
wargames across all the various media (boardgames, computer games, and now
CCG's).
--
the PPG
Gregory "Sturmer" Smith
gra...@maxwell.ee.washington.edu (Stephen Graham) wrote:
>There's a point there, but you're no longer on Delphi.
>Groups are what you make of them.
>ather than go off and form your own group, why not join what already
>exists? It's unlikely you'll be able to recreate what existed on
>Delphi.
>Stephen Graham
Why would we want to join the likes of folks like YOU ????
We are perfectly happy in alt.games.wargames and you come along like some
Network Napoleon, declaring that we are in violation of your personal
desires for an orderly Internet. Gosh and we better not talk about board
games AND computer games in the same newsgroup! My, that would be
anarchy!
Get a life. Talk about wargames with us, and we'll be happy to talk
about them with you. Otherwise, I'd be happy if you just went away :)
-Sturmer
PS Do you actually play anything and contribute meaningful thought to
the hobby? Or are you just wasting bandwidth?
Gregory "Sturmer" Smith
>Why the negative waves? Well, you did something that annoyed me and I'm
>letting you know. I'm even being polite about it.
>--
>Stephen Graham
As you may have observed from the blizzard of mail from CUS24 regulars, I
would like to point out to you that you've done a great job of unifying
all of us again :) Thanks for being that common external enemy.
Seriously, you are annoying me. Are we even? Maybe if this alt group
really gets going, has great discussions, attracts industry reps, and
generally becomes a neat place, will that irk you even more?
I hope so :)
Trying to be polite myself, but wishing you'd find a rock to crawl under,
-Sturm
Markus Stumptner
I still wonder why they didn't simply name it alt.delphi.forum24...
Markus Stumptner
In article <322db599...@news.crossover.com>, kmar...@crossover.com (Kevin J. Maroney) writes:
>gra...@maxwell.ee.washington.edu (Stephen Graham) wrote:
>>>And to the gentleman who suggested that comp.sys <yattayattayatta>
>>>strategic already handles computer wargaming discussion... well,
>>>unless you are into games like Civilisation2, Warcraft, Settlers,
>>>Master of Orion, and stuff like that, you haven't visited
>>>c.s.i.p.g.strategic lately, have you? <g>
>>
>
>General and its kin (Steel Panthers, Fantasy General, Close Combat,
>Against the Reich, Third Reich 'n Roll, etc.) on
>comp.sys.pc.ibm.game.strategic.
In other words, what we have here is a group of people that openly
flaunt their habit of discussing baseball (or whatever) in a wargames
newsgroup, but can't stand Civilization in the same group as their
Age of Rifles (or whatever) postings. Go figure.
Konig Der Krim
> From: Jellicle <~@~.~>
> > Alt.games.wargames is there to handle that portion of the Delphi
> > Custom 24 refugees <that forum being recently deceased> who do not
> > like dealing with list servers... and of course any and all who >
> >would care to join us.
>
> Is it just me, or does anyone else see something fundamentally wrong
> with a bunch of refugees from an on-line service setting up a usenet
> group for their semi-private use? Hey guys, get a listserv and get a
> life. Usenet is worldwide, usenet is for everyone (who owns a
>computer and a modem, anyway). Trying to carve your own little niche
>is both foolish and naive.
Jellicle,
The problem must lie within yourself. No doubt, a victim of the
reading comprehension problem you apparently suffer from.
I direct your attention at this point to the last half of the
final sentence in the first paragraph above. Note, please, that it
says: "...and of course any and all who would care to join us".
There is no attempt being made here to subvert any existing
newsgroup(s) which currently exist nor is there to be any exclusion
perpetrated upon those who would see fit to pull up a chair
and join in.
As to your statement that its inception is borne of foolishness
and naivete, I shake my head in wonder. Were one to follow
this path of illogic and misunderstanding to its end, the
sign at the end of the road would read: "Welcome to comp.bullshit,
the _only_ newsgroup on the planet".
Cliff Holmes
Jim Matt
>In other words, what we have here is a group of people that openly
>flaunt their habit of discussing baseball (or whatever) in a wargames
>newsgroup, but can't stand Civilization in the same group as their
>Age of Rifles (or whatever) postings. Go figure.
Yep, and the Computer Wargaming listserver is even more unfocused.
I quietly unsubscribed yesterday so I wouldn't get the redneck treatment like
they gave another unsubscriber who had some valid criticism.
I'm hoping this Usenet group can stay focused, so we get 25+% S/N instead of
the 10% thats been demonstrated on the mail list.
Don C. Aldrich
Well, I see we are off to a good start:). Lotsa wargame discussion
here.
I think y'all fighting about nuthin. Maybe everyone should have a
beer and a pretzel and slow down. What the original posters were
trying to say is that there are some good reasons to have a group in
the rec hierarchy rather than the alt hierarchy. When they are saying
this ain't Delphi, they ain't kiddin' [I'm an old GEnie sysop myself].
There are lots of bad things that happen in alt groups that wouldn't
happen in a rec group.
Just for the record, a new rec group is currently being formed,
covering *naval* games. Something you may want to look for once it is
up, especially Mr. Dunn.
Anyway, this finally showed up on my server, so thanks for forming it,
and we shall see how it goes.
And the guys you are fighting with, they really did start off by
trying to be helpful. Gotta remember, the net was formed by
academics, they tend to have a feeling of propriety over it, and you
weren't here when AOL was unleased on an unsuspecting net:) [and no,
I ain't AOL bashing; it was just when it happened all at once, it was
kind of a shock].
Best,
==Dondo
If I'm so stupid, why ain't I rich?
Kevin J. Maroney
d...@npac.syr.edu (David Kohr) wrote:
>So is rec.games.board. BTW in case you have no experience with USENET
>moderation, it is almost always a benefit to a newsgroup because it screens
>out the tremendous amount of "junk" that appears on USENET. It's very rare
>that "censorship" becomes a problem.
What is Usenet moderation? I mean, I know what Usenet is (a process
for creation of newsgroups in the big eight heirarchies), and I know
what moderation is (a process by which articles are only posted to a
specific newsgroup if the group's moderator approves them). However,
the first term is long in the past for r.g.b, and the second term is
not relevant to r.g.b, since it's unmoderated.
Usenet gets slightly less spam than alt. groups because a lot of
stupid spammers think that alt. groups are all sex groups and thus are
more trafficked than Usenet groups. Also, the spam cancelbots do a
better job of policing Usenet than alt.obscure.newsgroups.
Kevin J. Maroney
Gregory \"Sturmer\" Smith <stu...@delphi.com> wrote:
>Seriously, you are annoying me. Are we even? Maybe if this alt group
>really gets going, has great discussions, attracts industry reps, and
>generally becomes a neat place, will that irk you even more?
Welcome to Usenet. Now go away.
*plonk*
Kevin J. Maroney
k...@bit.csc.lsu.edu (Isaac Kuo) wrote:
>>>Count me in among those who feel board wargames have more
>>>in common with "other" board games than computer wargames and
>>>that computer wargames have more in common with "other"
>>>computer videogames than with board wargames.
>
>>This sounds like the sentiment of someone who hasn't played Panzer
>>General or Steel Panthers. Have you?
>
>This implies that anyone who hasn't played Panzer General or Steel
>Panthers is an idiot unqualified to make any judgemenst about
>computer wargames in general. To that implication, I politely
>request that you "stuff it".
I will wish you as you wish me.
I would also ask that you read my post, not jump to conclusions about
my assumptions. I have played PzG (tho' not Steel Panthers) and find
it hard to believe that anyone who has actually done so would say that
it feels more like a "videogame" than like a board wargame.
If you have played PzG and still have this feeling, fine, that's an
answer to my question. Going on at length about how a solitaire game
of Othello or Risk doesn't feel like a boardgame of Othello or Risk
does nothing to answer the question about whether a two-player game of
PzG feels like a two-player game of Russian Front.
Jay Martino
Gregory \"Sturmer\" Smith <stu...@delphi.com> wrote:
>gra...@maxwell.ee.washington.edu (Stephen Graham) wrote:
>>There's a point there, but you're no longer on Delphi.
>>Groups are what you make of them.
>>ather than go off and form your own group, why not join what already
>>exists? It's unlikely you'll be able to recreate what existed on
>>Delphi.
>>Stephen Graham
>Why would we want to join the likes of folks like YOU ????
What the hell did he say that's so offensive?? He's right, you can't
recreate Delphi here (or as an alt. group), it was tried with Genie,
and it didn't work. Still, I wish you all the best (viscerally, I
prefer a forum that deals in wargames, be they computer, board, or
miniature, but r.g.miniatures.historical covers my minis needs
adequately, and when a computer game of interest comes up, I have yet
to see anyone get shouted off a particualr group if it gets
discussed).
>We are perfectly happy in alt.games.wargames and you come along like some
>Network Napoleon, declaring that we are in violation of your personal
>desires for an orderly Internet. Gosh and we better not talk about board
>games AND computer games in the same newsgroup! My, that would be
>anarchy!
When did he say that? You certainly didn't quote him as saying it.
>Get a life. Talk about wargames with us, and we'll be happy to talk
>about them with you. Otherwise, I'd be happy if you just went away :)
>-Sturmer
>PS Do you actually play anything and contribute meaningful thought to
>the hobby? Or are you just wasting bandwidth?
Are these last passages an example of the quality of Delphi flames?
Jay
***If you are responding to my comments on
a newsgroup, please do not send me a private
e-mail copy of your reply unless you intend
carry on the discussion privately.***
mjma...@igs.net
Ottawa, Ontario
Canada
Jay Martino
d...@npac.syr.edu (David Kohr) wrote:
>So is rec.games.board. BTW in case you have no experience with USENET
>moderation, it is almost always a benefit to a newsgroup because it screens
>out the tremendous amount of "junk" that appears on USENET. It's very rare
>that "censorship" becomes a problem.
Moderation is not always a benefit to a newsgroup, as it can disrupt
the flow of a discussion. If all the moderator did was delete spam and
issue an occasional warning to an occasional chronic flametroller, it
would be alright. The charter of the group is what determines how
broad the powers of the moderator can be.
>The level of flaming on a given newsgroup is mostly a function of
>the "culture" of the newsgroup. rec.games.board doesn't have much,
>and this is generally a good thing.
I agree wholeheartedly. As for the "classic" Delphi flames: where are
they? All I've seen so far is the same old, with a smiley at the end
of the line.
Now, as a friendly suggestion: if the crossposting about this issue
stopped, I think the heated words would stop. I've seen some insults
come from both sides of this, and they aren't serving either argument
(if either really has a point anyway) well. How 'bout just
crossposting messages related to boardgames?
Julian Barker
In article <50mmuj$n...@news.tuwien.ac.at>, Markus Stumptner
<m...@dbai.tuwien.ac.at> writes
>
>
>Actually, it's more akin to "Why don't you drive on the right side
>of the road?".
Because that is where the oncomming traffic is! :-)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+ Julian Barker +
+ jul...@rodent.demon.co.uk +
+ Keep your lies consistent - Ferengi Rule of Acquisition #60 +
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
JD
In a recent article, Kevin J. Maroney wrote:>
> Gregory \"Sturmer\" Smith <stu...@delphi.com> wrote:
>
> >Seriously, you are annoying me. Are we even? Maybe if this alt
group
> >really gets going, has great discussions, attracts industry reps,
and
> >generally becomes a neat place, will that irk you even more?
>
> Welcome to Usenet. Now go away.
>
> *plonk*
Hey guys... why don't we in a.g.w stop x-posting to r.g.b, and how
about you guys in r.g.b stop x-posting to a.g.w. This way, we can go
our way and you can go yours. It's apparent that we really don't have
as much in common as I thought.
Regards, JD
Scott D. Orr
In <50o86e$1...@herald.concentric.net> Gregory \"Sturmer\" Smith
<stu...@delphi.com> writes:
>
>
>Seriously, you are annoying me. Are we even? Maybe if this alt group
>really gets going, has great discussions, attracts industry reps, and
>generally becomes a neat place, will that irk you even more?
>
the newsgroup, and so I may miss some things that would have appeared
here; for another, I hate going to two newsgroups for the same topic.
I am somewhat sympathetic to the idea of having a newsgroup that
combines board wargames and computer wargames: while computer games
don't have the same social element, I think for many if not most
serious wargamers the main interest is the strategic element (and
anyway, PBEM and head-to-head play give some element to computer
wargames). In particular, c.s.i.p.g.s is a poor forum for wargames,
since it encompasses so many other things.
However, there's a certain etiquette in establish newsgroups, and
it's usually followed even when creating alt. groups. At minimum,
you want to let all interested parties know what you're doing. And
not doing so (despite some good reasons for wanting a new group) is
what got people irritated at you.
Scott Orr
Isaac Kuo
In article <32306f99...@news.crossover.com>,>k...@bit.csc.lsu.edu (Isaac Kuo) wrote:
>>>>Count me in among those who feel board wargames have more
>>>>in common with "other" board games than computer wargames and
>>>>that computer wargames have more in common with "other"
>>>>computer videogames than with board wargames.
>>>This sounds like the sentiment of someone who hasn't played Panzer
>>>General or Steel Panthers. Have you?
>>This implies that anyone who hasn't played Panzer General or Steel
>>Panthers is an idiot unqualified to make any judgemenst about
>>computer wargames in general. To that implication, I politely
>>request that you "stuff it".
>I will wish you as you wish me.
>I would also ask that you read my post, not jump to conclusions about
>my assumptions.
Regardless of what your assumptions were, or even what you _meant_,
the mere two sentences which you _wrote_ implied a denigration of
all persons who hadn't played Panzer General or Steel Panthers.
What you _wrote_ was insulting in its implication and its tone,
even if you didn't mean to be.
Regardless of your contentless attack, I actually wrote a legitimate
argument justifying my personal beliefs rather than merely point out
how rude you were.
>I have played PzG (tho' not Steel Panthers) and find
>it hard to believe that anyone who has actually done so would say that
>it feels more like a "videogame" than like a board wargame.
It would have been best if you'd written the above paragraph in the
first place.
As I said, I haven't played either. However, the my company does
stock them, so I trivially checked out the boxes. I didn't see
anything on the boxes to distinguish them from other hex based
computer wargames. No little numbers in the corners of the counters.
No CRT. No other human players. But I didn't actually open the
box and play them (I don't have that kind of free time anyway).
>If you have played PzG and still have this feeling, fine, that's an
>answer to my question.
Another answer to your question is that I haven't played either.
Which I did write in the follow-up post.
>Going on at length about how a solitaire game
>of Othello or Risk doesn't feel like a boardgame of Othello or Risk
>does nothing to answer the question about whether a two-player game of
>PzG feels like a two-player game of Russian Front.
There are more games in the world relevant to these newsgroups
than just Panzer General and Russian Front.
I used the Othello example simply because it is the only computer or
video game which I play regularly, simply to show that I don't
universally dislike computer/video games (e.g., I'm not an
"anti-computer gamer").
I used the Risk example because it's the only example of a wargame
which has practically identical rules and map for both the computer
and board game versions which most rec.games.board readers would
be familiar with (both versions). As such, it's the most relevant
example, IMO. What two games should be closer to each other than
two versions of the same rules and map?
Danny Holte
Jellicle <~@~.~> wrote:
>JD wrote:
>> Alt.games.wargames is there to handle that portion of the Delphi
>> Custom 24 refugees <that forum being recently deceased> who do not
>> like dealing with list servers... and of course any and all who would
>> care to join us.
>Is it just me, or does anyone else see something fundamentally wrong
>with a bunch of refugees from an on-line service setting up a usenet
>group for their semi-private use? Hey guys, get a listserv and get a
>life. Usenet is worldwide, usenet is for everyone (who owns a computer
>and a modem, anyway). Trying to carve your own little niche is both
>foolish and naive.
1. The board isn't semi-private, private, or anything. It's for anyone who
wants to use it. JD's above comments were pretty clear on this point. Did he
need to type a bit slower?
2. You're assuming someone cares whether you think it's
right or wrong to setup a newsgroup. The problem with this is that
"Usenet is worldwide, usenet is for everyone", so why try to tell
someone they cannot do what's already been done, completely
within the rules of creating an alt.* group? Actually, there were
three meetings, six tele-cons, and 4 live video hook-ups set up
to discuss how to get 'Jellicle's' permission... Oh, how
everyone sweated THAT one out... <ROTFL>
Wait a minute. If the board WAS created to "carve out a niche for semi-
-private use", why would you care? Let's see, what's a good word for that kind
of behavior... (BTW, though this group was not created with that purpose in
mind, groups are created EVERY DAY for that exact purpose, and it's how
most newsgroups got there to begin with.)
3. Use your real name. Someone might take you seriously.
-Danny
-Danny
Scott D. Orr
In <50s2ai$q...@sp115.ocs.lsu.edu> k...@bit.csc.lsu.edu (Isaac Kuo)
writes:
>As I said, I haven't played either. However, the my company does
>stock them, so I trivially checked out the boxes. I didn't see
>anything on the boxes to distinguish them from other hex based
>computer wargames. No little numbers in the corners of the counters.
>No CRT. No other human players. But I didn't actually open the
>box and play them (I don't have that kind of free time anyway).
>
you know about computer wargames.
You're right that most of them don't have little numbers in the corners
of the counters. But some of them do: all of Strategic Studies
Groups's releases, and Atomic Games's V for Victory and World at
War, do in fact have little numbers on the counters. And more than
that, most of them will let you select a unit on the screen and get far
more information than you get from a cardboard counter.
Now, most of them don't have CRT's, because the computer's the only
one that needs it directly, but many fo them do come with manuals
that have a detailed description of combat resolution, and HPS
Simulations' Tigers on the Prowl and Panthers in the Shadows is the
best of these: it gives you just about _all_ the rules in the manual;
and while you can't tinker with the CRT itself, you can tinker with the
unit databases.
And all of these games let you play against another opponent: most of
them let you hot-seat it with another player (which I've done, and it's
fun, though as a social expeirence more awkward than a board game), and
all of the newer ones have PBEM play (and yes, you CAN engage in social
interaction -- of a _different_ if not better or worse type -- by
email, and you can do it with plaeyrs all over the world).
So I wouldn't be so quick to draw that bright line between the board
and the computer.
Scott Orr
Jellicle
Konig Der Krim wrote:
>
> Jellicle,
> The problem must lie within yourself. No doubt, a victim of the
> reading comprehension problem you apparently suffer from.
Thank you sir, may I have another?
> I direct your attention at this point to the last half of the
> final sentence in the first paragraph above. Note, please, that it
> says: "...and of course any and all who would care to join us".
The very fact that you use the word "us" belies your statement and
proves that you know little to nothing about the nature of Usenet.
Usenet is not an IRC chat channel. It is not a Delphi forum. It is not
an AOL chat room. Sorry. It ain't. When you realize that, you'll be a
little better off.
> There is no attempt being made here to subvert any existing
> newsgroup(s) which currently exist nor is there to be any exclusion
> perpetrated upon those who would see fit to pull up a chair
> and join in.
I don't particularly care whether or not you attempted to "subvert" a
group -- not that this is possible on Usenet anyway. There are,
however, groups on Usenet which cover the material you would like to
discuss, and the nature of Usenet ("If there's a group, use it, if there
isn't, create it.") implies that instead of trying to mark your
territory with a spray of urine, you should integrate into those
groups. See above re: chat rooms.
> As to your statement that its inception is borne of foolishness
> and naivete, I shake my head in wonder. Were one to follow
> this path of illogic and misunderstanding to its end, the
> sign at the end of the road would read: "Welcome to comp.bullshit,
> the _only_ newsgroup on the planet".
Nope. It goes the other way. Number of newsgroups as time goes to
infinity also goes to infinity. But if every penny-ante group of
refugees sets up their own little "chat room", which at no expense to
them is being carried around the world at LARGE expense in money and
bandwidth, then Usenet is headed for great troubles as news traffic can
no longer be handled by smaller ISPs with slower connections and smaller
drives. This phenomenon is already occuring to a great extent. And
then they stop carrying groups. Starting with undertrafficked
alt.whatever groups....
And so it pays to do a few things before jumping in somewhere. First,
to understand Usenet. Once you've achieved that, most of your problems
will be solved. You will understand how offensive it is to try to mark
your territory, and how tempting it then becomes to others to jump in
and stomp all over it. You will understand that your private concerns
about keeping your homogenous little group of pals together and safe
from the big bad Usenet are totally misplaced here. Such a thing can
only be achieved in one of the aforementioned chat rooms or an email
list.
-- Jellicle
Isaac Kuo
In article <50u96r$9...@dfw-ixnews6.ix.netcom.com>,
Scott D. Orr <sd...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>In <50s2ai$q...@sp115.ocs.lsu.edu> k...@bit.csc.lsu.edu (Isaac Kuo)
>writes:
>>As I said, I haven't played either. However, the my company does
>>stock them, so I trivially checked out the boxes. I didn't see
>>anything on the boxes to distinguish them from other hex based
>>computer wargames. No little numbers in the corners of the counters.
>>No CRT. No other human players. But I didn't actually open the
>>box and play them (I don't have that kind of free time anyway).
>Actually, despite your best intentions you've just proved how little
>you know about computer wargames.
>You're right that most of them don't have little numbers in the corners
>of the counters. But some of them do: all of Strategic Studies
>Groups's releases, and Atomic Games's V for Victory and World at
>War, do in fact have little numbers on the counters.
Ouch! Slay me with my own mischosen words!
I was, of course, referring to Panzer General and Steel Panthers
specifically in comparison to typical computer wargames (note the
word I included here but failed to earlier).
I know there are some computer games which feature "little numbers"
and CRT. Heck, I remember back when Avalon Hill converted their
games to computer form in interpreted BASIC programs!
>And more than
>that, most of them will let you select a unit on the screen and get far
>more information than you get from a cardboard counter.
True--but this is certainly _different_ from board wargames. In
some respects it's better. The main respect in which it's worse
is that it's more complex (this can be a disadvantage for players
who like to be able to get their minds around every aspect of a game).
>Now, most of them don't have CRT's, because the computer's the only
>one that needs it directly, but many fo them do come with manuals
>that have a detailed description of combat resolution, and HPS...
It's a fact that most board wargames have CRTs which are unnecessarily
long and complex, and this makes combat resolution more tedious than
in a computer game. Obviously, this is not an "advantage" for board
wargames, but it's certainly _different_...
>And all of these games let you play against another opponent: most of
>them let you hot-seat it with another player (which I've done, and it's
>fun, though as a social expeirence more awkward than a board game), and
>all of the newer ones have PBEM play (and yes, you CAN engage in social
>interaction -- of a _different_ if not better or worse type -- by
>email, and you can do it with plaeyrs all over the world).
Again, it's _different_ between a computer and board wargame...
(Although ironically, the PBEM/PBM example is one where it truly makes
no difference whether games are resolved by computer or referee.)
>So I wouldn't be so quick to draw that bright line between the board
>and the computer.
It's not so much that there's some "bright line" between the board and
the computer, but whether the "line" between board and computer wargames
is clearer than the lines between board wargames and other board games.
Which distinction makes more sense in the USENET hierarchy? We can't
simply group all games into a single newsgroup, after all.
With board wargames, there are a hell of a lot of "borderline" wargames.
Where do popular games like Wiz War or Roborally or Blood Bowl or even
Risk fit in? Luckily we don't have to wonder with rec.games.board.
Steven Al Hartzell
Gregory \"Sturmer\" Smith <stu...@delphi.com> wrote:
>gra...@maxwell.ee.washington.edu (Stephen Graham) wrote:
>>There's a point there, but you're no longer on Delphi.
>>Groups are what you make of them.
>>ather than go off and form your own group, why not join what already
>>exists? It's unlikely you'll be able to recreate what existed on
>>Delphi.
>>Stephen Graham
Well, you seem to have run headlong into the main body
of them there fella... bloody nose and all, feel good?
>Why would we want to join the likes of folks like YOU ????
>We are perfectly happy in alt.games.wargames and you come along like some
>Network Napoleon, declaring that we are in violation of your personal
>desires for an orderly Internet. Gosh and we better not talk about board
>games AND computer games in the same newsgroup! My, that would be
>anarchy!
>Get a life. Talk about wargames with us, and we'll be happy to talk
>about them with you. Otherwise, I'd be happy if you just went away :)
>-Sturmer
>PS Do you actually play anything and contribute meaningful thought to
>the hobby? Or are you just wasting bandwidth?
Sturmer, these idiots are just pretentious overbearing netgeeks,
who couldn't stand the light of day face to face.
They have the air-headed audacity to come over here and complain
to us about the way this place should be?
Steven...
ps. not to mention a few days on the server to determine "what it is
all about"
Kevin J. Maroney
k...@bit.csc.lsu.edu (Isaac Kuo) wrote:
>Kevin J. Maroney <kmar...@crossover.com> wrote:
>>>>This sounds like the sentiment of someone who hasn't played Panzer
>>>>General or Steel Panthers. Have you?
>Regardless of what your assumptions were, or even what you _meant_,
>the mere two sentences which you _wrote_ implied a denigration of
>all persons who hadn't played Panzer General or Steel Panthers.
>
>What you _wrote_ was insulting in its implication and its tone,
>even if you didn't mean to be.
I still don't think that my original sentences are insulting in tone
or implication. However, given the tone of the discussion into which
they were dropped, I can see that someone could read them that way,
and I do tender an apology.
>As I said, I haven't played either. However, the my company does
>stock them, so I trivially checked out the boxes. I didn't see
>anything on the boxes to distinguish them from other hex based
>computer wargames. No little numbers in the corners of the counters.
>No CRT. No other human players. But I didn't actually open the
>box and play them (I don't have that kind of free time anyway).
Not every wargame has the features you describe--Columbia Games'
EastFront series doesn't have a CRT, and Sid Sackon's PATTON and
McARTHUR don't have a CRT or little numbers on the counters, but I
would say that they are all wargames.
And, as Scott Orr pointed out, PzG and its kin do allow PBEM (and I
think hot-seat) two-player play; I suspect that the next generation of
releases will all feature real-time network play. (Does the AH
computer 3R allow multi-play? What about Close Combat, which is Squad
Leader with the serial numbers filed off?)
David Kohr
In article <VA.0000019c.02218aa8@default> kb...@snet.net writes:
>Hey guys... why don't we in a.g.w stop x-posting to r.g.b, and how
>about you guys in r.g.b stop x-posting to a.g.w.
Let's seee, AGW is about wargames, and RGB covers them too, so cross-posts
to both about wargames are perfectly appropriate.
That's the way USENET works.
--
the PPG
JD
In a recent article, Scott D. Orr wrote:>
> However, there's a certain etiquette in establish newsgroups, and
> it's usually followed even when creating alt. groups. At minimum,
> you want to let all interested parties know what you're doing. And
> not doing so (despite some good reasons for wanting a new group) is
> what got people irritated at you.
Scott,
Sturmer didn't do it, I did. And as for "discussing" it before
hand... didn't you see the reaction in c.s.i.p.g.s last time someone
mentioned the idea of splitting off wargames. Trying to get consensus on
something like this is almost impossible. There are just too many egos
involved. This way it's fait accompli... take it or leave it.
As to your ISP problem... try asking them to include the group. Most will
add on request.
Regards, JD
Markus Stumptner
In article <LJ$THJAvx...@rodent.demon.co.uk>, Julian Barker <jul...@rodent.demon.co.uk> writes:
>In article <50mmuj$n...@news.tuwien.ac.at>, Markus Stumptner
><m...@dbai.tuwien.ac.at> writes
>>
>>
>>Actually, it's more akin to "Why don't you drive on the right side
>>of the road?".
>
>Because that is where the oncomming traffic is! :-)
"right" = "correct"
You haven't seen _Clockwise_, have you? :-)
JD
In a recent article, Jellicle wrote:>
> The very fact that you use the word "us" belies your statement and
> proves that you know little to nothing about the nature of Usenet.
> Usenet is not an IRC chat channel. It is not a Delphi forum. It is
not
> an AOL chat room. Sorry. It ain't. When you realize that, you'll be
a
> little better off.
OK, one more time. _I_ did this... not Cliff... not Sturmer. Direct your
frustrations to me. And in the interests of conserving your precious
bandwidth <ironic, isn't it, the amount you've wasted already on what
amounts to a fait accompli?>, lets do it via Email.
> I don't particularly care whether or not you attempted to "subvert" a
> group -- not that this is possible on Usenet anyway.
Good. then we can end this now, eh?
> There are,
> however, groups on Usenet which cover the material you would like to
> discuss, and the nature of Usenet ("If there's a group, use it, if
> there isn't, create it.") implies that instead of trying to mark your
> territory with a spray of urine, you should integrate into those
> groups. See above re: chat rooms.
A spray of urine? How droll. However, and more to the point, RE: groups
already in existance... I disagree. There have been several movements to
engender interest in creating a comp. group just for wargamnes that have
been consistently shouted down by the empire builders and "not invented
here" crowd <sound familiar?>. Frankly, I tend to listen to what they
have to say ONCE, take under advisement that which seems worthy to me,
and then do what I feel needs to be done... so far as no laws are broken
and no one is ACTUALLY hurt. Note that this would not, IMHO, encompass
your bruised ego, nor your notion of tradition. If alt.games.wargames
offends you so much... GO AWAY.
> And so it pays to do a few things before jumping in somewhere. First,
> to understand Usenet.
I assure you sir that _I_ have a firm grasp on the Usenet concept.
> Once you've achieved that, most of your problems
> will be solved.
Ah... but you're still here! <a little Usenet humor here>
> You will understand how offensive it is to try to mark
> your territory, and how tempting it then becomes to others to jump in
> and stomp all over it.
Yes, I have had similar experience in raising my own children. However, I
am happy to report that they grew out of it. <more Usenet humor>
> You will understand that your private concerns
> about keeping your homogenous little group of pals together and safe
> from the big bad Usenet are totally misplaced here.
Again, I disagree. You see, the main reason why many of us shied away
from Usenet in the first place was because of the mish-mash that is
c.s.i.p.g.strat. You board game types have a nice cosy little home here,
which does not suffer from the same "300 posts per day on Civ2 and
General Zod Strikes Again" syndrome. Under those conditions, subjects
like Age of Rifles and Tigers on the Prowl tend to migrate to listservers
for obvious reasons. There are many, myself included, who do not like
listservers... especially multiple listservers... again, for reasons
which should be obvious to an authority such as yourself. I think
alt.games.wargames is a good solution.
As to your assertion that we are trying to maintain a homogenous little
group of pals <as you so eloquently put it>, if such had been my
intention, I would have created a MODERATED group. I did not. The key
word here is "homogenous". The intent is not to isolate ourselves, but to
maintain an established base of common interest and BUILD from there.
Admittedly, we are not mainstream... but then that's exactly why the alt.
hierarchy is there. If your interests do not coincide with ours <as
apparently they do not>, please do not feel obligated to read or post in
the group.
Now please.. this all becoming quite tiresome. Can we please end the
discussion with an agreeement to disagree and go on from there? I'm sure
your smaller ISPs with limited storage capacity would appreciate the
reduction in wasted bandwidth.
Regards, JD
Steven Al Hartzell
dan...@earthlink.net (Danny Holte) wrote:
>Jellicle <~@~.~> wrote:
>>JD wrote:
Danny, even with his real name, he's still a netgeek idiot.
Seriously surely is not how ANYONE should take him.
And before you get the hair on your neck back up again there
Jelly donut or whatever, I instruct graduate level Internet classes.
So just do everyone here a favor and bypass this list. There is
obviously nothing here you can teach us.
>-Danny
>-Danny
Steven...
Kevin J. Maroney
JD <kb...@snet.net> wrote:
>> Once you've achieved that, most of your problems
>> will be solved.
>
>Ah... but you're still here! <a little Usenet humor here>
Crawl back into your hole, pest.
*plonk*
Jay Martino
d...@npac.syr.edu (David Kohr) wrote:
No, David, he means why don't we stop crossposting this unresolveable
argument. Crossposts about *games* would be nice.
(a.g.w has been excluded from this post)
Jay Martino
The brilliant repartee is getting old guys. How 'bout agreeing to
disagree and move on? Or at least expand your vocabularies beyond the
stunning "get lost" and "hey netweenie".
Markus Stumptner
In article <VA.000001b2.0325c0b2@default>, JD <kb...@snet.net> writes:
>In a recent article, Scott D. Orr wrote:>
>
>> However, there's a certain etiquette in establish newsgroups, and
>> it's usually followed even when creating alt. groups. At minimum,
>> you want to let all interested parties know what you're doing. And
>> not doing so (despite some good reasons for wanting a new group) is
>> what got people irritated at you.
>
>Scott,
>
> Sturmer didn't do it, I did. And as for "discussing" it before
>hand... didn't you see the reaction in c.s.i.p.g.s last time someone
>mentioned the idea of splitting off wargames. Trying to get consensus on
>something like this is almost impossible. There are just too many egos
>involved. This way it's fait accompli... take it or leave it.
Exactly the point. A bunch of newbies who have decided that they
will tell everybody how it's done. And you complain when you find
out people are not happy, and argue that "other people want to
control things"? I can't think of any more extreme attempt at
control that creating a newsgroup and saying "this is us over here".
I thought originally that the only problem with your group was
ignorance, and that usually passes. Now I know that it's
self-aggrandizement.
--
Markus Stumptner m...@dbai.tuwien.ac.at
Markus Stumptner
In article <VA.000001b4.002b8cbd@default>, JD <kb...@snet.net> writes:
>In a recent article, Jellicle wrote:>
>
>> The very fact that you use the word "us" belies your statement and
>> proves that you know little to nothing about the nature of Usenet.
>> Usenet is not an IRC chat channel. It is not a Delphi forum. It is
>not
>> an AOL chat room. Sorry. It ain't. When you realize that, you'll be
>a
>> little better off.
>
>OK, one more time. _I_ did this... not Cliff... not Sturmer.
Completely irrelevant, since they do a great job as presenting
themselves as members of the same "in" group.
>A spray of urine? How droll. However, and more to the point, RE: groups
>already in existance... I disagree. There have been several movements to
>engender interest in creating a comp. group just for wargamnes that have
>been consistently shouted down by the empire builders and "not invented
>here" crowd <sound familiar?>.
Actually, the only group I've seen that's trying to build its own
little empire is yours. The pot calling the kettle black...
>> And so it pays to do a few things before jumping in somewhere. First,
>> to understand Usenet.
>
>I assure you sir that _I_ have a firm grasp on the Usenet concept.
We are judging your actions, not your words.
>Again, I disagree. You see, the main reason why many of us shied away
>from Usenet in the first place was because of the mish-mash that is
>c.s.i.p.g.strat.
Yes, we know. As opposed to the strict on-topic postings followed
by your group on alt.g.wg and its mailing list. What a bunch
of hypocrites.
--
Markus Stumptner m...@dbai.tuwien.ac.at
Bob Hunter
On 11 Sep 1996 10:44:34 GMT, m...@dbai.tuwien.ac.at (Markus Stumptner)
wrote:
>Yes, we know. As opposed to the strict on-topic postings followed
>by your group on alt.g.wg and its mailing list. What a bunch
>of hypocrites.
Hey NetCop Wannabe... Get a friggin grip on reality,and while you're
holding your hand on your ass you might as well drag it to another
Newsgroup. Welcome to the killfile....
-Bob
Gary Robinson
Bob Hunter (roo...@cris.com) wrote:
: On 11 Sep 1996 10:44:34 GMT, m...@dbai.tuwien.ac.at (Markus Stumptner)
I am flabbergasted by the level of puerile inanity going on here. Where
did these people come from? I thought several years on AOL had prepared
me for anything, but apparently it hasn't.
Perhaps there is one advantage to the "graying of the hobby:" we are not
afflicted with the kind of adolescent shenanigans that the computer gaming
hobby, judging by the above post, suffers from.
I hope a.g.w. sucks them all up like a black hole and keeps them
isolated, like a noxious bacterial culture in a sealed test tube....
+-----------------------------+ "On the trail of any suspect wisdom"
| Gary J. Robinson | -- Shriekback, "Gunning for the Buddha"
| wig...@concentric.net \ _______________________
| Gary's Wargaming Page: http://mailer.fsu.edu/~grobinso \
+---------------------------------+-----------------------+
Jellicle
Steven Al Hartzell wrote:
> And before you get the hair on your neck back up again there
> Jelly donut or whatever, I instruct graduate level Internet classes.
> So just do everyone here a favor and bypass this list. There is
> obviously nothing here you can teach us.
I doubt you have the IQ to instruct your mother on how to urinate
properly. I feel sorry for any "students" of yours unfortunate enough
to pay for the privilege of being "taught" by you. It is SO obvious
that you are lying, as no one who "instruct[ed] graduate level Internet
classes" would refer to a newsgroup as a "list". At least get your
terminology straight before you try to mimic something you don't even
vaguely comprehend.
-- Jellicle
G. Nichols
In article <5113h5$5...@news.tuwien.ac.at> m...@dbai.tuwien.ac.at (Markus Stumptner) writes:
>From: m...@dbai.tuwien.ac.at (Markus Stumptner)
>Subject: Re: New Wargaming Newsgroup!
>Date: 9 Sep 1996 12:45:25 GMT
Since I've been away (vacationing), I see that nothing good other than hurt
feelings has come of this discussion.
I will say that I support an alternative to:
*consim listserv
*r.g.b
*c.s.i.p.g.s
None of these truly works for the wargamer either for boardgames or computer
games. Consim has much to much static on non-gaming topics. While I like
r.g.b, most wargamers find it too soft and too family game oriented. And
c.s.i.p.g.s is totally unwieldy as the daily postings (including many on truly
non-strategic games) has surpassed usefulness. Where to go? Unfortunately,
my University news service hasn't picked up a.g.w yet as far as I know and
others may find this a problem too.
I wish a better solution was available. Personally, I would have like to
have seen r.g.b broke out into r.g.b.wargames and r.g.b.rrgames etc. but I
wasn't asked.
_______________________________ ______ ____ ____ ______
Greg Nichols / / /
University of Michigan ___ ___/ ___ ___
Harlan Hatcher Graduate Library / \ /
room 100 ______/ \ _____ ______/
Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1205
E-mail: gnic...@umich.edu
Staff HP: http://www-personal.umich.edu/~gnichols/staff/index.html
GLG HP: http://www-personal.umich.edu/~gnichols/glg/index.html
"Life is what happens to you when you're busy making other plans..."
-- John Lennon
Psalm 100
Scott D. Orr
In <516lpd$g...@herald.concentric.net> Wig...@cris.com (Gary Robinson)
writes:
>Perhaps there is one advantage to the "graying of the hobby:" we are
>not afflicted with the kind of adolescent shenanigans that the
>computer gaming hobby, judging by the above post, suffers from.
In my experience, the computer wargaming hobby is almost as "gray" as
the board-gaming one (and composed of a lot of the same people) --
computer wargamers are perhaps somewhat younger, on average, than board
wargamers, but they tend to be older than all the other computer-gamer
groups.
Scott Orr
Gary J. Robinson
In article <516o9i$6...@ecuador.earthlink.net>, dan...@earthlink.net
(Danny Holte) wrote:
> J.D., Sturm, Cliff, Steven,
>
> As these guys are getting more and more unfriendly, I would
> suggest that we stop cross-posting it to rec.games.board
>
> However, it probably would make sense to cross it over to:
>
> alt.whine.waaaah.waaah.wahhhhhh
>
>
> -Danny
*plonk*
David Kohr
In article <gnichols.1...@umich.edu> gnic...@umich.edu (G. Nichols)
writes:
>I will say that I support an alternative to:
>
>*consim listserv
>*r.g.b
>*c.s.i.p.g.s
>
>None of these truly works for the wargamer either for boardgames or computer
>games. Consim has much to much static on non-gaming topics.
Yeah, I agree. If I were King of the Net :-) , I'd create
rec.games.consim
to deal with wargames in all their devious guises.
--
the PPG
John Kranz
> I can't think of any more extreme attempt at
> control that creating a newsgroup and saying "this is us over here".
Give me a break. Do we need a Big Brother mentality for everything in life?
I thought this is what a free market and exchange of ideas is all about -
and the internet is just that. That's like saying a fast food joint can't
open at this street corner because another one already exists. Is that an
extreme attempt by the new store owner? I think not. This is pure
competition and a demonstration of initiative taken by someone to set up a
newsgroup on their own volition. Whether it succeeds or not is to be seen.
Newsgroups will come and go just like these stupid flame wars that
accomplish absolutely nothing but demonstrate everyone's arrogance. This
exchange has admittedly dropped my respect for the people behind this
hobby in general - and explains why it is hurting. Everyone has to have it
their way or the highway, while spreading abusive language directed at
others.
Wargamer as Nigger. I guess so.
--
John Kranz
kr...@earthlink.net
Markus Stumptner
In article <kranz-13099...@pool038.max4.phoenix.az.dynip.alter.net>, kr...@earthlink.net (John Kranz) writes:
>In article <5164u5$n...@news.tuwien.ac.at>, m...@dbai.tuwien.ac.at wrote:
>
>> I can't think of any more extreme attempt at
>> control that creating a newsgroup and saying "this is us over here".
>
>Give me a break. Do we need a Big Brother mentality for everything in life?
Exactly my point. Newsgroup creation should be exempt from this. I don't
need anyone to tell me "hey idiots, there is no newsgroup where real
wargamers can discuss games so let's do it here" when there is and I have
been using it for most of a decade. The same, apparently, goes for a
number of other people.
>I thought this is what a free market and exchange of ideas is all about -
>and the internet is just that.
Spare us the platitudes, please, especially if they are based on
incorrect analogies. First, this is not the Internet, it's Usenet.
I am not disputing anyone's right to put up ftp sites or websites on any
topic they choose (although I reserve the right to believe them less than
useful if they try to duplicate existing structures). We are talking here
about newsgroup creation which is a Usenet concern exclusively.
Second, we are not disputing the free exchange of ideas - we are
discussing the modes of exchange, like, is it acceptable to paint
wrong roadsigns to get more people to pass in front of "your shop".
Add to that the fact that the very notion of "your shop" is nonsense
here (see next comment).
>That's like saying a fast food joint can't
>open at this street corner because another one already exists.
Except that Usenet is not a shopping lane, and creating newsgroups
is not a commercial enterprise. Usenet is a cooperative effort for
exchange of information, which with tens of thousands of newsgroups
needs all the clarity and coordination it can get. If you want to
contribute, you post articles (which I have not seen you do much
here). If, btw, the new fast food store will not satisfy the public
hygiene standards, it will be shut down in real life, competition or
not. There's no such authority for alt groups, of course. Thus,
the only recourse is the public venting of customer outrage. Which
we have seen here.
>Is that an
>extreme attempt by the new store owner?
Again: Yes, Usenet is about free exchange of information, but you
open a market stall by posting, not by creating a newsgroup. I am
not a store owner. I am a USER. I look for information concerning
wargames, either by asking or skimming interesting topics. I am not
choosy about where I find it. But the more the information is spread
around between multiple newsgroups, then either (a) if the information
exists only in one place, the more I have to walk around and collect
at all places, or (b) if it is duplicated, the more of these sources
are a waste. Unfortunately, that has to be determined for every
individual piece of info I want (or might chance to come upon).
You may have noticed that a number of people have proposed splitting
r.g.b along the lines of non-war vs wargamers. Be that as it may,
you may have noticed that no one proposed adding a wargames group
and leaving the wargame traffic in r.g.b. Newsgroups on Usenet
are not "shops". They are topical subdivisions to help readers
find what they are interested in, and have been so from the outset.
They are NOT competing entities, and if someone tries to make them
into competing entities, he will get flamed, and rightly so, because
he attempts (involuntary or not, it doesn't matter) to make access
to information *harder* not easier.
The same, btw, applies to you. You are not a "store owner" because
you want to distribute information on Usenet - you just post it. If
you believe that to offer your opinions you need to create just the
newsgroups you want, you are severely in error.
>I think not. This is pure
>competition and a demonstration of initiative taken by someone to set up a
>newsgroup on their own volition.
Hm, have you ever stopped to think why such a complex voting process
is in place for non-alt groups? Because setting up a newsgroup "on
their own volition" instead of as expression of a general consensus is
usually either a sign of a joke, stupidity, ignorance, or self-
aggrandizement. Newsgroups are not websites. Learn to live with that
fact. They serve a different purpose and abide by different rules.
>Newsgroups will come and go just like these stupid flame wars that
>accomplish absolutely nothing but demonstrate everyone's arrogance.
I see it more as a demonstration of ignorance (see for example the
Internet/Usenet confusion above).
>This
>exchange has admittedly dropped my respect for the people behind this
>hobby in general - and explains why it is hurting.
Actually, the same would have happened in the rec.arts.sf or rec.sports
hierarchy. If anything, it should have dropped your respect for humanity
in general.
>Everyone has to have it
>their way or the highway, while spreading abusive language directed at
>others.
Just the point. If you engage in a free exchange of vehicles on the
highway, crashes will result. Thus, traffic laws. If you grab the
right of way because things are going too slowly for your pleasure,
people will then honk at you. If many people honk at you on the
roads of a foreign country, don't honk back, but think of whether
you did something wrong. That simple.
My last posting on this affair.
--
Markus Stumptner m...@dbai.tuwien.ac.at
Christopher John Camfield
Just because Usenet allows for quick and free exchange of ideas does
NOT mean that it was set up with a free market in mind. Its organizational
principles are best described as anarchy, with local autonomy and
globally something of a democracy... in any case, competition is not
what it's about.
It was NEVER intended (as far as I know) that newsgroups should "compete" with
each other, and this attitude is to me a slap in the face. Barring alt
groups (which aren't part of the major hierarchies, and are ignored to
varying degrees by many sites), Usenet is supposed to be organized by
consensus, and then used. If people disagree with the majority, they're
supposed to take their lumps and use the existing newsgroup, or form their
own mailing list whose traffic won't be spread globally. Of course, the
Usenet voting procedures are pretty tough on people who want to create new
newsgroups, so if there if you and a bunch of other people disagree with
someone, chances are you can block the people you disagree with... and
hopefully a satisfactory compromise can be reached.
The example of a fast-food restaurant is flawed; think of Usenet instead
as a library. Books (articles) on wargaming are now filed in two
locations, instead of one. The reason for these (perhaps seemingly
anal-retentive) guidelines and procedures is to avoid the complete anarchy
whose best example is the alt hierarchy. Want to read about your
favourite musician? Look to see if there's an alt.fan.* newsgroup devoted
to her. Or wait, maybe it'll be under alt.music.*...
Flamewars, and this one in particular, have very little to do with gamers,
and very much to do with Usenet. This may seem like arrogance, but it
used to be that people could and did take the time to figure out what
Usenet was before they imposed their views on it.
For more information about Usenet organization, I suggest you checkout the
news hierarchy, perhaps news.answers.
Chris
--
Chris Camfield - ab...@freenet.carleton.ca
"You're nothing in the eyes of the world
But you're going up and down in the elevator still..." (FINN)
Steven Al Hartzell
Jellicle <~@~.~> wrote:
>Steven Al Hartzell wrote:
>-- Jellicle
Jellicle,
So reducing this to personal attack is your modus operandi...?
I have also taught Martail Arts. You defeintely would flunk, but
giving you a lesson, would sure be a lot of fun.
Your right, I misspoke about the list. Likely a freudian slip,
meaning, you will be banned from our List.
As I said previously, there is nothing for you to learn here, so
just leave it alone. With small closed minds like yours, graduate
programs are but a distant dream. With your attitude, you would
certainly also flunk my class as well.
I see that my friends are stepping in to defend my statements,
do you know anyone who likes you enough to stand up for you?
BTW, the "free" lesson can be redeemed at any time.
Steven...
Keeper of the List
Jellicle
(I changed your follow-up because alt.games.wargames is not even
available at my ISP, which should prove a point of some kind...)
Markus Stumptner wrote:
> Just the point. If you engage in a free exchange of vehicles on the
> highway, crashes will result. Thus, traffic laws. If you grab the
> right of way because things are going too slowly for your pleasure,
> people will then honk at you. If many people honk at you on the
> roads of a foreign country, don't honk back, but think of whether
> you did something wrong. That simple.
Exactly. Too immersed in the chat room mentality, where it is advisable
and desired that specific groups set up their own room, to open their
eyes to the fact that Usenet is different. Driving along blithely on
the right side of the road, in Japan, and saying "Why are all these
cretins honking at me! Stupid Japs, can't even drive correctly!" Sigh.
-- Jellicle
Matthew Goldman
Jim Matt (sawt...@tir.com) wrote:
: > I have also taught Martail Arts. You defeintely would flunk, but
: > giving you a lesson, would sure be a lot of fun.
: > BTW, the "free" lesson can be redeemed at any time.
: >
: >Steven...
: >Keeper of the List
:
: That's pretty big of you Steven. I'll bet all other list moderators drool at
: your redneck physical solutions instead of using grace and civility.
:
: Just because he spews dreck doesn't mean a "Keeper of the List" should sink to
: his level. Well, nevermind.
:
: BTW, I don't support Jellicle; he ranks right down there with the Net Nazis,
: rednecks, and other bullies.
Isn't the 'free lesson' generally refered to as "Dojo Storming?" (I
forget the Japanese)
--
O O __ | \| O O
/|\ -/- _ __\ O _\O |/ (/ O/ /\- /|\
/ \ / ) / \ | /O _ O/_ _ O_ ^_ / \^_ )\ / \
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Matthew Goldman E-mail: gol...@visi.com Home: (612) 535-5220
Work: (612) 906-6008 Fax: (612) 906-6250
My day today? Nothing major, just Xenon base gone, Scorpio gone,
Tarrant dead, Tarrant alive and then I found out Blake sold us out.
Jim Matt
Hartzell'sAJoke
I have been on the Internet for a few years and I have lurked in this group for
awhile...
Steven Al Hartzell, you are without a doubt the worst asshole ever.
"Graduate Internet" and "Martial Arts"?! Sheesh!
I'm still laughing at you, you world class pompous microdick.
Danny Holte
Fuc...@aol.com (Hartzell'sAJoke) wrote:
It takes a brave man to type something like that without using a real name.
Of course, that's just one way to look at it.
I guess you could also get the impression that they are a spineless coward, and
immature as well. In fact, I think that pretty much nails it.
You can be sure that this post will be routed back to AOL.
-Danny
Danny Holte
Fuc...@aol.com (Hartzell'sAJoke) wrote:
>I have been on the Internet for a few years and I have lurked in this group for
>awhile...
>Steven Al Hartzell, you are without a doubt the worst asshole ever.
>"Graduate Internet" and "Martial Arts"?! Sheesh!
>I'm still laughing at you, you world class pompous microdick.
This h.s. has been forwarded to AOL for appropriate action.
-Danny
Markus Stumptner
Given that Steve Hartzell at the time also chose to refer to those who
disagreed with him as "flaming assholes", I can only express my
surprise at your sudden prissiness, Danny... I don't suppose
you reported Mr. Hartzell's "transgression" to enteract.com
management for appropriate action at the time, am I correct?
I recommend you cut down on the hypocrisy a bit.
--
Markus Stumptner m...@dbai.tuwien.ac.at
Danny Holte
Markus Stumptner <m...@dbai.tuwien.ac.at> wrote:
You go ahead and keep 'recommending' all you want, Markus.
Hypocrisy and prissiness! <ROTFL> Go ahead and keep typing, give us
something more to laugh about!
You don't know Steven, I do. At least he has the balls to put his name
to his posts. This post was one of the worst examples of the abuses on the
internet. Don't even try to get us to compare it, though you apparantly do.
Since you obviously didn't approve of this newsgroup (but who cares?), and now
obviously advocate the use of immature, obscene false addresses, I have to
ask; what are you doing here?
-Danny
Markus Stumptner
Danny Holte wrote:
>
> Markus Stumptner <m...@dbai.tuwien.ac.at> wrote:
>
> >Danny Holte wrote:
> >> Fuc...@aol.com (Hartzell'sAJoke) wrote:
> >> >I have been on the Internet for a few years and I have lurked in this group for
> >> >awhile...
> >>
> >> >Steven Al Hartzell, you are without a doubt the worst asshole ever.
> >>
> >> >"Graduate Internet" and "Martial Arts"?! Sheesh!
> >> >I'm still laughing at you, you world class pompous microdick.
> >>
> >> This h.s. has been forwarded to AOL for appropriate action.
>
> >Given that Steve Hartzell at the time also chose to refer to those who
> >disagreed with him as "flaming assholes", I can only express my
> >surprise at your sudden prissiness, Danny... I don't suppose
> >you reported Mr. Hartzell's "transgression" to enteract.com
> >management for appropriate action at the time, am I correct?
> >I recommend you cut down on the hypocrisy a bit.
>
> You go ahead and keep 'recommending' all you want, Markus.
No further questions, thank you. :-)
--
Markus Stumptner m...@dbai.tuwien.ac.at
Rob Lindsay
In article <52pdha$6...@paraguay.earthlink.net>,
>something more to laugh about!
>
>You don't know Steven, I do. At least he has the balls to put his name
>to his posts. This post was one of the worst examples of the abuses on the
>internet. Don't even try to get us to compare it, though you apparantly do.
if a flame from a psudeo-forge address is the worst you've seen on the net
you must be living in a different internet that I.
>Since you obviously didn't approve of this newsgroup (but who cares?), and now
>obviously advocate the use of immature, obscene false addresses, I have to
>ask; what are you doing here?
if by "here", you mean alt.games.wargames, I'm not. I'm in rec.games.board
(where you should be, or at least get a RFD going or properly config a alt
group by asking in alt.config, but let's not start THAT again) and as for
the "immature, obscene false addresses" for a guy living in a alt. group
you seem to have real thin skin. Call back after next few "FA$T CA$H or
1-900 sex line spams crawl through your group OK?"
>
>-Danny
>
>
>
--
Robert Lindsay, Computational Serf, Storm Prediction Center, Norman OK
lin...@doplight.nssl.uoknor.edu http://www.nssl.uoknor.edu/~lindsay/
Oh, God, could it be the weather... T. Amos #include <standard_disclaimer.h>
DO NOT send mail to *.spc.noaa.gov, use lin...@doplight.nssl.uoknor.edu
Jellicle
Danny Holte wrote:
> This h.s. has been forwarded to AOL for appropriate action.
>
> -Danny
{snicker} Dish it out but can't take it, huh Danny-boy? Don't you have
a mommy to whine to instead?
-- Jellicle