CFD: us.arts.* namespace review
Henrietta K Thomas
us.arts.* namespace review
This is the first in a series of namespace reviews being
conducted in the us.* hierarchy, with a view toward filling
out existing top-levels before moving on to other top-levels
on our list of suggested top-levels.
Introduction:
When I first came to us.* in the summer of 1997, my service
provider was carrying three mostly dead or dying groups in
the us.arts.* namespace -- us.arts, us.arts.tv, us.arts.tv.soaps.
The two tv groups were removed for lack of meaningful traffic,
but us.arts was retained in the hope it would attract people
interested in US arts. It didn't work out as we had hoped. We
got some interesting traffic from time to time, and met a few
interesting people, but there wasn't enough interest in any
one topic to consider creating a group. Except for Matthew
Montchalin and his poetry.
Present condition and recommendations:
us.arts.poetry is a low volume group, but it's useful to the
people who post there, and some of the poetry is really quite
good. There are some few regulars who come back from time
to time, and I think traffic will remain fairly stable over time. It
is a successful group, imo.
us.arts is not worth keeping in its present state. The general
topic of 'fine and performing arts' is much too broad to try
and build a cohesive group of core posters. It is therefore
recommended that us.arts be rmgrouped and replaced with
us.arts.marketplace.
It is also recommended that we consider creating one or more
of the following groups:
us.arts.prose US writers & their work; book reviews; original writings.
us.arts.music US musicians & their work; concert reviews.
us.arts.movies US filmmakers & their work; movie reviews.
us.arts.theater US plays and musicals; theater reviews.
us.arts.artists US artists & their work; current exhibits.
On a broader scale, we might consider:
us.arts.events Announcements of upcoming events.
us.arts.awards Discussion of awards in all artistic fields.
There may be other ideas I haven't thought of yet. Feel free
to add to this list so we can have a good discussion.
Although this is not an RFD, I think the discussion period
should be limited to ten days, to and including July 23, 2003.
Thank you for your time.
Henrietta K. Thomas
us.* hierarchy coordinator
hk...@earthlink.net
www.usenetnews.us
Henrietta K Thomas
Introduction:
Present condition and recommendations:
Followups to us.config.
Matthew Montchalin
|Present condition and recommendations:
|
|us.arts.poetry is a low volume group, but it's useful to the
|people who post there, and some of the poetry is really quite
|good. There are some few regulars who come back from time
|to time, and I think traffic will remain fairly stable over time.
|It
|is a successful group, imo.
|
|us.arts is not worth keeping in its present state. The general
|topic of 'fine and performing arts' is much too broad to try
|and build a cohesive group of core posters. It is therefore
|recommended that us.arts be rmgrouped and replaced with
|us.arts.marketplace.
|
|It is also recommended that we consider creating one or more
|of the following groups:
|
|us.arts.prose US writers & their work; book reviews; original
|writings.
|us.arts.music US musicians & their work; concert reviews.
|us.arts.movies US filmmakers & their work; movie reviews.
|us.arts.theater US plays and musicals; theater reviews.
|us.arts.artists US artists & their work; current exhibits.
|
|On a broader scale, we might consider:
|
|us.arts.events Announcements of upcoming events.
|us.arts.awards Discussion of awards in all artistic fields.
If us.arts.marketplace were created, would it be a dumping ground
for anybody wanting to unload their arts projects for a buck or
two?
Henrietta K Thomas
<mmon...@OregonVOS.net> wrote, in us.config:
>On Mon, 14 Jul 2003, Henrietta K Thomas wrote:
>|Present condition and recommendations:
>|
>|us.arts.poetry is a low volume group, but it's useful to the
>|people who post there, and some of the poetry is really quite
>|good. There are some few regulars who come back from time
>|to time, and I think traffic will remain fairly stable over time.
>|It is a successful group, imo.
>|
>|us.arts is not worth keeping in its present state. The general
>|topic of 'fine and performing arts' is much too broad to try
>|and build a cohesive group of core posters. It is therefore
>|recommended that us.arts be rmgrouped and replaced with
>|us.arts.marketplace.
[snip a bit]
>If us.arts.marketplace were created, would it be a dumping ground
>for anybody wanting to unload their arts projects for a buck or
>two?
Yes, because we won't be able to moderate the group.
Pulver
Henrietta K Thomas wrote:
>
> Call For Discussion (CFD)
> us.arts.* namespace review
>
> This is the first in a series of namespace reviews being
> conducted in the us.* hierarchy, with a view toward filling
> out existing top-levels before moving on to other top-levels
> on our list of suggested top-levels.
>
> Introduction:
>
> When I first came to us.* in the summer of 1997, my service
> provider was carrying three mostly dead or dying groups in
> the us.arts.* namespace -- us.arts, us.arts.tv, us.arts.tv.soaps.
> The two tv groups were removed for lack of meaningful traffic,
> but us.arts was retained in the hope it would attract people
> interested in US arts. It didn't work out as we had hoped. We
> got some interesting traffic from time to time, and met a few
> interesting people, but there wasn't enough interest in any
> one topic to consider creating a group.
You will recall that several years ago we had a
protracted discussion about just this subject and where
a plethora of divisions and subdivisions were discussed
and then, it was just, as I recall, dropped.
Perhaps you should review the deja record of that, so
that all can see what went before. It could help us
clarify our present thoughts on the subject and save
some wasted time. Unfortunately, my archive of that
period is gone.
Henrietta K Thomas
EskW...@spamblock.panix.com wrote,
in us.config:
>In us.config Henrietta K Thomas <hk...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>> us.arts.prose US writers & their work; book reviews; original
>> writings.
>> us.arts.music US musicians & their work; concert reviews.
>> us.arts.movies US filmmakers & their work; movie reviews.
>> us.arts.theater US plays and musicals; theater reviews.
>> us.arts.artists US artists & their work; current exhibits.
>
>
>> us.arts.events Announcements of upcoming events.
>> us.arts.awards Discussion of awards in all artistic fields.
>
>IMO, each of these either duplicates existing groups,
Examples, please.
>or proposes groups that would attract few relevant posts.
How so? What make you think so?
Henrietta K Thomas
wrote, in us.config:
>
>
>Henrietta K Thomas wrote:
>>
>> Call For Discussion (CFD)
>> us.arts.* namespace review
>>
>> This is the first in a series of namespace reviews being
>> conducted in the us.* hierarchy, with a view toward filling
>> out existing top-levels before moving on to other top-levels
>> on our list of suggested top-levels.
>>
>> Introduction:
>>
>> When I first came to us.* in the summer of 1997, my service
>> provider was carrying three mostly dead or dying groups in
>> the us.arts.* namespace -- us.arts, us.arts.tv, us.arts.tv.soaps.
>> The two tv groups were removed for lack of meaningful traffic,
>> but us.arts was retained in the hope it would attract people
>> interested in US arts. It didn't work out as we had hoped. We
>> got some interesting traffic from time to time, and met a few
>> interesting people, but there wasn't enough interest in any
>> one topic to consider creating a group.
>
>You will recall that several years ago we had a
>protracted discussion about just this subject and where
>a plethora of divisions and subdivisions were discussed
>and then, it was just, as I recall, dropped.
We've had many conversations about a lot of things off and
on over the past several years.
>Perhaps you should review the deja record of that, so
>that all can see what went before. It could help us
>clarify our present thoughts on the subject and save
>some wasted time. Unfortunately, my archive of that
>period is gone.
Cite, please. I'm in no mood to go on fishing expeditions
in Google.
Pulver
Wiredass just wants to be negative, no matter who or
what, and since he has no mind of his own, he is trying
to copy officer's stupid ploy.
Pulver
It was discussion of various potential groups under us.arts.*
There was, for example one particular thread where
there was spirited discussion whether the Broadway
musical theater was or was not the same as opera, which
is also musical theater. I know we discussed a number
of contemporary american composers and their works. I
may even have mentioned the Chicago Opera Company which
has commissioned new works from a number of artists
including my multi talented friend, Gordon Press who
wrote one or more libretti.
Pulver
Maybe your failure to recollect may have to do with the
likely reason that it all collapsed 覧 your lack of
enthusiasm for the ideas which I proposed.
dvus
> Cite, please. I'm in no mood to go on fishing expeditions
> in Google.
Check gd1mksgeuti3615f0...@4ax.com .
It's an interesting thread that includes some well known posters.
dvus
Jim Riley
<hk...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>On Mon, 14 Jul 2003 11:09:59 +0000 (UTC),
>EskW...@spamblock.panix.com wrote,
>in us.config:
>
>>In us.config Henrietta K Thomas <hk...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>
>>> us.arts.prose US writers & their work; book reviews; original
>>> writings.
>>> us.arts.music US musicians & their work; concert reviews.
Sousa, Dylan, Beach Boys, Copeland, and NIN?
>>> us.arts.movies US filmmakers & their work; movie reviews.
>>> us.arts.theater US plays and musicals; theater reviews.
>>> us.arts.artists US artists & their work; current exhibits.
Painters and sculptors? Why is the emphasis on the creator, while the
others are focused on the creation?
>>> us.arts.events Announcements of upcoming events.
>>> us.arts.awards Discussion of awards in all artistic fields.
Golden Globe awards?
>>IMO, each of these either duplicates existing groups,
>
>Examples, please.
The rec.arts.* hierarchy was created as part of the Great Renaming
from a diverse collection of groups that had been at the second level
of the net.* hierarchy. Ironically, the existing net.rec.* hierarchy
which collected what might be classified as recreational pursuits was
dismantled.
The groups that were placed in the rec.arts.* hierarchy might better
have been classified as popular culture:
books
comics
drwho
movies
poems
startrek
sf-lovers
startrek
tv
wobegon
music was not included because it had already begun to branch.
The focus was never on high or fine art. The groups that were later
added were stuck there because of the name, rather than that they
necessarily fit with other groups.
21st century popular culture tends to be American dominated, or easily
absorbs performers from other countries. Are people going to move to
us.arts.music because the Bee Gees, Neil Young, Beatles, ABBA, and
Mozart are discussed in various rec.music.* groups?
--
Jim Riley
Pulver
Jim Riley wrote:
>
> On Mon, 14 Jul 2003 18:12:37 GMT, Henrietta K Thomas
> <hk...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> >On Mon, 14 Jul 2003 11:09:59 +0000 (UTC),
> >EskW...@spamblock.panix.com wrote,
> >in us.config:
> >
> >>In us.config Henrietta K Thomas <hk...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >>
> >>> us.arts.prose US writers & their work; book reviews; original
> >>> writings.
> >>> us.arts.music US musicians & their work; concert reviews.
>
> Sousa, Dylan, Beach Boys, Copeland, and NIN?
>
> >>> us.arts.movies US filmmakers & their work; movie reviews.
> >>> us.arts.theater US plays and musicals; theater reviews.
> >>> us.arts.artists US artists & their work; current exhibits.
>
> Painters and sculptors? Why is the emphasis on the creator, while the
> others are focused on the creation?
Because they are what they do and what they do is what
they are.
Good question.
> Jim Riley
Henrietta K Thomas
wrote, in us.config:
>
>
Nevertheless, I'd like to see what his reasons are.
Henrietta K Thomas
wrote, in us.config:
>Henrietta K Thomas wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, 14 Jul 2003 13:13:57 -0400, Pulver <red...@gta.igs.net>
>> wrote, in us.config:
[snip]
>> >You will recall that several years ago we had a
>> >protracted discussion about just this subject and where
>> >a plethora of divisions and subdivisions were discussed
>> >and then, it was just, as I recall, dropped.
>>
>> We've had many conversations about a lot of things off and
>> on over the past several years.
>>
>
>Maybe your failure to recollect may have to do with the
>likely reason that it all collapsed 覧 your lack of
>enthusiasm for the ideas which I proposed.
I think the lack of enthusiasm was mutual. See my response
to dvus.
Henrietta K Thomas
<jim...@pipeline.com> wrote, in us.config:
>On Mon, 14 Jul 2003 18:12:37 GMT, Henrietta K Thomas
><hk...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 14 Jul 2003 11:09:59 +0000 (UTC),
>>EskW...@spamblock.panix.com wrote,
>>in us.config:
>>
>>>In us.config Henrietta K Thomas <hk...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> us.arts.prose US writers & their work; book reviews; original
>>>> writings.
>>>> us.arts.music US musicians & their work; concert reviews.
>
>Sousa, Dylan, Beach Boys, Copeland, and NIN?
us.* doesn't do separate groups for individual performers,
so it will have to be a general group until such time as traffic
indicates a need for branching out.
>>>> us.arts.movies US filmmakers & their work; movie reviews.
>>>> us.arts.theater US plays and musicals; theater reviews.
>>>> us.arts.artists US artists & their work; current exhibits.
>
>Painters and sculptors? Why is the emphasis on the creator, while the
>others are focused on the creation?
Because I haven't found a good way to say us.arts.visual to
encompass painting, sculpture, photography, and other 'visual'
arts. If you have any ideas, I'd like to hear them. That's the
purpose of doing this namespace review -- to see if anyone
can come up with any better ideas.
>>>> us.arts.events Announcements of upcoming events.
>>>> us.arts.awards Discussion of awards in all artistic fields.
>
>Golden Globe awards?
Plus Oscars, Tony's, Emmy's, Grammy's.
Plus several literary awards given out each year.
The group would not be limited to present-day awards,
but could go backwards in time as well.
>>>IMO, each of these either duplicates existing groups,
>>
>>Examples, please.
>
>The rec.arts.* hierarchy was created as part of the Great Renaming
>from a diverse collection of groups that had been at the second level
>of the net.* hierarchy. Ironically, the existing net.rec.* hierarchy
>which collected what might be classified as recreational pursuits was
>dismantled.
>
>The groups that were placed in the rec.arts.* hierarchy might better
>have been classified as popular culture:
>
>books
>comics
>drwho
>movies
>poems
>startrek
>sf-lovers
>startrek
>tv
>wobegon
>
>music was not included because it had already begun to branch.
>
>The focus was never on high or fine art. The groups that were later
>added were stuck there because of the name, rather than that they
>necessarily fit with other groups.
Thanks for the history lesson. For the record, I have no
intention of trying to duplicate the rec.arts.* hierarchy.
All I want is to carve out a few US-specific niche groups
for us.*.
>21st century popular culture tends to be American dominated, or easily
>absorbs performers from other countries. Are people going to move to
>us.arts.music because the Bee Gees, Neil Young, Beatles, ABBA, and
>Mozart are discussed in various rec.music.* groups?
Don't know about Neil Young or ABBA, but us.arts.music
wouldn't cover Mozart or the Beatles because they're not
US-specific topics. The only one I recognize above as being
US-specific is the Bee Gees. (I don't follow popular music
all that much).
I see no reason why us.* users should be required to go to
another hierarchy to discuss their favorite US performers,
or to post a review of a musical event they attended in the
USA.
YMMV.
Henrietta
Henrietta K Thomas
wrote, in us.config:
>Henrietta K Thomas wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, 14 Jul 2003 13:13:57 -0400, Pulver <red...@gta.igs.net>
>> wrote, in us.config:
[snip]
>> >You will recall that several years ago we had a
>> >protracted discussion about just this subject and where
>> >a plethora of divisions and subdivisions were discussed
>> >and then, it was just, as I recall, dropped.
>>
>> We've had many conversations about a lot of things off and
>> on over the past several years.
>>
>> >Perhaps you should review the deja record of that, so
>> >that all can see what went before. It could help us
>> >clarify our present thoughts on the subject and save
>> >some wasted time. Unfortunately, my archive of that
>> >period is gone.
>>
>> Cite, please. I'm in no mood to go on fishing expeditions
>> in Google.
>
>It was discussion of various potential groups under us.arts.*
>
>There was, for example one particular thread where
>there was spirited discussion whether the Broadway
>musical theater was or was not the same as opera, which
>is also musical theater. I know we discussed a number
>of contemporary american composers and their works. I
>may even have mentioned the Chicago Opera Company which
>has commissioned new works from a number of artists
>including my multi talented friend, Gordon Press who
>wrote one or more libretti.
That was just general discussion, though; no proposals
were on the table, and no decisions were made.
Henrietta K Thomas
wrote, in us.config:
Indeed it is, interesting. That was the thread where we hashed
out the most recent version of our top-level list, and as you can
see, we found it hard at times to come to agreement. As between
myself and Leonard, there were several issues, but I think the
one presented in the article below is what he is referring to:
-----begin quoted article-----
From: Henrietta K. Thomas <usa...@wwa.com>
Subject: Re: [ADMIN] Top-Level Hierarchies within the us.*
Hierarchy
Message-ID: <4c7bpsgdun5edrmer...@4ax.com>#1/1
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 12 Aug 2000 19:30:23 GMT
Newsgroups: us.config
On Fri, 11 Aug 2000 17:27:24 GMT, Leonard Pulver
<red...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>"Henrietta K. Thomas" wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, 11 Aug 2000 01:48:15 GMT, Leonard Pulver <red...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
[snip]
>When I suggested us.arts.events.* where all
>artists could publish notices of their up coming
>exhibitions and performances and thus tap a wider audience
>
>As I was typing this I got a flash of ny.jobs etc
>I could see it becoming a dump that no one could
>or would read. However if we break it
>up say to:- .fineart (including galleries, art
>museums etc for 2 and 3 dimentional work);
>.crafts; theater incl Bway, off, offoff and never
>close; music concerts, recitals, clubs and perhaps
>even record or video releases; dare I forget
>.dance (classical and modern ballet Spanish dance
>tapetc etc.
>
>A typical post could include the cast, program
>duration of the engagement etc
I can think of at least four possibilities:
us.arts.events.museums+galleries
us.arts.events.theatre+dance
us.arts.events.concerts+tours
us.arts.events.literary
But I don't know where we'd find our posters. I spent some time
on the web, and I don't see any way we could contact all the
artists out there, or even all the museums, galleries, etc. that
sponsor artistic events. The best source for news of upcoming
events appears to be www.culturefinder.com. But the material
there is sorted by city, and it'd take a long time to put
together a decent list of events for the entire nation. So I
think we need to think about strategy before we go very far
with this idea.
>> But your suggestion that *events* might make a good 3rd level
>> is worth considering.
>>
>> >> > Do we separate the musical stages,opera and Broadway etc,
>> >> > from the concert stages??
>> >>
>> >> I'd probably put the musicals, Broadway (including "bring in da noise,
>> >> bring in da funk), and opera in us.arts.*. The potential for
>> >> problematic gray areas here strikes me as rather more manageable than
>> >> many such things on usenet (yeah, I know, famous last words :-)).
>> >> You'll never draw up a hierarchy with no gray areas.
>
>I cannot see sepasrating the musical theater from
>other live music performances and lumping it with
>painting & sculpture. Either it stands alone or
>it stays with rap & rock & mozart
Well, maybe we'll have to do that, I don't know. What's the
difference between us.arts.events.concerts+tours and
us.music.events.concerts+tours? Placement in the namespace.
The precedent is to separate music from the other arts. See
alt.arts and alt.music, rec.arts and rec.music, de.arts and
de.music. Of course, we don't have to follow the crowd, do
we?
>Did you say Lenny Bernstein requested this?
Some guy named Joe. Not DiMaggio.
>> Right. FYI, Leonard, us.music was separated from us.arts at
>> the request of Joe Bernstein, so we'll have to ask him how he
>> wants to deal with the gray areas next time he shows up here.
>> Meanwhile, I think Jim's suggestion above is appropriate.
>>
>> >> > This group need a way to filter out the IRSagents who file
>> >> > misleading or false
>> >> :-). I doubt there is much the us.* administration can or should
>> >>do about that.
>>
>> I wasn't aware anything like that was going on. Jim is probably
>> right that we probably wouldn't be able to do much of anything
>> about it, but if you want to talk privately, my mailbox is always
>> open.
[snip]
>I know it was happening and that there is no easy
>way to catch it. I only inserted it partly FYI
>and as a bit of gallows humor
<smile>
Henrietta
-----end quoted article-----
I frankly don't think it's worth worrying about now. Just
because we disagreed three years ago doesn't mean we
have to disagree now. If we're so set in our ways we can't
try to think of new approaches to old problems, then we
are indeed in trouble. us.arts has been on my hit list since
1999, but I can't get rid of it until we come up with something
to replace it.
Thanks for posting that Message-ID. It did, indeed, refresh
my memory.
Henrietta
Pulver
That is why I suggested a review of that entire
discussion so that we do not have to go over old ground
for nothing. A summary of that would make an ideal
starting point.
Of course the bit about the IRS Agents, was extraneous
to the discussion and referred to us.taxes.
Henrietta K Thomas
wrote, in us.config:
>Henrietta K Thomas wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, 14 Jul 2003 18:07:39 -0400, "dvus" <dv...@adelphia.net>
>> wrote, in us.config:
>>
>> >Henrietta K Thomas wrote:
>> >
>> >> Cite, please. I'm in no mood to go on fishing expeditions
>> >> in Google.
>> >
>> >Check gd1mksgeuti3615f0...@4ax.com .
>> >
>> >It's an interesting thread that includes some well known posters.
>>
>> Indeed it is, interesting. That was the thread where we hashed
>> out the most recent version of our top-level list, and as you can
>> see, we found it hard at times to come to agreement. As between
>> myself and Leonard, there were several issues, but I think the
>> one presented in the article below is what he is referring to:
[snip quoted article]
>> I frankly don't think it's worth worrying about now. Just
>> because we disagreed three years ago doesn't mean we
>> have to disagree now. If we're so set in our ways we can't
>> try to think of new approaches to old problems, then we
>> are indeed in trouble. us.arts has been on my hit list since
>> 1999, but I can't get rid of it until we come up with something
>> to replace it.
>>
>> Thanks for posting that Message-ID. It did, indeed, refresh
>> my memory.
>>
>> Henrietta
>
>That is why I suggested a review of that entire
>discussion so that we do not have to go over old ground
>for nothing. A summary of that would make an ideal
>starting point.
In your opinion, maybe, but not mine. We'd only end up
arguing over the summary, and nothing would get done.
If you don't like the suggestions made in the CFD. please
come up with some better ideas. If you have no new ideas,
then back off a while and let nature take its course.
Pulver
nonsense, absolute nonsense. That attitude is why you
do not achieve what you should.
> If you don't like the suggestions made in the CFD. please
> come up with some better ideas. If you have no new ideas,
> then back off a while and let nature take its course.
You are being intransigent. It appears that you have
nothing here but wishes. I would rather see the things
that were on the table to see whether I can improve on
them or must suggest some other alternatives. Three
years can change one's perspectives, so it can be
constructive to view what went before.
Matthew Montchalin
| Call For Discussion (CFD)
| us.arts.* namespace review
|
|This is the first in a series of namespace reviews being
|conducted in the us.* hierarchy, with a view toward filling
|out existing top-levels before moving on to other top-levels
|on our list of suggested top-levels.
<snip>
|us.arts is not worth keeping in its present state. The general
|topic of 'fine and performing arts' is much too broad to try
|and build a cohesive group of core posters. It is therefore
|recommended that us.arts be rmgrouped and replaced with
|us.arts.marketplace.
Perhaps us.arts.marketplace could be replaced with:
us.arts.auctions
us.arts.job-marketplace
us.arts.supplies
Pulver
Nice try Matt, but those birds won't fly == (1) there
are few legitimate art auctions in US.
2) There are precious few "art" jobs and they all go to
recent grad art majors and frequently placed by their
professors (Besides Mickey D's pays better).
3) The number of manufacturers of art supplies can be
counted on your fingers, and that includes paper and
textile mills, manufacturers of paints, brushes,
solvents and sealers. There is little to discuss.
BTW - 25-30 years ago there was a serious controversy
about health hazards in art. At the time, I was editor
(in my spare time) of a weekly newspaper for artists in
NYC. Every week we had a column on some aspect of the
hazards. However, my friend and neighbour, Dr. Mike
McCann finally got his book published and almost
overnight the industry shifted gears and replaced
hazardous substances (like turpentine) with less
hazardous substitutes.
Henrietta K Thomas
<mmon...@OregonVOS.net> wrote, in us.config:
>Henrietta K Thomas wrote:
Most articles would be canceled as spam.
> us.arts.job-marketplace
Would attract 'jobs' posters -- something nobody needs.
> us.arts.supplies
Probably not enough traffic to justify creating a separate group.
We used to have four moderated us.marketplace.* groups,
but the moderator gave up after his service provider gave
him a real hard time. The most I'd be willing to do now would
be one group, as a replacement for the ads we keep seeing
in us.arts:
us.arts.marketplace Buy/sell/trade works of art
The charter for this group would be the same as for
us.marketplace.other, the only difference being that
the group would be UNmoderated.
Even this little bit is reneging on a promise I made way
back when that the 'forsale' and 'jobs' groups would be
moderated, but I'm willing to take a chance just to see
what would happen if we set up any kind of unmoderated
'marketplace' group.
Will check to see if there are any other *.arts.marketplace
groups, and if so, what kind of traffic they have.
Henrietta
Jim Riley
<hk...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>On Mon, 14 Jul 2003 17:13:35 -0500, Jim Riley
><jim...@pipeline.com> wrote, in us.config:
>
>>On Mon, 14 Jul 2003 18:12:37 GMT, Henrietta K Thomas
>><hk...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 14 Jul 2003 11:09:59 +0000 (UTC),
>>>EskW...@spamblock.panix.com wrote,
>>>in us.config:
>>>
>>>>In us.config Henrietta K Thomas <hk...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> us.arts.prose US writers & their work; book reviews; original
>>>>> writings.
Would Harry Potter or Lord of the Rings be on topic?
>>>>> us.arts.music US musicians & their work; concert reviews.
>>
>>Sousa, Dylan, Beach Boys, Copeland, and NIN?
>
>us.* doesn't do separate groups for individual performers,
>so it will have to be a general group until such time as traffic
>indicates a need for branching out.
I was not suggesting that separate groups be created for individual
performers. I was trying to understand the prospective scope of the
group.
>>>>> us.arts.movies US filmmakers & their work; movie reviews.
>>>>> us.arts.theater US plays and musicals; theater reviews.
Would My Fair Lady, Evita, and Sound of Music be on topic here?
>>>>> us.arts.artists US artists & their work; current exhibits.
>>
>>Painters and sculptors? Why is the emphasis on the creator, while the
>>others are focused on the creation?
>
>Because I haven't found a good way to say us.arts.visual to
>encompass painting, sculpture, photography, and other 'visual'
>arts. If you have any ideas, I'd like to hear them. That's the
>purpose of doing this namespace review -- to see if anyone
>can come up with any better ideas.
Why isn't the creator of any of the arts that you have suggested
groups for an "artist"?
In this particular area there may not be such a thing as a US-specific
niche. If you look at the existing rec.arts.* groups, 90% of the
material could be considered US-related. That isn't a niche, and it
isn't going to move to leave room for the 10% which would really be
better discussed in a non-international group anyhow.
>>21st century popular culture tends to be American dominated, or easily
>>absorbs performers from other countries. Are people going to move to
>>us.arts.music because the Bee Gees, Neil Young, Beatles, ABBA, and
>>Mozart are discussed in various rec.music.* groups?
>
>Don't know about Neil Young or ABBA, but us.arts.music
us.trivia.dead-or-canadian?
Don't need him around anyhow.
>wouldn't cover Mozart or the Beatles because they're not
>US-specific topics. The only one I recognize above as being
>US-specific is the Bee Gees. (I don't follow popular music
>all that much).
>I see no reason why us.* users should be required to go to
>another hierarchy to discuss their favorite US performers,
>or to post a review of a musical event they attended in the
>USA.
I see no reason why US Usenet users would leave groups where they
already discuss their favorite US performers or post reviews of a
musical event they attended in the US.
--
Jim Riley
Matthew Montchalin
|In us.config, Henrietta K Thomas <hk...@earthlink.net> wrote:
|>>>
|>>> Examples, please.
|
|There's already lots of movie groups. I'll find tham and post them later.
Most of them are found in the alt.* and rec.* hierarchies, but you are
some 'movie' related groups are going to be found in hierarchies as
obscure as maus.* and pdx.* and probably some others, as well.
Still, duplication of newsgroups is not necessarily bad, although
many of you seem to think so. The real question is whether there
will be traffic involving the new newsgroup, and whether a search
engine will deliver a 'hit' when the right arguments are keyed in.
Matthew Montchalin
|Matthew Montchalin wrote:
|>
|> Henrietta K Thomas wrote:
|> | Call For Discussion (CFD)
|> | us.arts.* namespace review
|> |
|> |This is the first in a series of namespace reviews being
|> |conducted in the us.* hierarchy, with a view toward filling
|> |out existing top-levels before moving on to other top-levels
|> |on our list of suggested top-levels.
|>
|> <snip>
|>
|> |us.arts is not worth keeping in its present state. The general
|> |topic of 'fine and performing arts' is much too broad to try
|> |and build a cohesive group of core posters. It is therefore
|> |recommended that us.arts be rmgrouped and replaced with
|> |us.arts.marketplace.
|>
|> Perhaps us.arts.marketplace could be replaced with:
|>
|> us.arts.auctions
|> us.arts.job-marketplace
|> us.arts.supplies
|
|Nice try Matt, but those birds won't fly == (1) there
|are few legitimate art auctions in US.
Um, I guess crooked art auctions can be ruled out, too? hehe
|2) There are precious few "art" jobs and they all go to
|recent grad art majors and frequently placed by their
|professors (Besides Mickey D's pays better).
If somebody is looking to hire an artist for a special one-time
project, they might place bids for that kind of a thing in
us.arts.job-marketplace?
|3) The number of manufacturers of art supplies can be
|counted on your fingers, and that includes paper and
|textile mills, manufacturers of paints, brushes,
|solvents and sealers. There is little to discuss.
I went to an arts store the other day for great big sheets of acrylic
plastic overlays, with great big 'arcs' or whatever you want to call
them - for superimposing them over satellite pictures (we were delving
into the possibility that certain monuments had been located in
the wrong corners of certain fractions of a township here and there)
and they told me they didn't exist! C'mon, there may be something
similar to a monopoly out there, but where can I get those things?!
|BTW - 25-30 years ago there was a serious controversy
|about health hazards in art. At the time, I was editor
|(in my spare time) of a weekly newspaper for artists in
|NYC. Every week we had a column on some aspect of the
|hazards. However, my friend and neighbour, Dr. Mike
|McCann finally got his book published and almost
|overnight the industry shifted gears and replaced
|hazardous substances (like turpentine) with less
|hazardous substitutes.
That would make for some very interesting reading!
Henrietta K Thomas
<jim...@pipeline.com> wrote, in us.config:
>On Tue, 15 Jul 2003 04:26:46 GMT, Henrietta K Thomas
><hk...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 14 Jul 2003 17:13:35 -0500, Jim Riley
>><jim...@pipeline.com> wrote, in us.config:
>>
>>>On Mon, 14 Jul 2003 18:12:37 GMT, Henrietta K Thomas
>>><hk...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Mon, 14 Jul 2003 11:09:59 +0000 (UTC),
>>>>EskW...@spamblock.panix.com wrote,
>>>>in us.config:
>>>>
>>>>>In us.config Henrietta K Thomas <hk...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> us.arts.prose US writers & their work; book reviews; original
>>>>>> writings.
>
>Would Harry Potter or Lord of the Rings be on topic?
No.
>>>>>> us.arts.music US musicians & their work; concert reviews.
>>>
>>>Sousa, Dylan, Beach Boys, Copeland, and NIN?
>>
>>us.* doesn't do separate groups for individual performers,
>>so it will have to be a general group until such time as traffic
>>indicates a need for branching out.
>
>I was not suggesting that separate groups be created for individual
>performers. I was trying to understand the prospective scope of the
>group.
All US musicians are on-topic -- classical, contemporary, pop
culture, whatever. Instrumentalists and vocalists, big bands
and small, orchestras and chamber ensembles, etc.
>>>>>> us.arts.movies US filmmakers & their work; movie reviews.
>>>>>> us.arts.theater US plays and musicals; theater reviews.
>
>Would My Fair Lady, Evita, and Sound of Music be on topic here?
Yes. All were made or produced in the USA.
>>>>>> us.arts.artists US artists & their work; current exhibits.
>>>
>>>Painters and sculptors? Why is the emphasis on the creator, while the
>>>others are focused on the creation?
>>
>>Because I haven't found a good way to say us.arts.visual to
>>encompass painting, sculpture, photography, and other 'visual'
>>arts. If you have any ideas, I'd like to hear them. That's the
>>purpose of doing this namespace review -- to see if anyone
>>can come up with any better ideas.
>
>Why isn't the creator of any of the arts that you have suggested
>groups for an "artist"?
Because it seems kind of awkward to say us.arts.artists.musical.
Now, if you want to consider a different approach, we could try:
us.arts.artists
us.arts.authors <or writers>
us.arts.musicians
us.arts.filmmakers
etc.,
but then we'd have to rename us.arts.poetry to us.arts.poets.
>>>>>IMO, each of these either duplicates existing groups,
>>>>
>>>>Examples, please.
>>>
>>>The rec.arts.* hierarchy was created as part of the Great Renaming
>>>from a diverse collection of groups that had been at the second level
>>>of the net.* hierarchy. Ironically, the existing net.rec.* hierarchy
>>>which collected what might be classified as recreational pursuits was
>>>dismantled.
>>>
>>>The groups that were placed in the rec.arts.* hierarchy might better
>>>have been classified as popular culture:
[snip list]
>>>The focus was never on high or fine art. The groups that were later
>>>added were stuck there because of the name, rather than that they
>>>necessarily fit with other groups.
>>
>>Thanks for the history lesson. For the record, I have no
>>intention of trying to duplicate the rec.arts.* hierarchy.
>>All I want is to carve out a few US-specific niche groups
>>for us.*.
>
>In this particular area there may not be such a thing as a US-specific
>niche. If you look at the existing rec.arts.* groups, 90% of the
>material could be considered US-related. That isn't a niche, and it
>isn't going to move to leave room for the 10% which would really be
>better discussed in a non-international group anyhow.
US-related != US-specific
I'm not asking anyone to move. All I'm asking for is some
space in us.* to create some US-specific groups for that
10% which is better discussed in a non-international group
anyhow.
[snip - thanks for the clues]
>>I see no reason why us.* users should be required to go to
>>another hierarchy to discuss their favorite US performers,
>>or to post a review of a musical event they attended in the
>>USA.
>
>I see no reason why US Usenet users would leave groups where they
>already discuss their favorite US performers or post reviews of a
>musical event they attended in the US.
Nobody is asking anybody to move. Participation in us.*
is strictly voluntary. Some may like it, some may not. Let
those who like it stick around and help us build it up. Let
those who don't go back where they came from and leave
those who do alone.
Sorry to be so harsh, but that's the way I feel. We cannot be
all things to all men, and some people will never be satisfied,
no matter what we do.
Henrietta
Jim Riley
<hk...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>On Tue, 15 Jul 2003 17:38:05 -0500, Jim Riley
><jim...@pipeline.com> wrote, in us.config:
>
>>On Tue, 15 Jul 2003 04:26:46 GMT, Henrietta K Thomas
>><hk...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 14 Jul 2003 17:13:35 -0500, Jim Riley
>>><jim...@pipeline.com> wrote, in us.config:
>>>
>>>>On Mon, 14 Jul 2003 18:12:37 GMT, Henrietta K Thomas
>>>><hk...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Mon, 14 Jul 2003 11:09:59 +0000 (UTC),
>>>>>EskW...@spamblock.panix.com wrote,
>>>>>in us.config:
>>>>>
>>>>>>In us.config Henrietta K Thomas <hk...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> us.arts.prose US writers & their work; book reviews; original
>>>>>>> writings.
>>
>>Would Harry Potter or Lord of the Rings be on topic?
>
>No.
Amazon is a US company.
>>>>>>> us.arts.music US musicians & their work; concert reviews.
>>>>
>>>>Sousa, Dylan, Beach Boys, Copeland, and NIN?
>>>
>>>us.* doesn't do separate groups for individual performers,
>>>so it will have to be a general group until such time as traffic
>>>indicates a need for branching out.
>>
>>I was not suggesting that separate groups be created for individual
>>performers. I was trying to understand the prospective scope of the
>>group.
>
>All US musicians are on-topic -- classical, contemporary, pop
>culture, whatever. Instrumentalists and vocalists, big bands
>and small, orchestras and chamber ensembles, etc.
Too broad.
>>>>>>> us.arts.movies US filmmakers & their work; movie reviews.
>>>>>>> us.arts.theater US plays and musicals; theater reviews.
>>
>>Would My Fair Lady, Evita, and Sound of Music be on topic here?
>
>Yes. All were made or produced in the USA.
They're not about US subjects.
>>>>>>> us.arts.artists US artists & their work; current exhibits.
>>>>
>>>>Painters and sculptors? Why is the emphasis on the creator, while the
>>>>others are focused on the creation?
>>>
>>>Because I haven't found a good way to say us.arts.visual to
>>>encompass painting, sculpture, photography, and other 'visual'
>>>arts. If you have any ideas, I'd like to hear them. That's the
>>>purpose of doing this namespace review -- to see if anyone
>>>can come up with any better ideas.
>>
>>Why isn't the creator of any of the arts that you have suggested
>>groups for an "artist"?
>
>Because it seems kind of awkward to say us.arts.artists.musical.
>
>Now, if you want to consider a different approach, we could try:
>
>us.arts.artists
us.arts.artists.misc
>us.arts.authors <or writers>
us.arts.artists.literary
>us.arts.musicians
us.arts.artists.musical
>us.arts.filmmakers
us.arts.artists.cinematographers
>etc.,
>but then we'd have to rename us.arts.poetry to us.arts.poets.
us.arts.artists.poets
The 10% is what would not belong in us.*.
>[snip - thanks for the clues]
>
>>>I see no reason why us.* users should be required to go to
>>>another hierarchy to discuss their favorite US performers,
>>>or to post a review of a musical event they attended in the
>>>USA.
>>
>>I see no reason why US Usenet users would leave groups where they
>>already discuss their favorite US performers or post reviews of a
>>musical event they attended in the US.
>
>Nobody is asking anybody to move. Participation in us.*
>is strictly voluntary. Some may like it, some may not. Let
>those who like it stick around and help us build it up. Let
>those who don't go back where they came from and leave
>those who do alone.
>
>Sorry to be so harsh, but that's the way I feel. We cannot be
>all things to all men, and some people will never be satisfied,
>no matter what we do.
--
Jim Riley
Matthew Montchalin
|On Tue, 15 Jul 2003 EskW...@spamblock.panix.com wrote:
||In us.config, Henrietta K Thomas <hk...@earthlink.net> wrote:
||>>>
||>>> Examples, please.
||
||There's already lots of movie groups. I'll find tham and post them later.
|
|Most of them are found in the alt.* and rec.* hierarchies, but you are
|some 'movie' related groups are going to be found in hierarchies as
|obscure as maus.* and pdx.* and probably some others, as well.
To correct myself, here are two that I had intended to refer to, but
which I somehow had miswritten:
maus.freizeit.kino
nl.kunst.film
and both seem to have a fair amount of traffic in them. Pdx.movies
rarely has traffic, but when I post something into it, there is always
someone somewhere monitoring the newsgroup, so one should not confuse
lack of traffic for lack of interest.
Henrietta K Thomas
<hk...@earthlink.net> wrote, in us.config:
[snip]
>We used to have four moderated us.marketplace.* groups,
>but the moderator gave up after his service provider gave
>him a real hard time. The most I'd be willing to do now would
>be one group, as a replacement for the ads we keep seeing
>in us.arts:
>
>us.arts.marketplace Buy/sell/trade works of art
>
>The charter for this group would be the same as for
>us.marketplace.other, the only difference being that
>the group would be UNmoderated.
>
>Even this little bit is reneging on a promise I made way
>back when that the 'forsale' and 'jobs' groups would be
>moderated, but I'm willing to take a chance just to see
>what would happen if we set up any kind of unmoderated
>'marketplace' group.
>
>Will check to see if there are any other *.arts.marketplace
>groups, and if so, what kind of traffic they have.
One group found -- alt.art.marketplace
According to netscan, alt.art.marketplace had 202 posts from
171 posters in May 2003. Of these, 32 were crossposted to other
'arts' groups. There were only 15 replies.
If we were to open us.arts.marketplace, we could expect some
of the alt.* posters to crosspost to our group, but I doubt there
would be any amount of migration. So the question becomes
whether or not we want to provide them with another place to
crosspost.
Henrietta
Matthew Montchalin
||
||Most of them are found in the alt.* and rec.* hierarchies, but you are
||some 'movie' related groups are going to be found in hierarchies as
||obscure as maus.* and pdx.* and probably some others, as well.
|
|To correct myself, here are two that I had intended to refer to, but
|which I somehow had miswritten:
|
| maus.freizeit.kino
| nl.kunst.film
|
|and both seem to have a fair amount of traffic in them. Pdx.movies
|rarely has traffic, but when I post something into it, there is always
|someone somewhere monitoring the newsgroup, so one should not confuse
|lack of traffic for lack of interest.
If it helps any, this is the charter associated with nl.kunst.film
(apparently advocating more than just discussing films, it includes
buying, selling, trading, and dealing in films):
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
nl.kunst.film - Filmrecensies, aankondigingen, scenario's en discussie.
CHARTER: nl.kunst.film
In deze nieuwsgroep over film kan je:
- je filmervaringen delen met andere filmliefhebbers;
- recensies lezen, posten en bediscussieren;
- aankondigingen van vertoningen in het land lezen;
- nieuws over/van festivals, nieuwe releases, e.d. lezen;
- vragen of iemand een videokopie heeft van je favoriete film;
- je ideeen voor jouw eigen meesterwerk laten beoordelen;
- goede plekken op het internet voor filmliefhebbers geven en lezen;
- alle andere zaken die met film te maken hebben kwijt.
Commerciele berichten van bedrijven mogen in de groep gepost worden mits:
- duidelijk herkenbaar door het woord COMMERCIEEL in de Subject:-regel;
- het direct verband houdt met het onderwerp van nl.kunst.film.
EINDE CHARTER.
---------
Aankondigingen van en voorstellen over nieuwe groepen
vindt men in de nieuwsgroep nl.newsgroups.announce.
In de afgelopen week verschenen:
CFV-1 nl.stad.utrecht
---------
Enkele van de huisregels binnen de nl-hierarchie (de nieuwsgroepen
die beginnen met "nl.") luiden:
o Berichten mogen geen binary's bevatten. Je dient je bericht
in platte tekst op te stellen. Dus berichten in HTML-formaat
zijn ook niet toegestaan.
o Als je wilt dat je bericht in meerdere groepen verschijnt, dien
je het te crossposten. Praktisch gezien zijn crosspostings naar
meer dan vijf groepen meestal onzinnig en ongewenst.
Voor uitleg over binary's, zie de FAQ "Waarom binarygroups ongewenst
zijn in nl.*" in nl.newsgroups.announce en nl.newsgroups. Voor een
overzicht van huisregels, zie de "Gedragscode voor de nl-hierarchie"
in nl.newsgroups.help en nl.internet.welkom. Zie ook [1].
NB: Gelieve geen inhoudelijke vragen over deze nieuwsgroep te stellen via
het e-mailadres van de afzender van dit bericht.
Henrietta K Thomas
<hk...@earthlink.net> wrote, in us.config:
>On Wed, 16 Jul 2003 01:23:26 -0500, Jim Riley
><jim...@pipeline.com> wrote, in us.config:
>
>>On Wed, 16 Jul 2003 03:23:31 GMT, Henrietta K Thomas
>><hk...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 15 Jul 2003 17:38:05 -0500, Jim Riley
>>><jim...@pipeline.com> wrote, in us.config:
[snip]
>>>>Would My Fair Lady, Evita, and Sound of Music be on topic here?
>>>
>>>Yes. All were made or produced in the USA.
>>
>>They're not about US subjects.
>
>But they _are_ US productions, and that's what makes
>them on topic for either a 'movies' or 'theater' group.
Did a little web search and changed my mind on this, somewhat.
My Fair Lady and The Sound of Music were both US productions
from the gitgo, even though the subject matter was European.
Evita was not. Written by two Brits, Andrew Lloyd Webber and
Tim Rice, Evita was a long-running hit in London before it came
to Broadway. So the case is not as clear with this one as with
the other two. However, I don't think very many people would
quibble about it much. The US production of Evita was a smashing
success!
A side effect of my research is that I think I've found a good
solution to the newsgroups line for this group:
For your newsgroups file:
us.arts.theatre US stage productions, past and present
where 'stage productions' means _any_ stage production
produced by a US theatre or dance company, be it drama,
comedy, musical, dance, whatever.....
The same can be done with a 'movies' group:
For your newsgroups file:
us.arts.movies US film productions, past and present
where 'film productions' means _any_ film produced by a US
film production entity.
Comments?
ht
Jim Riley
<hk...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>For your newsgroups file:
>us.arts.movies US film productions, past and present
>
>where 'film productions' means _any_ film produced by a US
>film production entity.
Sony?
Is a film the same as a movie?
Where are made for TV movies discussed.
In the TV group are Fox and PBS on topic?
--
Jim Riley
Jim Riley
<hk...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>>>In this particular area there may not be such a thing as a US-specific
>>>>niche. If you look at the existing rec.arts.* groups, 90% of the
>>>>material could be considered US-related. That isn't a niche, and it
>>>>isn't going to move to leave room for the 10% which would really be
>>>>better discussed in a non-international group anyhow.
>>>
>>>US-related != US-specific
>>>I'm not asking anyone to move. All I'm asking for is some
>>>space in us.* to create some US-specific groups for that
>>>10% which is better discussed in a non-international group
>>>anyhow.
>>
>>The 10% is what would not belong in us.*.
>
>All I care about is what, if anything, you think belongs
>in the us.* hierarchy.
Almost everything that is on-topic in the rec.arts.* and rec.music.*
groups would be on-topic in any us.* groups and vice versa.
--
Jim Riley
Pulver
Jim Riley wrote:
>
> On Wed, 16 Jul 2003 10:33:28 GMT, Henrietta K Thomas
> <hk...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> >For your newsgroups file:
> >us.arts.movies US film productions, past and present
> >
> >where 'film productions' means _any_ film produced by a US
> >film production entity.
>
> Sony?
Many production companies use Toronto and Vancouver
because they save money and also get rated as
"Canadian content" on TV
> Is a film the same as a movie?
The only difference is no one uses flim any more
edward ohare
>Henrietta K Thomas wrote:
>
>> Cite, please. I'm in no mood to go on fishing expeditions
>> in Google.
>
>Check gd1mksgeuti3615f0...@4ax.com .
>
>It's an interesting thread that includes some well known posters.
I'd forgotten about that one. That -is- a good thread.
Henrietta K Thomas
wrote, in us.config:
>On Tue, 15 Jul 2003 EskW...@spamblock.panix.com wrote:
>|In us.config, Henrietta K Thomas <hk...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>|>>>
>|>>> Examples, please.
>|
>|There's already lots of movie groups. I'll find tham and post them later.
>
>Most of them are found in the alt.* and rec.* hierarchies, but you are
>some 'movie' related groups are going to be found in hierarchies as
>obscure as maus.* and pdx.* and probably some others, as well.
Yes, so I notice from your other followups. :-)
>Still, duplication of newsgroups is not necessarily bad, although
>many of you seem to think so. The real question is whether there
>will be traffic involving the new newsgroup, and whether a search
>engine will deliver a 'hit' when the right arguments are keyed in.
I think you have a point here, and I've begun a search to
identify all US-specific newsgroups in alt.* and Big 8 which
we may want to avoid duplicating, if possible. All other
groups would be considered 'international' regardless of
their level of 'Americanization', and I would feel less guilty
about creating US counterparts.
See Message-ID: <ogk9hv4iqgsv1l6o2...@4ax.com>
Henrietta
Henrietta K Thomas
wrote, in us.config:
>On Wed, 16 Jul 2003 10:33:28 GMT, Henrietta K Thomas
><hk...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>>For your newsgroups file:
>>us.arts.movies US film productions, past and present
>>
>>where 'film productions' means _any_ film produced by a US
>>film production entity.
>
>Sony?
Only if Sony is a US company.
>Is a film the same as a movie?
Pretty much, yes, in this context -- when people say they're
going to have a film festival, they mean movies.
>Where are made for TV movies discussed.
rec.arts.tv, or whatever it is. The us.* tv groups were
removed for lack of traffic in 1998.
>In the TV group are Fox and PBS on topic?
I have no idea. I don't read the TV groups.
ht
dvus
Heh, yeah, it even drew in he-who-cannot-be-named.
dvus
Henrietta K Thomas
wrote, in us.config:
>On Wed, 16 Jul 2003 08:06:27 GMT, Henrietta K Thomas
OK, now I see where you're coming from. So, let's take a look
at the rec.arts.* hierarchy:
>rec.arts.animation Discussion of various kinds of animation.
>rec.arts.anime.creative Original works by fans, related to anime/manga. (Moderated)
>rec.arts.anime.fandom Important issues concerning Japanese animation fans.
>rec.arts.anime.games Video games, card games, and RPGs based on anime.
>rec.arts.anime.info Announcements about Japanese animation. (Moderated)
>rec.arts.anime.marketplace Things for sale in the Japanese animation world.
>rec.arts.anime.misc Japanese animation fan discussions.
>rec.arts.anime.models Models designed after Japanese animation characters.
>rec.arts.anime.music Music as it pertains to Japanese animation.
Japanese animation would be off-topic in us.*. Outside of Disney,
is there any US animation worth talking about on Usenet?
>rec.arts.ascii ASCII art, info on archives, art, & artists. (Moderated)
>rec.arts.bodyart Tattoos and body decoration discussions.
>rec.arts.bonsai Dwarfish trees and shrubbery.
Orphan groups. Probably not worth the effort.
>rec.arts.books Books of all genres, and the publishing industry.
>rec.arts.books.childrens All aspects of children's literature.
>rec.arts.books.hist-fiction Historical fictions (novels) in general.
>rec.arts.books.marketplace Buying and selling of books.
>rec.arts.books.reviews Book reviews. (Moderated)
>rec.arts.books.tolkien The works of J.R.R. Tolkien.
Nothing here is US-specific, so we are free (IMO) to do as
we please in us.*. I'm recommending us.arts.prose, as a
companion to us.arts.poetry, for the discussion of US
writers and their work, book reviews, and any original
compositions people would like to post.
>rec.arts.comics.creative Comics-related original creative writing. (Moderated)
>rec.arts.comics.dc.lsh The Legion of Super-Heroes and related characters.
>rec.arts.comics.dc.universe DC Comics' shared universe and characters.
>rec.arts.comics.dc.vertigo Comics from the Vertigo imprint.
>rec.arts.comics.elfquest The Elfquest universe and characters.
>rec.arts.comics.info Reviews, convention information and other comics news. (Moderated)
>rec.arts.comics.marketplace The exchange of comics and comic related items.
>rec.arts.comics.marvel.universe Marvel Comics' shared universe and characters.
>rec.arts.comics.marvel.xbooks The Mutant Universe of Marvel Comics.
>rec.arts.comics.misc Comic books, graphic novels, sequential art.
>rec.arts.comics.reviews Reviews of comics and comics-related materials. (Moderated)
>rec.arts.comics.strips Discussion of short-form comics.
With that many groups, I would leave 'comics' alone, except
that comic book artists could be covered in us.* if we ever get
so far as to create us.arts.visual.cartoons+comics.
>rec.arts.dance Any aspects of dance not covered in another newsgroup.
Orphan newsgroup. Dance could be covered in us.arts.theatre.
>rec.arts.disney.animation Animated features, cartoons, short subjects.
>rec.arts.disney.announce FAQs, lists, info, announcements. (Moderated)
>rec.arts.disney.merchandise Toys, videos, music, books, art, collectibles.
>rec.arts.disney.misc General topics pertinent to the Disney Company.
>rec.arts.disney.parks Parks, resorts, dining, attractions, vacations.
Ah, there is Disney! I wonder what the traffic is like......
>rec.arts.drwho Discussion about Dr. Who.
>rec.arts.drwho.info Information about Doctor Who. (Moderated)
>rec.arts.drwho.moderated Discussion of "Doctor Who". (Moderated)
I'd leave Dr. Who alone, too.
>rec.arts.erotica Erotic fiction and verse. (Moderated)
Orphan newsgroup. Take a pass.
>rec.arts.fine Fine arts & artists.
Another orphan newsgroup. I'd like to read the charter and
check traffic on this one. rec.arts.fine doesn't say much more
than us.arts.visual. But I _would_ like to have a group to discuss
US artists and a place for US artists a place to talk about painting,
sculpture, photography, illustrations, etc.
>rec.arts.henson+muppets The Muppets and other Jim Henson works.
Orphan newsgroup. Pass.
>rec.arts.horror.marketplace All horror-related commercial messages.
>rec.arts.horror.misc The horror genre in miscellaneous media.
>rec.arts.horror.movies The horror genre in movies.
>rec.arts.horror.tv The horror genre in television shows.
>rec.arts.horror.written The horror genre in written form.
>rec.arts.int-fiction Discussions about interactive fiction.
>rec.arts.manga All aspects of the Japanese storytelling art form.
Not US-specific.
Stephen King can be covered in us.arts.prose.
Lon Chaney can be covered in us.arts.movies
>rec.arts.marching.band.college College marching bands.
>rec.arts.marching.band.high-school High school marching bands.
>rec.arts.marching.colorguard Competitive color guard activity.
>rec.arts.marching.drumcorps Drum and bugle corps.
>rec.arts.marching.misc Marching-related performance activities.
>rec.arts.marching.percussion Marching percussion.
Looks like they have this thing wrapped up, too.
>rec.arts.misc Discussions about the arts not in other groups.
Orphan group. Pass.
>rec.arts.movies.announce Newsworthy events in the movie business. (Moderated)
>rec.arts.movies.current-films The latest movie releases.
>rec.arts.movies.erotica Aspects of erotic films and videos. (Moderated)
>rec.arts.movies.international Non-American art films.
>rec.arts.movies.lists+surveys Top-N lists and general surveys.
>rec.arts.movies.local.indian Indian movies and the Indian film industry.
>rec.arts.movies.misc General aspects of movies not covered by other groups.
>rec.arts.movies.movie-going Going-to-movies experiences.
>rec.arts.movies.past-films Past movies.
>rec.arts.movies.people People in the movie business.
>rec.arts.movies.production Filmmaking, amateur and professional.
>rec.arts.movies.production.sound Movie, TV & Video sound.
>rec.arts.movies.reviews Reviews of movies. (Moderated)
>rec.arts.movies.tech Technical aspects of movies.
All I'm asking for is one group, us.arts.movies, to cover
all aspects of filmmaking in the United States. Will check
out the traffic in these groups when I have time. (EW said
he was going to check out the 'movies' groups).
>rec.arts.mystery Mystery and crime books, plays and films.
us.arts.prose for US authors of mystery and crime books.
us.arts.movies for mystery and crime movies.
>rec.arts.origami Ancient Asian Paper Sculpture.
Orphan group. Not US-specific.
>rec.arts.poems For the posting of poems.
See us.arts.poetry.
>rec.arts.prose Short works of prose fiction and followup discussion.
Same thing can be done in us.arts.prose.
>rec.arts.puppetry For discussion of puppets in any form or venue.
Which came first? rec.arts.puppetry or rec.arts.henson+muppets?
Puppetry is universal; Henson is US-specific.
>rec.arts.sf.announce Major announcements of the SF world. (Moderated)
>rec.arts.sf.composition The writing and publishing of speculative fiction.
>rec.arts.sf.fandom Discussions of SF fan activities.
>rec.arts.sf.marketplace Personal forsale notices of SF materials.
>rec.arts.sf.misc Science fiction lovers' newsgroup.
>rec.arts.sf.movies Discussing SF motion pictures.
>rec.arts.sf.reviews Reviews of science fiction/fantasy/horror works. (Moderated)
>rec.arts.sf.science Real and speculative aspects of SF science.
>rec.arts.sf.starwars.collecting.customizing Customizing Star Wars toys.
>rec.arts.sf.starwars.collecting.misc Discussion of all Star Wars collecting.
>rec.arts.sf.starwars.collecting.vintage Star Wars items made before 1990.
>rec.arts.sf.starwars.games Star Wars games: RPG, computer, card, etc.
>rec.arts.sf.starwars.info General information pertaining to Star Wars. (Moderated)
>rec.arts.sf.starwars.misc Miscellaneous topics pertaining to Star Wars.
>rec.arts.sf.superman Discussion of Superman in any medium.
Science fiction / speculative fiction is universal.
Starwars and Superman are US-specific, and can be
covered in us.arts.movies without detriment to any
of the groups listed above.
>rec.arts.sf.tv Discussing general television SF.
>rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5 Babylon 5 creators meet Babylon 5 fans.
>rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.info Announcements about TV show _Babylon 5_. (Moderated)
>rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated Babylon 5 creators meet Babylon 5 fans. (Moderated)
>rec.arts.sf.tv.quantum-leap Quantum Leap TV, comics, cons, etc.
There is no way I can think of to make a us.arts.tv group
of any kind. We may be able to do us.media.tv one of these
days, but that would be a different kind of newsgroup.
>rec.arts.sf.written Discussion of written science fiction and fantasy.
>rec.arts.sf.written.robert-jordan Books by author Robert Jordan.
Not US-specific.
>rec.arts.startrek.current New Star Trek shows, movies and books.
>rec.arts.startrek.fandom Star Trek conventions and memorabilia.
>rec.arts.startrek.info Information about the universe of Star Trek. (Moderated)
>rec.arts.startrek.misc General discussions of Star Trek.
>rec.arts.startrek.reviews Reviews of Star Trek books, episodes, films, &c. (Moderated)
>rec.arts.startrek.tech Star Trek's depiction of future technologies.
StarTrek movies can be covered in us.arts.movies.
>rec.arts.theatre.misc Miscellaneous topics and issues in theatre.
>rec.arts.theatre.musicals Musical theatre around the world.
>rec.arts.theatre.plays Dramaturgy and discussion of plays.
>rec.arts.theatre.stagecraft Issues in stagecraft and production.
Not US-specific. I see no reason why we can't have
us.arts.theatre to cover all aspects of theatrical productions.
>rec.arts.tv The boob tube, its history, and past and current shows.
>rec.arts.tv.interactive Developments in interactive television.
>rec.arts.tv.mst3k.announce Mystery Science Theater 3000 announcements. (Moderated)
>rec.arts.tv.mst3k.misc For fans of Mystery Science Theater 3000.
>rec.arts.tv.soaps.abc Soap operas produced by or for the ABC network.
>rec.arts.tv.soaps.cbs Soap operas produced by or for the CBS network.
>rec.arts.tv.soaps.misc Postings of interest to all soap opera viewers.
>rec.arts.tv.uk.comedy Regarding UK-based comedy shows.
>rec.arts.tv.uk.coronation-st Regarding the UK based show Coronation Street.
>rec.arts.tv.uk.eastenders Regarding the UK based show Eastenders.
>rec.arts.tv.uk.emmerdale All about the British soap, Emmerdale.
>rec.arts.tv.uk.misc Miscellaneous topics about UK-based television.
See comment above regarding us.media.tv.
I'm surprised to see so many UK groups here.
>rec.arts.wobegon "A Prairie Home Companion" radio show discussion.
Another orphan newsgroup. Garrison Keillor can be covered
in us.arts.prose.
So where does that leave us?
dvus
> In us.config, Henrietta K Thomas <hk...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> Most of them are found in the alt.* and rec.* hierarchies, but you
>>> are some 'movie' related groups are going to be found in
>>> hierarchies as obscure as maus.* and pdx.* and probably some
>>> others, as well.
>
>> identify all US-specific newsgroups in alt.* and Big 8 which
>> we may want to avoid duplicating, if possible. All other
>> groups would be considered 'international' regardless of
>> their level of 'Americanization', and I would feel less guilty
>> about creating US counterparts.
>
> exceptions, of course), the existing movie groups tend to discuss US
> movies almost exclusively. The 'net is rich with existing movie
> groups. There are groups for all purposes and all tastes.
>
> Create duplicate groups if you like, but doing so will not be a
> benefit to usenet.
I'd tend to agree, especially if any proposed group would have a diluting effect
on existing groups. If US-centric movie discussion were overwhelming a group
that would remain healthy without it, then you might make a case, but I'd guess
US based movie discussion is what sustains existing movie groups.
dvus
dvus
> Japanese animation would be off-topic in us.*. Outside of Disney,
> is there any US animation worth talking about on Usenet?
Well, there's the work of world famous studios like Industrial Light and Magic
and some others, but that could be covered in rec.arts.movies.tech, I guess.
dvus
Pulver
agreed - usenet overloaded with movie groups.
Matthew Montchalin
|> I'd tend to agree, especially if any proposed group would have a
|> diluting effect on existing groups. If US-centric movie discussion
|> were overwhelming a group that would remain healthy without it,
|> then you might make a case, but I'd guess US based movie discussion
|> is what sustains existing movie groups.
|>
|> dvus
|
|agreed - usenet overloaded with movie groups.
There might be more reason for a newsgroup named us.arts.movie-industry
because it relates inherently to an industry found in the United States.
Henrietta K Thomas
in us.config:
>In us.config, Matthew Montchalin <mmon...@oregonvos.net> wrote:
>
>> There might be more reason for a newsgroup named us.arts.movie-industry
>> because it relates inherently to an industry found in the United States.
>
>You raise an interesting point. If there is a proven need for such a
>group, I'd support it.
The appropriate name, under our guidelines, would be
us.industry.motion-picture.
>However, I suspect that the dearth of posts on that topic to the many
>existing movie groups means that the topic is of little interest on
>usenet.
I think it's worth looking into.
Henrietta
Matthew Montchalin
|>> There might be more reason for a newsgroup named us.arts.movie-industry
|>> because it relates inherently to an industry found in the United States.
|>
|>You raise an interesting point. If there is a proven need for such a
|>group, I'd support it.
|
|The appropriate name, under our guidelines, would be
|us.industry.motion-picture.
That name sounds good, too.
|>However, I suspect that the dearth of posts on that topic to the
|>many existing movie groups means that the topic is of little
|>interest on usenet.
|
|I think it's worth looking into.
What other newsgroups might properly be parented under us.industry?
The SoldierGrrrl
>Date: 7/17/2003 11:49 AM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: <0fodhvsqiv6a1jfta...@4ax.com>
>>rec.arts.dance Any aspects of dance not covered in another
newsgroup.
>
>Orphan newsgroup. Dance could be covered in us.arts.theatre.
Heh. You've not tried to find much on hula, have you? <g>
Cry "CHEEBLE" and let slip the lemmings of war! -- D.B.
The SoldierGrrrl
Truck Goddess
Army: A body of men assembled to rectify the mistakes of the diplomats.
--Josephus Daniels--
My email is less "hooah" than I am.
Henrietta K Thomas
wrote, in us.config:
>On Fri, 18 Jul 2003, Henrietta K Thomas wrote:
Almost everything you can imagine.
us.industry.music
us.industry.oil
us.industry.tobacco
us.industry.hospitality <or hotel>
us,industry.travel
us.industry.tourism
us,industry.health-care
us,industry,food
us.industry.auto
and so on and so forth......
There are some -industry- groups in the misc.* hierarchy,
but they aren't well focused and none of them are US-specific.
So, I think the field is wide open for exploration.
That does not, however, help expand the us.arts.* namespace,
which is what we're concerned with right now, and I don't want
to eliminate us.arts.movies just yet. I want to take some time to
do more research before I make up my mind.
Henrietta
edward ohare
this for a couple of weeks, its time to scream "Stop!!!!!"
On Wed, 16 Jul 2003 10:33:28 GMT, Henrietta K Thomas
<hk...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>On Wed, 16 Jul 2003 08:06:27 GMT, Henrietta K Thomas
><hk...@earthlink.net> wrote, in us.config:
>
>>On Wed, 16 Jul 2003 01:23:26 -0500, Jim Riley
>><jim...@pipeline.com> wrote, in us.config:
>>
>>>On Wed, 16 Jul 2003 03:23:31 GMT, Henrietta K Thomas
>>><hk...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Tue, 15 Jul 2003 17:38:05 -0500, Jim Riley
>>>><jim...@pipeline.com> wrote, in us.config:
>
>[snip]
>
>>>>>Would My Fair Lady, Evita, and Sound of Music be on topic here?
>>>>
>>>>Yes. All were made or produced in the USA.
>>>
>>>They're not about US subjects.
Ding ding ding ding ding!!!!!!
Gee, the "standard" reason something doesn't belong in us.*. Let's
see what happens next.
>>But they _are_ US productions, and that's what makes
>>them on topic for either a 'movies' or 'theater' group.
OK, so we'll jump over that "this time". (How many times have I seen
these convolutied justifications of topicality?)
>Did a little web search and changed my mind on this, somewhat.
>My Fair Lady and The Sound of Music were both US productions
>from the gitgo, even though the subject matter was European.
>Evita was not. Written by two Brits, Andrew Lloyd Webber and
>Tim Rice, Evita was a long-running hit in London before it came
>to Broadway.
Uh, Oh, "Not Invented Here", gotta keep that gol durn furriner
influence outa dis here place.
>So the case is not as clear with this one as with
>the other two. However, I don't think very many people would
>quibble about it much. The US production of Evita was a smashing
>success!
They're not going to quibble ***at all***. If they know about it and
they're interested, they'll post. The only question is whether anyone
is interested.
>where 'stage productions' means _any_ stage production
>produced by a US theatre or dance company, be it drama,
>comedy, musical, dance, whatever.....
>
>The same can be done with a 'movies' group:
OK, so what about the subject? That's the "normal" criteria, but
which now has been abandoned because it doesn't fit the goal of the
current mission.
There's a play in London now that pokes fun at Tony Blair and
President Shrub. Since Blair is the follower in Shrub's "crusade"
(retch) against "evil" (...the things we hold as truths depend greatly
on our own perspective --- Obe Won Kenobe) that makes Shrub the actual
topic of the play, and Blair is part of the supporting cast.
***Clearly*** a US topic, yet excluded on your definition because its
a foreign production.
>For your newsgroups file:
>us.arts.movies US film productions, past and present
>
>where 'film productions' means _any_ film produced by a US
>film production entity.
And so what about the movie companies owned by Japanese companies?
Gee, what if its ***shown*** at a Sony theater?
Forget about the Dixie Chicks being "un-American" because they're
embarassed by Shrub being from Texas. Heck the real reason they're
un-American is that they're on a ***foreign owned record label***.
Its obvious. Just ask any swaggering redneck who has just driven his
Toyota pickup from Texas to Mexico so he can buy an imitation Rolex
made in Malaysia.
>Comments?
Yea. As I've said before, many times, quit jumping through hoops on
the topicality issue. Your original mandate for us.*, to cover topics
peculiar to the US, is a set up for failure. There is almost no such
thing as a topic peculiar to the us.*, and those that are mostly
belong in regionals/locals.
I don't know if issuing this unworkable mandage for us.* was
intentional or not. You were there. Tell me, in retrospect, and
considering the control for us.config was clearly sent so people would
leave news.groups alone, whether its intentional.
If you're going to accept that mandate, its time to realize you're in
a box. If you're not, then create groups about topics related to the
US ***that people will use***. Arguing about whether a play is on/off
topic because of whether its subject is a US subject or not, whether
its creators are from the US or not, whether it was first performed in
the US or not, or whether it was financed by US interests or not, is
completely irrelevant to whether people know about it and want to
discuss it.
Jim Riley
(edward ohare) wrote:
>Yea. As I've said before, many times, quit jumping through hoops on
>the topicality issue. Your original mandate for us.*, to cover topics
>peculiar to the US, is a set up for failure. There is almost no such
>thing as a topic peculiar to the us.*, and those that are mostly
>belong in regionals/locals.
Imagine a subject at a university becomes popular. Two ways of
dealing with this are (a) create more specialized classes; (b) create
more sections that cover the same topic.
The Usenet analogy to (b) only works if people will move to the new
sections. This sometimes works in smaller regionals, because people
from a particular area may identify with that area, even if the topic
is not specific to that area, because they get a discussion with fewer
people. It doesn't work for the us.* because you are just moving from
a lecture hall that seats 1000 to one that seats 700.
This is why creation of non-US-focussed groups for a US audience won't
work. If there is interest in the topic, the group already exists.
>I don't know if issuing this unworkable mandage for us.* was
>intentional or not. You were there. Tell me, in retrospect, and
>considering the control for us.config was clearly sent so people would
>leave news.groups alone, whether its intentional.
The official proposal for a us.* hierarchy was defeated in 1994
(406:1960). See:
ftp://ftp.isc.org/pub/usenet/news.announce.newgroups/other.articles/usa
My understanding is that much of the opposition was from those who
believed that their group would be expelled from the Big 8 because it
was too US-centric. If you look through the votes, support from
explicitly non-US addresses was much higher than from *.com and *.net
addresses.
>If you're going to accept that mandate, its time to realize you're in
>a box. If you're not, then create groups about topics related to the
>US ***that people will use***.
If they are interested in discussing a topic that can't really be
given a US focus, the group already exists.
--
Jim Riley
Pulver
The globalization, both political and commercial, plus
the impact of WWW, (No not WWF, you fool) has spread US
interests into every nook and cranny in the world.
Every day in every capital in the world, be it Beijing,
Auckland, Singapore, Santiago, Ottawa, London or
Moscow, in almost every discussion someone asks "How
will it fly in America?"
Swedish cars are produced by American owned companies,
Japanese cars are made in USA, GAP clothing is made in
Maylasia; us software is being produced in Bombay; and
Israel produces classified security software and other
hi-tech components for the US military. anon anon anon...........
You would have to dig out L Frank Baum (died 1919) and
his wonderful wizard to find something that is not
touched in some way by us hands/influece.
So of course all of the lines are blurred and will
never again be sharp focused.
edward ohare
wrote:
>On Sun, 20 Jul 2003 18:59:50 GMT, edward...@NOSPAMyahoo.com.INVALID
>(edward ohare) wrote:
>
>>Yea. As I've said before, many times, quit jumping through hoops on
>>the topicality issue. Your original mandate for us.*, to cover topics
>>peculiar to the US, is a set up for failure. There is almost no such
>>thing as a topic peculiar to the us.*, and those that are mostly
>>belong in regionals/locals.
>
>Imagine a subject at a university becomes popular. Two ways of
>dealing with this are (a) create more specialized classes; (b) create
>more sections that cover the same topic.
>
>The Usenet analogy to (b) only works if people will move to the new
>sections. This sometimes works in smaller regionals, because people
>from a particular area may identify with that area, even if the topic
>is not specific to that area, because they get a discussion with fewer
>people. It doesn't work for the us.* because you are just moving from
>a lecture hall that seats 1000 to one that seats 700.
>
>This is why creation of non-US-focussed groups for a US audience won't
>work. If there is interest in the topic, the group already exists.
I disagree it won't work.
Post counts for a little less than a week
rec.autos.makers.honda 454
alt.autos.honda 340
alt.honda 32
free.autos.honda 11
us.military.navy has attracted a bit of an audience, despite having
almost no promotion from the proponent, who is hardly even posting.
Yet my objection to the group was that sci.military.naval already
existed and the posters there didn't want to move.
They haven't. The people umn attracted was people who weren't posting
about such matters before. I'd guess this is because
sci.military.naval isn't conducive to the type of chit chat going on
in umn.
The long time posters in uma hung out in alt.folklore.military before
uma existed. Based on growth, new posters would appear to prefer uma
over afm or sci.military.moderated, and some from alt.military.retired
have moved to uma.
There being another group for a similar topic doesn't mean a us.*
group will fail. It seems to me, based on the examples above, that if
there's a similar group, a us.* group has a better chance of
suceeding.
Its also proven that posters do not use local/regional/national groups
according to Charter restrictions. We covered this before, and I hate
to bring it up again. When I previously mentioned it as an example, I
was not aware of your involvement. What I'm talking about is
austin.general, in which groupers clearly have a proclivity to discuss
national and international issues. So I'm sorry to bring it up again,
but at least this time I'm aware I might be stepping on some toes with
this example.
>>I don't know if issuing this unworkable mandage for us.* was
>>intentional or not. You were there. Tell me, in retrospect, and
>>considering the control for us.config was clearly sent so people would
>>leave news.groups alone, whether its intentional.
>
>The official proposal for a us.* hierarchy was defeated in 1994
>(406:1960). See:
>
>ftp://ftp.isc.org/pub/usenet/news.announce.newgroups/other.articles/usa
>
>My understanding is that much of the opposition was from those who
>believed that their group would be expelled from the Big 8 because it
>was too US-centric. If you look through the votes, support from
>explicitly non-US addresses was much higher than from *.com and *.net
>addresses.
And so we have the hierarchy despite that overwhelming no vote. And
there was -more- support from non-US addresses? Amazing. The very
people the hierarhcy alleges to serve didn't want it.
>>If you're going to accept that mandate, its time to realize you're in
>>a box. If you're not, then create groups about topics related to the
>>US ***that people will use***.
>
>If they are interested in discussing a topic that can't really be
>given a US focus, the group already exists.
HT can write Charters with a US focus all she wants. It will not make
people post with a US focus. It won't even encourage them.
Topics peculiar to the US cannot be found, at least not in high enough
numbers to make it worthwhile. That is why I believe the mandate was
to make people go away in pursuit of an impossible mission. Its the
Holy Grail of creating a viable us.* hierarchy. Its pretty clear to
me news.groups had had enough of people whining about a us.*
hierarchy, probably based on the idea "Oh, that country has its own
hierarchy, so we should too", such people ignored the fact that Big 8
and alt.* are defacto US hierarchies. The Monroe Doctrine of Usenet:
Americans will go everywhere, but everyone else stay out of America..
us.* might have been successful by handling the same topics in a
different way, such as having all groups moderated, or being
aggressive with the stated rules by issuing cancels or NoCeMs. Well,
its a bit late for that now. Any attempt at rule enforcement at this
point will be likely greated by an avalanche of protests from
groupers, who at this point are the owners of the groups they post to.
The choice at this point is to create groups similar to what already
exists without playing the "its different" game and hope for people
who want to deal with similar subjects but with a different group
culture, as you previously pointed out exists between two celebrity
(royalty?) groups. I just don't go for this game of pretending the
topic is different. Most of the time, its just a game played in an
attempt to justify that the proposed us.* group doesn't deal with the
same topic as an existing group. All it accomplishes, in the rare
event such a group ever gets any traffic, is HT running around
complaining that people aren't posting according to the Charter.
edward ohare
>The globalization, both political and commercial, plus
>the impact of WWW, (No not WWF, you fool) has spread US
>interests into every nook and cranny in the world.
>Every day in every capital in the world, be it Beijing,
>Auckland, Singapore, Santiago, Ottawa, London or
>Moscow, in almost every discussion someone asks "How
>will it fly in America?"
>
>Swedish cars are produced by American owned companies,
>Japanese cars are made in USA, GAP clothing is made in
>Maylasia; us software is being produced in Bombay; and
>Israel produces classified security software and other
>hi-tech components for the US military. anon anon anon...........
>
>You would have to dig out L Frank Baum (died 1919) and
>his wonderful wizard to find something that is not
>touched in some way by us hands/influece.
>
>So of course all of the lines are blurred and will
>never again be sharp focused.
Ah, but go forth and create groups about topics peculiar to the US.
Yea, sure. Talk about having a hand dealt from the bottom of the
deck.
Pulver
Ed: Are you sure you are not thinking of "peculiar" groups????
edward ohare
>Ed: Are you sure you are not thinking of "peculiar" groups????
<g>
I see nothing peculiar about the groups in us.* that have traffic.
I have to say, though, that I'm surprised umn has gotten some
discussion. I'm receptive to new evidence that my previous positions
need some adjustment. I think umn has a chance, even though the
proponent isn't doing much. Some of my changes in thinking since the
time I oppossed umn resulted in my first post in this thread.
Then I looked around a bit, and there was all kinds of evidence a
different group culture, even though the subject is similar, might
result in a successful group. I thought at one time there was yet a
fifth Honda autos group, with traffic close to alt.autos.honda, but I
didn't see it. Might be wrong.
edward ohare
wrote:
>ftp://ftp.isc.org/pub/usenet/news.announce.newgroups/other.articles/usa
Thanks for the link.
Interesting none of the people on the original us.* committee are
around here. I guess they understood all parts of "no".
Pulver
edward ohare wrote:
>
> On Sun, 20 Jul 2003 18:34:10 -0400, Pulver <red...@gta.igs.net> wrote:
>
> >Ed: Are you sure you are not thinking of "peculiar" groups????
>
> <g>
>
> I see nothing peculiar about the groups in us.* that have traffic.
OK so my humor fell a little flat
> I have to say, though, that I'm surprised umn has gotten some
> discussion. I'm receptive to new evidence that my previous positions
> need some adjustment. I think umn has a chance, even though the
> proponent isn't doing much. Some of my changes in thinking since the
> time I oppossed umn resulted in my first post in this thread.
>
> Then I looked around a bit, and there was all kinds of evidence a
> different group culture, even though the subject is similar, might
> result in a successful group. I thought at one time there was yet a
> fifth Honda autos group, with traffic close to alt.autos.honda, but I
> didn't see it. Might be wrong.
Only 3 on CIS.DFN.DE
edward ohare
>
>
>edward ohare wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, 20 Jul 2003 18:34:10 -0400, Pulver <red...@gta.igs.net> wrote:
>>
>> >Ed: Are you sure you are not thinking of "peculiar" groups????
>>
>> <g>
>>
>> I see nothing peculiar about the groups in us.* that have traffic.
>
>OK so my humor fell a little flat
Not at all. See the <g> above. <GGG>
I just deadpanned the answer.
>> I have to say, though, that I'm surprised umn has gotten some
>> discussion. I'm receptive to new evidence that my previous positions
>> need some adjustment. I think umn has a chance, even though the
>> proponent isn't doing much. Some of my changes in thinking since the
>> time I oppossed umn resulted in my first post in this thread.
>>
>> Then I looked around a bit, and there was all kinds of evidence a
>> different group culture, even though the subject is similar, might
>> result in a successful group. I thought at one time there was yet a
>> fifth Honda autos group, with traffic close to alt.autos.honda, but I
>> didn't see it. Might be wrong.
>
>
>Only 3 on CIS.DFN.DE
I was sure there was another. Let me look around.
edward ohare
>
>
>edward ohare wrote:
>> Then I looked around a bit, and there was all kinds of evidence a
>> different group culture, even though the subject is similar, might
>> result in a successful group. I thought at one time there was yet a
>> fifth Honda autos group, with traffic close to alt.autos.honda, but I
>> didn't see it. Might be wrong.
>
>
>Only 3 on CIS.DFN.DE
I checked another server. I'll stick with the one's I mentioned.
Obviously alt.honda is a failure, and we can't expect all that much
from free.* since many servers don't want the hierarchy. Still,
alt.autos.honda attracted some people who wanted something different
than what rec.autos.makers.honda had to offer.
Pulver
The third group is alt.autos.honda.type-r
Matthew Montchalin
|>What other newsgroups might properly be parented under us.industry?
|
|Almost everything you can imagine.
Ahem, my imagination may not be the standard that you want to go with.
|us.industry.music
|us.industry.oil
|us.industry.tobacco
|us.industry.hospitality <or hotel>
|us,industry.travel
|us.industry.tourism
|us,industry.health-care
|us,industry,food
|us.industry.auto
|
|and so on and so forth......
Somehow, I don't think those would all be newgrouped at once, but
the following two might make a good initial pair:
us.industry.movies
us.industry.music
|There are some -industry- groups in the misc.* hierarchy,
|but they aren't well focused and none of them are US-specific.
They become US-specific when they are newgrouped.
Jim Riley
(edward ohare) wrote:
>On Sun, 20 Jul 2003 15:34:21 -0500, Jim Riley <jim...@pipeline.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 20 Jul 2003 18:59:50 GMT, edward...@NOSPAMyahoo.com.INVALID
>>(edward ohare) wrote:
>>
>>>Yea. As I've said before, many times, quit jumping through hoops on
>>>the topicality issue. Your original mandate for us.*, to cover topics
>>>peculiar to the US, is a set up for failure. There is almost no such
>>>thing as a topic peculiar to the us.*, and those that are mostly
>>>belong in regionals/locals.
>>
>>Imagine a subject at a university becomes popular. Two ways of
>>dealing with this are (a) create more specialized classes; (b) create
>>more sections that cover the same topic.
>>
>>The Usenet analogy to (b) only works if people will move to the new
>>sections. This sometimes works in smaller regionals, because people
>>from a particular area may identify with that area, even if the topic
>>is not specific to that area, because they get a discussion with fewer
>>people. It doesn't work for the us.* because you are just moving from
>>a lecture hall that seats 1000 to one that seats 700.
>>
>>This is why creation of non-US-focussed groups for a US audience won't
>>work. If there is interest in the topic, the group already exists.
>
>I disagree it won't work.
>rec.autos.makers.honda 454
>alt.autos.honda 340
About 40% of the alt.autos.honda was in advocacy/troll posts. They
could have replaced alt.autos.honda with alt.autos.trabant and the
discussion would have been as useful. About 30% was cross-posted to
rec.autos.makers.honda. It appears that most of the discussion was
sustained in the ramh group. Looking at rec.autos.makers.honda, you
might see the initial post in a thread cross-posted, and all the
followup occur only in the rec.* group. Or if there were two
subthreads, one might have dropped the alt.* group and both subthreads
would look the same. The remaining threads in alt.autos.hondas were
typically shorter, indicating fewer participants. If there weren't
the cross-posts to rec.autos.makers.honda to make the group appear
busy, there would likely be very few posts at all.
>alt.honda 32
Only use of alt.honda is to pad newsgroup counts.
Note that these groups appear entirely oriented to the US (or NA)
market. 'us.autos.honda' already exists and its name is
rec.autos.makers.honda.
>us.military.navy has attracted a bit of an audience, despite having
>almost no promotion from the proponent, who is hardly even posting.
>Yet my objection to the group was that sci.military.naval already
>existed and the posters there didn't want to move.
These have a different topic and focus (though sci.military.naval was
kind of stuck where it is to take advantage of the namespace provided
by sci.military).
I don't think that either of these cases (Honda and USN) contradict
what I said:
This is why creation of non-US-focussed groups for a US audience
won't work. If there is interest in the topic, the group already
exists.
>And so we have the hierarchy despite that overwhelming no vote. And
>there was -more- support from non-US addresses? Amazing. The very
>people the hierarhcy alleges to serve didn't want it.
They believed that the proposal would dis-serve them. They were
satisfied with the existing groups, and did not see them as being
US-centric, or if they did, didn't care.
>>If they are interested in discussing a topic that can't really be
>>given a US focus, the group already exists.
>Topics peculiar to the US cannot be found, at least not in high enough
>numbers to make it worthwhile.
Worthwhile for whom?
>That is why I believe the mandate was to make people go away in pursuit
>of an impossible mission.
Who were the mandaters and who were the mandatees?
>The choice at this point is to create groups similar to what already
>exists without playing the "its different" game and hope for people
>who want to deal with similar subjects but with a different group
>culture, as you previously pointed out exists between two celebrity
>(royalty?) groups. I just don't go for this game of pretending the
>topic is different.
If 90% of the participants in a Big 8 group or an alt.* group are
American, it isn't likely that a different culture will exist in a
us.* group.
--
Jim Riley
Jim Riley
(edward ohare) wrote:
>Interesting none of the people on the original us.* committee are
>around here. I guess they understood all parts of "no".
At *least* 4 of them were longtime Usenet leaders, who have kind of
faded away from the Big 8 as well. I would attach no significance to
their understanding or not understanding the meaning of the vote.
--
Jim Riley
Henrietta K Thomas
wrote, in us.config:
>On Sun, 20 Jul 2003 23:27:35 GMT, edward...@NOSPAMyahoo.com.INVALID
Neither would I. The vote, as I understand it, was a vote
AGAINST what was perceived to be a cabal, and a vote
based on FEARS that us.* would be used to break up
existing groups. I'm sure there were other motivations
as well, but these two appear to have been the most
important ones.
us.* is still here because some providers continued to
carry the groups, and some people continued to post.
That's why I decided to try and bring it back to life. It
will never be as big as alt.* or Big 8, or even as big as
uk.*, but it -can- be a meaningful hierarchy for those
who wish to participate. The us.* hierarchy is no threat
to anyone, and should be allowed to exist as long as
admins choose to carry the groups and their users
choose to post.
Henrietta
edward ohare
wrote:
>On Sun, 20 Jul 2003 21:59:15 GMT, edward...@NOSPAMyahoo.com.INVALID
>(edward ohare) wrote:
>
>About 40% of the alt.autos.honda was in advocacy/troll posts.
I downloaded 200 headers and see no troll activity.
>They
>could have replaced alt.autos.honda with alt.autos.trabant and the
>discussion would have been as useful. About 30% was cross-posted to
>rec.autos.makers.honda.
I checked 13 thread starters that got followups. Eleven were not
crossposted.
>It appears that most of the discussion was
>sustained in the ramh group. Looking at rec.autos.makers.honda, you
>might see the initial post in a thread cross-posted, and all the
>followup occur only in the rec.* group.
I "might" but I didn't. Sustained discussion is occuring in
alt.autos.honda without crossposts.
>Or if there were two
>subthreads, one might have dropped the alt.* group and both subthreads
>would look the same. The remaining threads in alt.autos.hondas were
>typically shorter, indicating fewer participants. If there weren't
>the cross-posts to rec.autos.makers.honda to make the group appear
>busy, there would likely be very few posts at all.
Your numbers are that 30% is crossposted, which means 70% isn't. The
group would still appear active at 70%.
>>us.military.navy has attracted a bit of an audience, despite having
>>almost no promotion from the proponent, who is hardly even posting.
>>Yet my objection to the group was that sci.military.naval already
>>existed and the posters there didn't want to move.
>
>These have a different topic and focus (though sci.military.naval was
>kind of stuck where it is to take advantage of the namespace provided
>by sci.military).
The focus is umn is -not- what was intended by the Charter. (I'm not
concerned.) The groupers, not the Charter, made umn different from
smn.
>I don't think that either of these cases (Honda and USN) contradict
>what I said:
>
> This is why creation of non-US-focussed groups for a US audience
> won't work. If there is interest in the topic, the group already
> exists.
Then alt.autos.honda and us.military.navy should have failed.
>>Topics peculiar to the US cannot be found, at least not in high enough
>>numbers to make it worthwhile.
>
>Worthwhile for whom?
So far, the wannabe politicians, the legal folks, and the US Army
guys, none of whom are using the groups to the satisfaction of HT.
>>That is why I believe the mandate was to make people go away in pursuit
>>of an impossible mission.
>
>Who were the mandaters and who were the mandatees?
I'll look it up. My comments were from memory. I believe HT knows
what post I'm referring to, though.
>
>>The choice at this point is to create groups similar to what already
>>exists without playing the "its different" game and hope for people
>>who want to deal with similar subjects but with a different group
>>culture, as you previously pointed out exists between two celebrity
>>(royalty?) groups. I just don't go for this game of pretending the
>>topic is different.
>
>If 90% of the participants in a Big 8 group or an alt.* group are
>American, it isn't likely that a different culture will exist in a
>us.* group.
Then why is there a different culture in umn?
edward ohare
wrote:
>Who were the mandaters and who were the mandatees?
Please look over the isc.org link you posted again. After a
devastating defeat in the vote, a few years later, a control was sent
for us.config, ***clearly*** (for those who read between the lines
"just a little") to get the us.* supporters ***out of news.groups***.
There are several mentions in Google concerning "peculiar to the US"
including this one.
<31rggd$g...@amhux3.amherst.edu>
Now, its also clear that HT adopted this "peculiar to the US" standard
and furthermore used to state much more forcefully that us.* would not
create groups that were duplicates of Big 8 and alt.* groups. The
evidence of adoption has returned, after a time in remission, in the
us.arts.* thread. with all the justifications of why such and such
play qualifies as on topic and why another doesn't. None of this
would be necessary without the "peculiar..." standard.
You also support it with your statements about a US focus to groups.
I maintain that there was no reason to create us.* but that since it
exists and has had some success, there's no reason not to continue.
However, as I stated before, continuing under the restriction of
"peculiar...." if actually followed, means a very limited number of
potential groups, and pretending to follow it while engaging in "house
of cards" rationalizations and justification as in the us.arts.*
discussion makes people who support creation of groups on this basis
look hypocritical.
It pretty apparant to me that someone or several someones wore out
people in news.groups, refusing to accept the rout of us.* in the vote
until a control for us.config was sent. Kind of reminds me of the
prospect of having to endure us.talk.weather proposals every six
months. I suppose eventually the opponents will be worn out.
Jim Riley
(edward ohare) wrote:
>On Mon, 21 Jul 2003 02:56:16 -0500, Jim Riley <jim...@pipeline.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 20 Jul 2003 21:59:15 GMT, edward...@NOSPAMyahoo.com.INVALID
>>(edward ohare) wrote:
>>
>>About 40% of the alt.autos.honda was in advocacy/troll posts.
>
>I downloaded 200 headers and see no troll activity.
>>They
>>could have replaced alt.autos.honda with alt.autos.trabant and the
>>discussion would have been as useful. About 30% was cross-posted to
>>rec.autos.makers.honda.
>
>I checked 13 thread starters that got followups. Eleven were not
>crossposted.
>
>>It appears that most of the discussion was
>>sustained in the ramh group. Looking at rec.autos.makers.honda, you
>>might see the initial post in a thread cross-posted, and all the
>>followup occur only in the rec.* group.
>
>I "might" but I didn't. Sustained discussion is occuring in
>alt.autos.honda without crossposts.
Maybe they have died out, or maybe your news server drops articles
cross-posted to 7 or 8 groups. There was the SUV thread, for one.
I suspect that because the alt.autos.* hierarchy as a more complete
set of brands that someone wanting to do a crude troll will focus on
those.
I downloaded 17 articles in aa.honda and 33 articles in ram.honda.
There were 6 that were x-posted between the two. aa.honda had one
forsale post, leaving it with 10 overall. ram.honda did have 2 posts
that were about a UK vehicle (which was cross-posted to a general uk.
auto group, and which the author took care to note as being
different), and one article that was cross-posted to a bunch of
motorcycle groups wanting to know how to get sale a Goldwing. This
leaves:
alt only 10
rec only 24
both 6
If you consider the cross-posts as belonging to the rec.* group, then
the market share is 75% to 25%.
Any sustained discussion in the alt.* group is occuring because it is
first alphabetically.
>>Or if there were two
>>subthreads, one might have dropped the alt.* group and both subthreads
>>would look the same. The remaining threads in alt.autos.hondas were
>>typically shorter, indicating fewer participants. If there weren't
>>the cross-posts to rec.autos.makers.honda to make the group appear
>>busy, there would likely be very few posts at all.
>
>Your numbers are that 30% is crossposted, which means 70% isn't. The
>group would still appear active at 70%.
30% was cross-posted between the Honda groups. The cross-posted
troll/advocacy posts were consuming another 40% of the posts (Someone
in a Ford group dissing Nissan cross-posted to a Honda group doesn't
count as value added for the Honda group).
>>>us.military.navy has attracted a bit of an audience, despite having
>>>almost no promotion from the proponent, who is hardly even posting.
>>>Yet my objection to the group was that sci.military.naval already
>>>existed and the posters there didn't want to move.
>>
>>These have a different topic and focus (though sci.military.naval was
>>kind of stuck where it is to take advantage of the namespace provided
>>by sci.military).
>
>The focus is umn is -not- what was intended by the Charter. (I'm not
>concerned.) The groupers, not the Charter, made umn different from
>smn.
Really? I think it is precisely what I expected. Mind you, I zap the
US is satan threads.
>>I don't think that either of these cases (Honda and USN) contradict
>>what I said:
>>
>> This is why creation of non-US-focussed groups for a US audience
>> won't work. If there is interest in the topic, the group already
>> exists.
>
>Then alt.autos.honda and us.military.navy should have failed.
alt.autos.honda is not really a success. The limited postings that it
has had is because it is in a hierarchy with a more complete set of
makers, and because it is first alphabetically. It is like the gas
station along the interstate.
us.military.navy does have a US-focus. It is therefore not a
non-US-focused group.
There are three types of groups that might be carried by a regional.
(1) Topics that are about the region of interest (US-focus)
(2) Topics that are discussed by persons in the area of interest
(US-audience).
(3) Topics that are discussed by persons, because the group has a
unique culture (us.*-culture).
Groups of type (2) are not likely to succeed in the us.* hierarchy
because if there is interest in the topic, they already exist in the
rec.* or alt.* hierarchies.
>>>Topics peculiar to the US cannot be found, at least not in high enough
>>>numbers to make it worthwhile.
>>
>>Worthwhile for whom?
>
>So far, the wannabe politicians, the legal folks, and the US Army
>guys, none of whom are using the groups to the satisfaction of HT.
Huh? Try again.
>>>That is why I believe the mandate was to make people go away in pursuit
>>>of an impossible mission.
>>
>>Who were the mandaters and who were the mandatees?
>
>I'll look it up. My comments were from memory. I believe HT knows
>what post I'm referring to, though.
Are you talking about 1994 or later?
>>>The choice at this point is to create groups similar to what already
>>>exists without playing the "its different" game and hope for people
>>>who want to deal with similar subjects but with a different group
>>>culture, as you previously pointed out exists between two celebrity
>>>(royalty?) groups. I just don't go for this game of pretending the
>>>topic is different.
>>
>>If 90% of the participants in a Big 8 group or an alt.* group are
>>American, it isn't likely that a different culture will exist in a
>>us.* group.
>
>Then why is there a different culture in umn?
It has a different topic than sci.military.naval.
--
Jim Riley
Jim Riley
(edward ohare) wrote:
>On Mon, 21 Jul 2003 02:56:16 -0500, Jim Riley <jim...@pipeline.com>
>wrote:
>
>>Who were the mandaters and who were the mandatees?
>
>Please look over the isc.org link you posted again. After a
>devastating defeat in the vote, a few years later, a control was sent
>for us.config, ***clearly*** (for those who read between the lines
>"just a little") to get the us.* supporters ***out of news.groups***.
us.config was created a month or so after the devastating defeat, and
done by some of those who were part of the proponents of that vote.
A likely cause of the us.* early failure may be due to questions of
its legitimacy given the result.
>There are several mentions in Google concerning "peculiar to the US"
>including this one.
s/peculiar/specific/
><31rggd$g...@amhux3.amherst.edu>
How so? Pierce says that he didn't see any reason that the existing
rec.* Startrek group wouldn't work for Deep Space 9. The follow-up
explained why the uk.* had created its own group (episodes were
broadcast several months later than in the US). The rec.* group
satisfied the larger (US) audience. Others had to fend for
themselves. Pierce is not arguing for a US-group because US episodes
were broadcast earlier - but in essence that they were shown in
"normal" time.
>However, as I stated before, continuing under the restriction of
>"peculiar...." if actually followed, means a very limited number of
>potential groups, and pretending to follow it while engaging in "house
>of cards" rationalizations and justification as in the us.arts.*
>discussion makes people who support creation of groups on this basis
>look hypocritical.
Who was engaging in house of cards rationalizations? I killfile quite
a few people in us.config.
>It pretty apparant to me that someone or several someones wore out
>people in news.groups, refusing to accept the rout of us.* in the vote
>until a control for us.config was sent.
An advocate of the proposal for the us.* hierarchy initiated the us.*
hierarchy after the defeat. People were complaining in news.group
about this rogue group us.config and how the us.* supporters were
ignoring the result. You have David Wright making an announcement for
Tale that UUNET would carry us.config and might consider other us.*
groups.
--
Jim Riley
Pulver
Jim Riley wrote:
>
>
> There are three types of groups that might be carried by a regional.
> (1) Topics that are about the region of interest (US-focus)
> (2) Topics that are discussed by persons in the area of interest
> (US-audience).
> (3) Topics that are discussed by persons, because the group has a
> unique culture (us.*-culture).
>
> Groups of type (2) are not likely to succeed in the us.* hierarchy
> because if there is interest in the topic, they already exist in the
> rec.* or alt.* hierarchies.
>
So far I have seen nothing to support that statement
outside of your imagination.
>>>Instead of being obstructive and flooding my mailbox,
>>>one might think that you could have spent that energy
>>>contributing a few posts to boost the traffic in our
>>>newest group. [LP to J Riley]
> Cross-posting to a bunch of traffics doesn't build traffic.
> At worst it will attract cornflakes like Melissa or Gary Lantz.
An example of your hallucinogenic logic. Neither
Melissa nor Gary can be persuaded to deviate from their
posting patterns. Of course it would look better if
your first sentence made sense but even translated it
assumes something Not_in_Evidence.
Show us your evidence ........ if you can.
Henrietta K Thomas
>On Mon, 21 Jul 2003 02:56:16 -0500, Jim Riley <jim...@pipeline.com>
>wrote:
>
>>Who were the mandaters and who were the mandatees?
>
>Please look over the isc.org link you posted again. After a
>devastating defeat in the vote, a few years later,
Not 'a few years later' -- it was August 11, 1994, two days
after the disastrous vote was posted to news.groups.
>a control was sent
>for us.config, ***clearly*** (for those who read between the lines
>"just a little") to get the us.* supporters ***out of news.groups***.
and in contact with those already on the mailing list.
Why do you have a problem with this? us.* was created in
1992, and still existed on August 11, 1994, the day the control
was sent. A fair number of people were interested in going
ahead, anyway, despite the disastrous vote. The purpose of
the control was to draw those people out of news.groups
and into us.config, to which the mailing list would be gatewayed.
The author of the control was a highly respected administrator
who was an early supporter of us.* and wasn't yet prepared to
give up.
[snip]
>I maintain that there was no reason to create us.* but that since it
>exists and has had some success, there's no reason not to continue.
If that's the way you feel, you might consider leaving us.config
Half-hearted support is worse, IMO, than no support at all.
ht
edward ohare
<hk...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>On Mon, 21 Jul 2003 17:53:11 GMT, edward...@NOSPAMyahoo.com.INVALID
>(edward ohare) wrote, in us.config:
>>I maintain that there was no reason to create us.* but that since it
>>exists and has had some success, there's no reason not to continue.
>
>If that's the way you feel, you might consider leaving us.config
>Half-hearted support is worse, IMO, than no support at all.
You're a little late with your invitation. I first posted that
thought at least two years ago. I'd hardly call what I've done in the
last two years "half-hearted support".
edward ohare
wrote:
>In us.config, Henrietta K Thomas <hk...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>> If that's the way you feel, you might consider leaving us.config
>> Half-hearted support is worse, IMO, than no support at all.
>
>You need supervision. He needs to stay right here.
LOL.
Just hanging around in my traditional role as the Loyal Opposition.
It may seem to some that, since I've been more opposed recently, its
less loyal. Not true.
edward ohare
wrote:
>us.config was created a month or so after the devastating defeat, and
>done by some of those who were part of the proponents of that vote.
>A likely cause of the us.* early failure may be due to questions of
>its legitimacy given the result.
Yea, considering the loss was by 1654 votes and the proponents needed
about 5 times the number of "yes" votes than they got to counteract
the "no" votes.
>How so? Pierce says that he didn't see any reason that the existing
>rec.* Startrek group wouldn't work for Deep Space 9. The follow-up
>explained why the uk.* had created its own group (episodes were
>broadcast several months later than in the US). The rec.* group
>satisfied the larger (US) audience. Others had to fend for
>themselves. Pierce is not arguing for a US-group because US episodes
>were broadcast earlier - but in essence that they were shown in
>"normal" time.
Relativity?
>Who was engaging in house of cards rationalizations? I killfile quite
>a few people in us.config.
That was a characterization meant to apply to HT's basic argument that
subject determines topicality for us.*, but a non-US subject on a US
produced play meant it was on topic for us.* but if the authors were
foreign then maybe it wasn't, etc, etc, etc.
>>It pretty apparant to me that someone or several someones wore out
>>people in news.groups, refusing to accept the rout of us.* in the vote
>>until a control for us.config was sent.
>
>An advocate of the proposal for the us.* hierarchy initiated the us.*
>hierarchy after the defeat. People were complaining in news.group
>about this rogue group us.config and how the us.* supporters were
>ignoring the result. You have David Wright making an announcement for
>Tale that UUNET would carry us.config and might consider other us.*
>groups.
How disgustingly American. I suppose they needed us.* to store
captured WMD's.
Henrietta K Thomas
>On Tue, 22 Jul 2003 01:31:11 GMT, Henrietta K Thomas
><hk...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 21 Jul 2003 17:53:11 GMT, edward...@NOSPAMyahoo.com.INVALID
>>(edward ohare) wrote, in us.config:
>
>
>>>I maintain that there was no reason to create us.* but that since it
>>>exists and has had some success, there's no reason not to continue.
>>
>>If that's the way you feel, you might consider leaving us.config
>>Half-hearted support is worse, IMO, than no support at all.
>
>
>You're a little late with your invitation. I first posted that
>thought at least two years ago. I'd hardly call what I've done in the
>last two years "half-hearted support".
That was a rude remark. I take it back.
edward ohare
<hk...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>On Tue, 22 Jul 2003 02:59:48 GMT, edward...@NOSPAMyahoo.com.INVALID
>(edward ohare) wrote, in us.config:
>
>>On Tue, 22 Jul 2003 01:31:11 GMT, Henrietta K Thomas
>><hk...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 21 Jul 2003 17:53:11 GMT, edward...@NOSPAMyahoo.com.INVALID
>>>(edward ohare) wrote, in us.config:
>>
>>
>>>>I maintain that there was no reason to create us.* but that since it
>>>>exists and has had some success, there's no reason not to continue.
>>>
>>>If that's the way you feel, you might consider leaving us.config
>>>Half-hearted support is worse, IMO, than no support at all.
>>
>>
>>You're a little late with your invitation. I first posted that
>>thought at least two years ago. I'd hardly call what I've done in the
>>last two years "half-hearted support".
>
>That was a rude remark. I take it back.
You can do that with me because I'm hardly ever offended. <G>
Pulver
The only way HT & JR take cognizance of my posts is
when you followup with quotes.
It would be good if they could be prodded to respond to
my slams. Even when I support her, HT does not have
the grace to recognize it.
Pulver
Miraculo!!! Henrietta actually apologized for
something. But she has far worse still wanting.
Jim Riley
(edward ohare) wrote:
>That was a characterization meant to apply to HT's basic argument that
>subject determines topicality for us.*, but a non-US subject on a US
>produced play meant it was on topic for us.* but if the authors were
>foreign then maybe it wasn't, etc, etc, etc.
I think it is very difficult in the area of popular culture to define
a strictly US aspect.
--
Jim Riley
edward ohare
wrote:
>On Tue, 22 Jul 2003 14:38:25 GMT, edward...@NOSPAMyahoo.com.INVALID
If its truly popular, there won't be any.
HT concentrates on suggestions for "higher" culture groups, writing,
theater, etc. I don't know if that is because more popular culture
type topics are already taken or if its because HT's interest is in
higher culture.
edward ohare
<bobof...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>On Tue, 22 Jul 2003 10:55:55 +0000 (UTC), in us.config,
>EskW...@spamblock.panix.com wrote:
>
>>In us.config, Henrietta K Thomas <hk...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>
>>> If that's the way you feel, you might consider leaving us.config
>>> Half-hearted support is worse, IMO, than no support at all.
>>
>>You need supervision. He needs to stay right here.
>
>She is funny. You should have seen what she said to Tim Skivin and others
>in the past. After reading enough of her postings you we conclude that She
>has this idea that "everyone is against her".
Isn't "everyone" against her? After all, she's in charge of a
hierarchy that failed to pass by 1654 votes. And one that's had a few
successful groups and can have some more. But, in my view, only if
the view is adopted that new groups are justified for topics related
to the US and they are groups enough people will use that they will be
successful.
Pulver
edward ohare wrote:
>
> On Tue, 22 Jul 2003 14:20:17 -0500, Jim Riley <jim...@pipeline.com>
> wrote:
>
> >On Tue, 22 Jul 2003 14:38:25 GMT, edward...@NOSPAMyahoo.com.INVALID
> >(edward ohare) wrote:
> >
> >>That was a characterization meant to apply to HT's basic argument that
> >>subject determines topicality for us.*, but a non-US subject on a US
> >>produced play meant it was on topic for us.* but if the authors were
> >>foreign then maybe it wasn't, etc, etc, etc.
> >
> >I think it is very difficult in the area of popular culture to define
> >a strictly US aspect.
That depends on what you call "US aspect".
> If its truly popular, there won't be any.
>
> HT concentrates on suggestions for "higher" culture groups, writing,
> theater, etc. I don't know if that is because more popular culture
> type topics are already taken or if its because HT's interest is in
> higher culture.
Two years ago (I think) we had much the same discussion
and I, for example, posed the question "Is the late
sculptor Isamu Naguchi an "american artist?" I do not
recall that that was adequately answered. Naguchi was
born and raised in Japan but did most of his work in
the United States. His studio in Long Island City NY
is now a museum of his life and works. His last and
monumental work is the fabulous park he designed and
built off Biscayne Blvd in downtown Miami.
He was a gentle soul and is much missed by all those
who knew him.
Henrietta K Thomas
wrote, in us.config:
>edward ohare wrote:
[snip]
>> HT concentrates on suggestions for "higher" culture groups, writing,
>> theater, etc. I don't know if that is because more popular culture
>> type topics are already taken or if its because HT's interest is in
>> higher culture.
>
>
>Two years ago (I think) we had much the same discussion
>and I, for example, posed the question "Is the late
>sculptor Isamu Naguchi an "american artist?" I do not
>recall that that was adequately answered.
It was.
-----begin quoted article-----
From: Henrietta K. Thomas <h...@wwa.com>
Newsgroups: us.config,us.arts
Subject: Re: 4TH RFD: Proposal to create us.arts.poetry
Message-ID: <3cn7htsh1hkg0dvl9...@4ax.com>
Date: Tue, 29 May 2001 18:35:32 GMT
On Mon, 28 May 2001 21:27:26 -0400, Le Mod Pol <mod...@espmail.com>
wrote, in us.config:
>"Henrietta K. Thomas" wrote:
>
>> >
>> >Who is to decide which are the best works Hmmmmmm?
>>
>> The critics, other poets, and the general public.
[snip]
>The public and the critics frequently change their
>view of artist's work as time passes and fashions
>change. And how does anyone 20, 40, or 100 years
>postmortem decide what was his best?
>
>Let us take 3 artists - 2 dutch and a japanese
>
>Willem de Kooning came here in 1926, 22 years old
>and only 2 years out of the Rotterdam Academy and
>over the years his style evolved from
>expressionism to abstract expressionism and onward
>About 1983 Bill became ill and his long separated
>wife Elaine (best known for her monumental
>portraits of JFK) had to move to East Hampton to
>care for him.
>
>Bill continued to paint for several years spare
>stripped down abstracts devoid of any trace of the
>lushness in his other work. By 1990 Alzheimers
>had totally debilitated him and he just stopped.
>MOMA had a posthumous show of this later work, and
>when I visited it people all around me were raving
>how beautiful! how wonderful! and I just wanted to
>cry because in the work I could see the path Bill
>de Kooning, steadily more feeble, painted to the
>grave. Sure his dealer got big money for that
>junk. After all they were de Koonings and there
>would be no more. :~(( :~((
>
>Piet Mondrian was a different story. Until he was
>35 or 36 he painted conventional dutch landscapes
>- low squat houses, on flat land painted in dark
>tones of ocher and burnt umber looking as if they
>were lost in London smog. Then he discovered the
>Fauves, theosophy, Braque and Picasso. All of a
>sudden in the space of 2 or 3 years he had
>acquired a philosophy of life, abstraction and
>line, cubism and vivid brilliant color. In 1917,
>with Theo van Doesburg he founded de Stijl which
>was both a magazine and an art movement and
>through which Mondrian influenced the Bauaus
>architects, artists and designers and the whole NY
>school. In 1940 he escaped the Nazi invasion and
>came to NY where he died in 1944. One of the last
>paintings he did was painted as a tribute to the
>people of NY and titled "Broadway Boogie Woogie".
>Many think it is his best work. It resides at MOMA.
>
>Do you call him An American artist or no.
>Certainly his period of greatest influence was
>between 1918 and 1931 when he developed his
>palette of the three primaries + white, grey and
>black, and his horizontal and verticle bars.
>But his influence on the NY artists is
>immeasureable. He was active in the Club. It met
>weekly to discuss art methods, materials, problems
>etc. with panels. If de Koonig was pressed into
>panel duty, shy, he never opened his mouth.
>Mondrian had lots to say and he did.
I would call de Kooning an American artist because
he apparently adopted the US and did his best work
while here, but Mondrian would only be recognized
for his influence on and tribute to New York.
>Isamu Naguchi, Japanese born best known work (but
>few knew he did it ) is the little collapsible
>Japanese paper lampshade that all of us have had
>at least one of sometime. Ah so joponees design
>make in thailand sell well in States vewy good.
>Less known but perhaps his defining work is his
>design for the Miami park near the bottom of
>Biscayne Blvd. It is spectacular whether you are
>looking at the drawings in the Naguchi Museum in
>Long Island City NY or in the reality in Miami.
Naguchi could be recognized for the 'American'
works cited above, but could not be considered
an 'American' artist because he never even lived
here. The charter of us.arts.poetry clearly states
that works by foreign artists are on-topic if they are
based on a US theme. A charter for us.arts.artists
could say the same thing.
Henrietta
-----end quoted article-----
>Naguchi was born and raised in Japan but did most
>of his work in the United States. His studio in Long
>Island City NY is now a museum of his life and works.
>His last and monumental work is the fabulous park
>he designed and built off Biscayne Blvd in downtown
>Miami.
Since writing the article quoted above, I've learned that Naguchi
was born in Los Angeles in 1904, and spent at least half his life
in the United States. If you want to talk about him, please use
us.arts. Or better still, post your own RFD to create a group
for discussion of 'American' visual artists, i.e., us.arts.visual.
I have better things to do than to answer complaints that you
are being ignored.
Pulver
Where did I say that. Perhaps it is your conscience
that is complaining. The fact is that you admitted
ignoring several people that you had "killfiled" and
since you plonked me and have not since responded to my
disputes of my posts, it is a safe assumption that I am
being ignored, even when I support you. Am I in error
in these assumptions??
My post was in response to the Riley/O'Hare exchange
about the difficulty/impossibility of defining "US art/artists"
edward ohare
wrote:
>Maybe they have died out, or maybe your news server drops articles
>cross-posted to 7 or 8 groups.
I checked on Altopia. That should end that! <G>
>If you consider the cross-posts as belonging to the rec.* group,
Why is that a valid assumption?
> then
>the market share is 75% to 25%.
>
>Any sustained discussion in the alt.* group is occuring because it is
>first alphabetically.
An advantage of alt.*, of course. But why minimize it because of
that?
>>Then alt.autos.honda and us.military.navy should have failed.
>
>alt.autos.honda is not really a success.
Well, your numbers and mine sure don't match up. For starters, I
looked at the first article in threads, and you used some other
method.
>The limited postings that it
>has had is because it is in a hierarchy with a more complete set of
>makers, and because it is first alphabetically. It is like the gas
>station along the interstate.
>
>us.military.navy does have a US-focus. It is therefore not a
>non-US-focused group.
I didn't say it wasn't US focused. I said it hasn't been used as it
was chartered.
>There are three types of groups that might be carried by a regional.
>(1) Topics that are about the region of interest (US-focus)
>(2) Topics that are discussed by persons in the area of interest
>(US-audience).
>(3) Topics that are discussed by persons, because the group has a
>unique culture (us.*-culture).
>
>Groups of type (2) are not likely to succeed in the us.* hierarchy
>because if there is interest in the topic, they already exist in the
>rec.* or alt.* hierarchies.
Groups of such a type may succeed. Just because a group exists on a
topic doesn't mean everyone is satisfied with the culture of the
group. Usenet tradition is to avoid creation of groups with
substantially similar topics, but how does this square with the real
world?
Dodge sells more Dakotas and Rams because each is available with
either painted grill and bumpers (Sport) or chrome grill and bumpers
(SLT). Marlboro sells more cigarettes because it offers both soft
pack and box. I don't know which soft drink company was first with 20
oz bottles, but everyone else followed quickly.
Its possible to go too far in this, and its easier to go too far on
Usenet. But I just can't see that having a busy group on a topic is a
reason not to create another. Having a dead group on a topic is a
great reason not to create another.
>>So far, the wannabe politicians, the legal folks, and the US Army
>>guys, none of whom are using the groups to the satisfaction of HT.
>
>Huh? Try again.
The successful us.* groups, us.politics, us.legal, and
us.military.army. I probably made too broad a statement in saying HT
is unhappy with all of them, but she's clearly unhappy with army and
politics, which prompted me to start the recent thread on moderation
after she, with evident remorse, posted that she would like to
moderate those groups but couldn't due to lack of resources.
>>I'll look it up. My comments were from memory. I believe HT knows
>>what post I'm referring to, though.
>
>Are you talking about 1994 or later?
Well, thanks to recent posts here, I now know more than I did before.
What was left of the Cabal and uunet slammed us.* into the system a
few days after a vote in which us.* failed to pass by 1600 + votes.
>>>If 90% of the participants in a Big 8 group or an alt.* group are
>>>American, it isn't likely that a different culture will exist in a
>>>us.* group.
>>
>>Then why is there a different culture in umn?
>
>It has a different topic than sci.military.naval.
The USN **is** the world's navy. Posts have died there recently. I
posted today that the Navy guys needed to get some thread of their own
going, because all thats there right now is crossposts from mission
posters.
But a few months ago it was, I agree, different. That has nothing to
do with the Charter. That has to do with how the people who showed
up, based on the NG name, decided to use the group. It certainly
wasn't primarily used to discuss current "life and work in the US
Navy".
Back to the basics here, I just don't buy the idea of contortionist
justifications trying to show topical peculiarity to the US because
another similar group exists. Gee, umh is chartered advising people
to take extended discussions of Viet Nam and WWII to alt.* and Big 8
groups, apparantly to avoid the idea the group was duplicating topics
of other groups. Aren't these some of the most important conflicts of
US military history?
Officially, General George Washington is off topic for uma! But I
guess the Continental Army wasn't really an army, and George wasn't a
General, although what a trophy it was to fly a flag sewed out of some
woman's undies.
I digress.
Usenet rejected us.*. By 1600+ votes!!!!! But we have us.* anyway,
because the remnants of The Cabal and uunet decided they wouldn't pay
any attention to the vote, while at the same time being in denial of
the fact that Big 8 and alt.* are defacto US hierarchies.
And amid all this illegitimacy, people are trying to follow an
unworkable rule that topics must be peculiar to the US and a further
self deception that any users the hierarchy finds are going to care
about that even a bit. The idea people won't post to a us.* theater
group about a play written by a foreigner is ludicrious to the
extreme, as is the idea people won't post to umh about WWII or to uma
about George Washington. I don't care what Charters say or what the
mandate is for us.*, because groupers will decide how groups are used,
usually with the minimal decision being based on topicality that can
be presumed from a liberal interpretation of what it is based solely
on the group name.
I'm just asking that people quit pretending topics are US centric and
jumping through hoops to "prove" it, and to "prove" us.* groups aren't
competitors for existing groups. I'm asking that the standard for
creation be
1) the topic is related to the US,
2) it is likely enough people will use the group that it will be
successful.
Pulver
edward ohare wrote:
>
>
> I'm just asking that people quit pretending topics are US centric and
> jumping through hoops to "prove" it, and to "prove" us.* groups aren't
> competitors for existing groups. I'm asking that the standard for
> creation be
>
> 1) the topic is related to the US,
> 2) it is likely enough people will use the group that it will be
> successful.
Right on!!!!!
dvus
> On Sun, 20 Jul 2003 20:07:53 -0700, in us.config, Matthew Montchalin
> <mmon...@OregonVOS.net> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 20 Jul 2003, Henrietta K Thomas wrote:
>>>> What other newsgroups might properly be parented under us.industry?
>>>
>>> Almost everything you can imagine.
>
>
>>> There are some -industry- groups in the misc.* hierarchy,
>>> but they aren't well focused and none of them are US-specific.
>>
>> They become US-specific when they are newgrouped.
>
> in nature.
Does that preclude discussing the US centered activities of those corporations
in a us.* group? Might there not be US-centric issues that don't pertain to the
rest of the world that would be of interest to us.* posters? Add to that the
many industries that are US related only and it seems there could be a reason to
at least discuss the possibilities.
dvus
Jim Riley
(edward ohare) wrote:
>On Mon, 21 Jul 2003 17:22:10 -0500, Jim Riley <jim...@pipeline.com>
>wrote:
>
>>Maybe they have died out, or maybe your news server drops articles
>>cross-posted to 7 or 8 groups.
>
>I checked on Altopia. That should end that! <G>
Doesn't Altopia let you block widely cross-posted threads? There was
one long thread that was about which SUV to buy (which might have a
bit of SUV's are the devil's spawn thrown in) that was cross-posted to
a whole bunch of alt.autos.* groups. There were a thread or two about
which motor-oil to use cross-posted to a few groups (IIRC, honda,
nissan, and toyota, perhaps).
>>If you consider the cross-posts as belonging to the rec.* group,
>
>Why is that a valid assumption?
The groups cover the same topic, and don't appear to have a strongly
different culture. A regular who might answer questions about Hondas
will probably subscribe to both groups. Someone who just wants to pop
in for a question or two will ask in the group(s) that they find. The
only reason that they would cross-post would be because they found
both groups and didn't want to pick just one.
If you look at the threads that were mixed (some cross-posting and
some single group posts), they were all available in the rec.* group.
That is, if a thread was initially cross-posted, but someone removed
the alt.* group, the thread would continue as normal. If the thread
was only posted to the rec.* group, and then someone followed up with
a cross-post, the cross-post might continue.
There were no threads that were started in the alt.* group and then
switched to a cross-post, or initially cross-posted and switched to
the alt.* group.
a) Starts in alt,rec:
i) Usually continues in alt,rec
2) Sometimes moves exclusively to rec.
b) Starts in rec:
1) Usually continues in rec
2) Sometimes moves to alt,rec.
c) Starts in alt:
1) Usually continues in alt.
2) Sometimes moves to alt,rec.
>> then
>>the market share is 75% to 25%.
>>
>>Any sustained discussion in the alt.* group is occuring because it is
>>first alphabetically.
>
>An advantage of alt.*, of course. But why minimize it because of
>that?
Am I minimizing it? Maybe I can rephrase. Despite being
alphabetically disadvantaged, users prefer the rec.* group 3:1 over
the alt.* group.
>>>Then alt.autos.honda and us.military.navy should have failed.
>>
>>alt.autos.honda is not really a success.
>
>Well, your numbers and mine sure don't match up. For starters, I
>looked at the first article in threads, and you used some other
>method.
Get the pay version of Agent. With cross-post checking set to mark
cross-posted headers in the rec.* group as read, and with threads
expanded, it is pretty easy to see what is being cross-posted and
which is not. You can also get some insight into the health of a
group just be looking at the expanded threads.
>>The limited postings that it
>>has had is because it is in a hierarchy with a more complete set of
>>makers, and because it is first alphabetically. It is like the gas
>>station along the interstate.
>>
>>us.military.navy does have a US-focus. It is therefore not a
>>non-US-focused group.
>
>I didn't say it wasn't US focused. I said it hasn't been used as it
>was chartered.
I said:
This is why creation of non-US-focussed groups for a US audience
won't work. If there is interest in the topic, the group already
exists.
You disagreed and gave as counter examples the Honda group and
us.military.navy. I *thought* you were responding to what I had
written.
>>There are three types of groups that might be carried by a regional.
>>(1) Topics that are about the region of interest (US-focus)
>>(2) Topics that are discussed by persons in the area of interest
>>(US-audience).
>>(3) Topics that are discussed by persons, because the group has a
>>unique culture (us.*-culture).
>>
>>Groups of type (2) are not likely to succeed in the us.* hierarchy
>>because if there is interest in the topic, they already exist in the
>>rec.* or alt.* hierarchies.
>
>Groups of such a type may succeed. Just because a group exists on a
>topic doesn't mean everyone is satisfied with the culture of the
>group. Usenet tradition is to avoid creation of groups with
>substantially similar topics, but how does this square with the real
>world?
Groups that have reasonably well defined topics and the same audience
don't tend to develop unique cultures. When the topic of the group is
less well-defined or overly broad, or interest in the topic wanes,
sometimes a different culture develops in the group. I don't think
that this can happen as part of a deliberately created group.
>Dodge sells more Dakotas and Rams because each is available with
>either painted grill and bumpers (Sport) or chrome grill and bumpers
>(SLT). Marlboro sells more cigarettes because it offers both soft
>pack and box. I don't know which soft drink company was first with 20
>oz bottles, but everyone else followed quickly.
In the Usenet world it is too easy to switch between products, so that
it is less likely that a soft pack and box group will both develop.
If they do, one will be a mailing list or web group. When everyone
carries 10s of 1000s of groups and the only *functional* difference is
the sign on the doorway, differentiation probably won't occur.
>Its possible to go too far in this, and its easier to go too far on
>Usenet. But I just can't see that having a busy group on a topic is a
>reason not to create another. Having a dead group on a topic is a
>great reason not to create another.
Creating a duplicate of an existing busy group really isn't creating
another.
>Well, thanks to recent posts here, I now know more than I did before.
>What was left of the Cabal and uunet slammed us.* into the system a
>few days after a vote in which us.* failed to pass by 1600 + votes.
It can make more sense if you believe that things happen as a direct
result of a deliberate action. This doesn't always happen in Usenet.
>>It has a different topic than sci.military.naval.
>
>The USN **is** the world's navy. Posts have died there recently. I
>posted today that the Navy guys needed to get some thread of their own
>going, because all thats there right now is crossposts from mission
>posters.
A direct result of the fact that all newsgroups are functionally the
same, with only the name being different.
>But a few months ago it was, I agree, different. That has nothing to
>do with the Charter. That has to do with how the people who showed
>up, based on the NG name, decided to use the group. It certainly
>wasn't primarily used to discuss current "life and work in the US
>Navy".
If you throw out the cross-posted mission-poster junk, what content
has there been in the group that doesn't fit this charter:
us.military.navy is an unmoderated group for present and former
members of the US Navy who want to get together to discuss their
military experience and various issues associated with US Navy
life. Family members are also encouraged to participate, as well
as members of the general public who have a genuine interest in
US Navy life, and members of other branches of the US military
service.
>Back to the basics here, I just don't buy the idea of contortionist
>justifications trying to show topical peculiarity to the US because
>another similar group exists.
Note that I do not agree with your characterization of "peculiar".
I agree with your point about contortions, but from a different angle.
If you are having to go through contortions to identify a US-focus or
US-specificity, the group most likely already exists.
> Gee, umh is chartered advising people
>to take extended discussions of Viet Nam and WWII to alt.* and Big 8
>groups, apparantly to avoid the idea the group was duplicating topics
>of other groups.
The charter does *not* *say* that. It says:
Posters who wish to initiate discussions of specific wars may want
to crosspost their articles to appropriate newsgroups in other
hierarchies, to wit:
'may wish to cross-post' does *not* mean are 'advised to take'.
'initiate' does *not* mean 'extended discussion'.
> Aren't these some of the most important conflicts of
>US military history?
Of course they are. Why do you think so many have their own groups?
>Officially, General George Washington is off topic for uma! But I
>guess the Continental Army wasn't really an army, and George wasn't a
>General, although what a trophy it was to fly a flag sewed out of some
>woman's undies.
Let's not fib.
The following types of articles are appropriate for this group:
[...]
- The establishment of military structures in the first colonies.
- Military contacts and conflicts with the native tribes.
- The acts and doings of British Colonial forces and local militias
during the early Colonial years.
- Conflicts between British Colonial forces and the colonists
which contributed to the rebellion of the colonists.
- The Continental Congress, George Washington's Army, and the
American Revolution.
- US military forces under the Articles of Confederation.
- US military forces under the Constitution.
- The establishment of West Point and other military academies.
- The establishment of the US War Department and the various
branches of the US military service.
[...]
The only faults that I can see is that someone might interpret "early
Colonial years" as referring to the 17th Century, and excluding, for
example, the American theater of the Seven Years War. So perhaps:
- The acts and doings of British Colonial forces and local militias
during the Colonial period.
And that the Continental Army is referred to as 'George Washington's
Army' even though the foundation of the US Army is usually dated as
June 14, 1775 (with George Washington being commissioned on the next
day). So perhaps:
- The Continental Congress, the Continental Army, and the
American Revolution.
> I don't care what Charters say
That does not give you license to misrepresent what they do say.
>I'm just asking that people quit pretending topics are US centric and
>jumping through hoops to "prove" it, and to "prove" us.* groups aren't
>competitors for existing groups. I'm asking that the standard for
>creation be
>
>1) the topic is related to the US,
... with some specificity, *Everything* is related to the US. I
don't think you mean "any topic whatsoever".
>2) it is likely enough people will use the group that it will be
>successful.
Fine.
--
Jim Riley
Henrietta K Thomas
wrote, in us.config:
>Henrietta K Thomas wrote:
[snip]
>> Since writing the article quoted above, I've learned that Naguchi
>> was born in Los Angeles in 1904, and spent at least half his life
>> in the United States. If you want to talk about him, please use
>> us.arts. Or better still, post your own RFD to create a group
>> for discussion of 'American' visual artists, i.e., us.arts.visual.
>> I have better things to do than to answer complaints that you
>> are being ignored.
>
>Where did I say that. Perhaps it is your conscience
>that is complaining. The fact is that you admitted
>ignoring several people that you had "killfiled" and
>since you plonked me and have not since responded to my
>disputes of my posts, it is a safe assumption that I am
>being ignored, even when I support you. Am I in error
>in these assumptions??
I have now set most everyone in this group for 'ignore'.
This means that Agent pulls up the header, but marks it
as having already been read. I don't see the article unless
I intentionally pick it up due to something I have read from
a person -not- set for 'ignore', or due to a particular thread
I am following. (Translation: Some people and some threads
have higher priority with me than other people or other threads).
You are currently set for 'ignore'. I read your article only because
I'm following this thread fairly closely.
> My post was in response to the Riley/O'Hare exchange
>about the difficulty/impossibility of defining "US art/artists"
And I interpreted it to mean you were looking for
a response from me.
hth
Henrietta
Pulver
I guess that means your conscience is bothering you.
>
> Henrietta
dvus
[revenge groups trimmed]
[snip]
> It does it shows you are not able to do your job.
Who, specifically, do you believe would be a better administrator?
dvus
dvus
> In us.config, Bob Officer <bobof...@earthlink.net> wrote:
[revenge groups trimmed]
>> What a wonderful way to derive a consensus on any issue.
>
>> It is called sticking your head in the sand (or up your ass,
>> depending on the crowd).
>
> Exactly correct. She seemingly doesn't have the time, the guts, or
> the interest to lead the hierarchy. She needs to be replaced.
>
>
>> It does it shows you are not able to do your job.
>
> Exactly.
Exactly who do you think is better qualified?
dvus
edward ohare
>Exactly who do you think is better qualified?
I've pointed out to these guys on numerous occasions that if they're
"soooo interested" in doing something good for Usenet they ought to
find a hierarchy that's been abandoned by its admins 0or volunteer to
moderate one of the groups abandoned by its moderator. Finding either
is trivially easy. And so its easy to conclude they're interested in
griping at HT's imperfections but not interested in actually doing
anything.