Thoughts on a new newsgroup
Laura Burchard
While hunting for more Maggie Helwig posts for my X-Review collection, I
came across some really fascinating threads with her and Loligo and
Grispy and Robert St. James and others of our doughty analysis crew.
Threads which I would have loved to have commented on -- but didn't,
because I missed them entirely. Something that happens altogether too
often because I just don't always have time to comb this group.
So my thought: a new subgroup, perhaps alt.tv.x-files.analysis or
atxf.criticism; something like this was flippantly suggested on .creative
a bit back. Not only would it make it easy to find analysis-centered posts
from atxf, but it would take a load off of .creative -- there are a number
of people who have been posting commentaries there because they find atxf
overwhelming.
The charter could be worded to focus on reviews, criticism, commentary,
and analysis. Posts on the actors, etc, would be discouraged except
insofar as they applied directly to those subjects. Ie, posts on DD's
lumpiness or lack thereof would be discouraged, but if you wanted to take
his holocaust metaphors from Inside the X-files and run with them, that
would be cool.
I'd also like to discourage, hmm, statement posts as opposed to
analytical ones -- ie, posts that discussed whether it would make sense
for Mulder to have been married in context of his character would be
preferred over those that just said 'A ring, he's wearing a ring', but
I doubt we could manage that level of specificity. Sticking to thoughts
on the show should help keep it low noise anyway.
I'm not sure this is the right time to start this -- this is the silly
summer season and I'm not sure how much intense stuff we'll have, but
then again it would be in place before the movie if that inspires people.
Thoughts? Stupid idea, good idea? Suggested names?
Laura
--
Laura Burchard -- l...@radix.net -- http://www.radix.net/~lhb
X-Review: http://traveller.simplenet.com/xfiles/episode.htm
Anne Marsden
Laura Burchard wrote in message <6kg2ut$o...@saltmine.radix.net>...
>So my thought: a new subgroup, perhaps alt.tv.x-files.analysis or
>atxf.criticism; something like this was flippantly suggested on
.creative
>a bit back. Not only would it make it easy to find analysis-centered
posts
>from atxf, but it would take a load off of .creative -- there are a
number
>of people who have been posting commentaries there because they find
atxf
>overwhelming.
>
>The charter could be worded to focus on reviews, criticism, commentary,
>and analysis
I love it, Laura, but is there anyone out there willing to write a
charter and call for discussion? I gather you don't have to do all that
for alt.*, but otherwise there'd be tears before bedtime.
Anyway, count me in.
Anne M
KFrank4572
Well, as long as the subject has been brought up...
If there were to be another newsgroup, I have always longed for something like
alt.tv.x-files.real-news, and people could post actual news about the show,
especially upcoming episodes, spoilers (vs."speculation"), upcoming
appearances, etc. and most importantly, all posts would be filtered through
Autumn. :)
Kathy
Akakan
Laura Burchard wrote
SNIP
> So my thought: a new subgroup, perhaps alt.tv.x-files.analysis or
> atxf.criticism;
Best bet: alt.tv.x-files.analysis.moderated
Jon Osborn
On 26 May 1998, Laura Burchard wrote:
<snip>
I would *love* an atxf.criticism (or whatever) NG. I hate all the
fandom posts in this NG, especially when there are two perfectly good
DD and GA *fan* NGs to clutter up with them all.
Teddi Litman
In article <01bd8925$31e92480$e48f0fce@default>,
"Akakan" <NOSPAM...@ziplink.net> wrote:
Exactly! The only way this can really be pulled off is to have it be
moderated.
Teddi
bl...@southwind.net
I believe I suggested it, and it wasn't flippant in the least. Several people
who lurk here have suggested and asked me to create one, so I posted here
before posting the proposal to alt.control. Of course, the reaction was that
a) I didn't list the steps correctly, and b) there was no need. And since the
last time I acted on someone's suggestion to create a subgroup of atxfc, I was
the receipient of extremely snotty mail from someone who saw the alt.control
post, I was perfectly happy not to create.
bliss
In article <6kg2ut$o...@saltmine.radix.net>,
l...@Radix.Net (Laura Burchard) wrote:
>
> While hunting for more Maggie Helwig posts for my X-Review collection, I
> came across some really fascinating threads with her and Loligo and
> Grispy and Robert St. James and others of our doughty analysis crew.
> Threads which I would have loved to have commented on -- but didn't,
> because I missed them entirely. Something that happens altogether too
> often because I just don't always have time to comb this group.
>
> So my thought: a new subgroup, perhaps alt.tv.x-files.analysis or
> atxf.criticism; something like this was flippantly suggested on .creative
> a bit back. Not only would it make it easy to find analysis-centered posts
> from atxf, but it would take a load off of .creative -- there are a number
> of people who have been posting commentaries there because they find atxf
> overwhelming.
>
> The charter could be worded to focus on reviews, criticism, commentary,
> and analysis. Posts on the actors, etc, would be discouraged except
> insofar as they applied directly to those subjects. Ie, posts on DD's
> lumpiness or lack thereof would be discouraged, but if you wanted to take
> his holocaust metaphors from Inside the X-files and run with them, that
> would be cool.
>
> I'd also like to discourage, hmm, statement posts as opposed to
> analytical ones -- ie, posts that discussed whether it would make sense
> for Mulder to have been married in context of his character would be
> preferred over those that just said 'A ring, he's wearing a ring', but
> I doubt we could manage that level of specificity. Sticking to thoughts
> on the show should help keep it low noise anyway.
>
> I'm not sure this is the right time to start this -- this is the silly
> summer season and I'm not sure how much intense stuff we'll have, but
> then again it would be in place before the movie if that inspires people.
>
> Thoughts? Stupid idea, good idea? Suggested names?
>
> Laura
>
> --
> Laura Burchard -- l...@radix.net -- http://www.radix.net/~lhb
> X-Review: http://traveller.simplenet.com/xfiles/episode.htm
>
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
Konrad Douglas Frye
In <6kg2ut$o...@saltmine.radix.net> l...@Radix.Net (Laura Burchard) writes:
>So my thought: a new subgroup, perhaps alt.tv.x-files.analysis or
>atxf.criticism; something like this was flippantly suggested on .creative
>a bit back. Not only would it make it easy to find analysis-centered posts
>from atxf, but it would take a load off of .creative -- there are a number
>of people who have been posting commentaries there because they find atxf
>overwhelming.
It's a good idea (the traffic here once the movie hits is going to be
incredible) but the only way I could see it working would be to moderate it.
-----
Konrad Frye (umfr...@ccu.umanitoba.ca)
Computer Engineering IV
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Life...is like a box of chocolates. A cheap, thoughtless,
perfunctory gift that nobody ever asks for". - Cancer Man -
"Keep going FBI woman" - Fox Mulder -
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Adam Miller
like an atxf.announce?
Svatipatel
>I love it, Laura, but is there anyone out there willing to write a
>charter and call for discussion? I gather you don't have to do all that
>for alt.*, but otherwise there'd be tears before bedtime.
>
>
I've always wondered..........how do you start up a newsgroup? Ok, it may seem
like a stupid question, but I really am clueless to the process. Who runs
these things anyway?
Svati
"but me i'm still on the road
headed for another joint
we always did feel the same
we just saw it from a different point
of view" -- Bob Dylan "Tangled Up in Blue"
fdw
So my thought: a new subgroup, perhaps alt.tv.x-files.analysis or
> atxf.criticism; something like this was flippantly suggested on .creative
> a bit back. Not only would it make it easy to find analysis-centered posts
> from atxf, but it would take a load off of .creative -- there are a number
> of people who have been posting commentaries there because they find atxf
> overwhelming.
>
> and analysis. Posts on the actors, etc, would be discouraged except
> insofar as they applied directly to those subjects. Ie, posts on DD's
> lumpiness or lack thereof would be discouraged, but if you wanted to take
> his holocaust metaphors from Inside the X-files and run with them, that
> would be cool.
>
> Thoughts? Stupid idea, good idea? Suggested names?
Count me in. I've tried to write reviews and analyses before and posted
them too, but neither atxf or atxc realy 'wanted' them. Maybe this new
group would.
FDW
Pamela T. Pon
In my opinion, they're not clutter. They *are* the reason why I've been
reading this group for the past five years. I *love* all the fandom posts
in this newgroup -- especially the informational ones, such as articles,
interviews, magazine alerts, VCR alerts, etc.. I hope *everyone* here
continues to post *all* important DD & GA info to *this* newsgroup,
whether or not it's directly related to THE X-FILES -- because *DD & GA*
are directly related to THE X-FILES. The same goes for info about TL
articles/interviews in which she mentions DD.
The last thing I want is to see the DD/GA posts banished elsewhere,
just like posts which dared to comment *favorably* upon Scott Bakula's
second marriage were condemned & banished from rec.arts.sf.tv.quantum-leap.
That was bad enough, but doing the same to the DD/GA posts would be far
worse -- because unlike the alt.TV.scott-bakula group, the DD/GA groups
are, unfortunately, under the alt.FAN.* hierarchy -- which means that they
are all too often bombarded with BINARIES. *Every* single time I try to
read the GA "fan" NGs, for example, not half a week goes by without some
clueless moron thinking that these groups are a dumping ground for his
personal collection of fake nude porno pix of GA -- or dozens of *other*
actresses. Readers recently logged in to find that some brain-dead gimp
had posted *eighty-two* JPGs over the course of a few fatal minutes!
It's not worth running the risk of a crashing newsreader to even *open*
those groups on some days.
If we who enjoy or even depend upon the DD/GA "fan" posts can
manage to ignore incessant personal bickering on atxf which has NOTHING
whatsoever to do with the show and everything to do with interminable
pissing matches, then those perpetual bickerers can put up with posts
which are ABOUT THE TWO LEAD ACTORS OF "THE X-FILES" -- which are,
by definition, ON-TOPIC. You can play with your rulers and each other;
and we'll play with our favourite X-FILES characters, actors,
and each other -- and, on occasion, John Cusack. ;-)
That said, a moderated *.criticism newsgroup and a moderated
*.announce newsgroup might be helpful -- *if* anyone was masochistic
enough to want to take on the monumental task of managing either of them!
laura capozzola
Laura Burchard wrote:
>
> While hunting for more Maggie Helwig posts for my X-Review collection, I
> came across some really fascinating threads with her and Loligo and
> Grispy and Robert St. James and others of our doughty analysis crew.
> Threads which I would have loved to have commented on -- but didn't,
> because I missed them entirely. Something that happens altogether too
> often because I just don't always have time to comb this group.
>
> atxf.criticism; something like this was flippantly suggested on .creative
> a bit back. Not only would it make it easy to find analysis-centered posts
> from atxf, but it would take a load off of .creative -- there are a number
> of people who have been posting commentaries there because they find atxf
> overwhelming.
So are you volunteering to moderate it because that's almost a full time
job and you say you don't even have time for this? And will it exclude
all discussion related to fan fic because I find that to be pretty far
removed from the actual show?
One of the reasons that I like ATXF is because it isn't moderated. I
just don't read the posts I'm not interested in. Same goes for ATXC.
There's something really great about people hopping on the newsgroup
immediately after the show airs and offering their take on the episode
before they are overwhelmed by people with an opposing opinion who may
be more schooled in commentary and analysis. So, in that vein, I hope a
separate newsgroup wouldn't kill those "gut reaction" posts we get on
ATXF on Sunday night and Monday.
Laura (the other one)
#***#***#***#***#***#***#***#***#***#***#***#
"The truth, the truth.....there is no truth.
These men just make it up as they go along."
- Alex Krycek (Tunguska) -
#***#***#***#***#***#***#***#***#***#***#***#
Cynthia J. DeLap
I would love to see another newsgroup that would be moderated and full of
the interesting information most people long to read.
Laura Burchard
In article <01bd8925$31e92480$e48f0fce@default>,
Akakan <NOSPAM...@ziplink.net> wrote:
>Laura Burchard wrote
>> atxf.criticism;
>Best bet: alt.tv.x-files.analysis.moderated
I hadn't thought moderated when I first proposed, but it's true, it would
be a lot easier to keep on focus (and a lot easier to have it born
moderated then to do alt.tv.x-files.analysis, have it fail, and have to
redo the whole process for .moderated) My problem with moderated groups
is the lag between posting and having them appear; my suggestion,
therefore, would be to do robo-moderation along the lines of the B5
moderated group. That is, the first post you make to a group is not
posted immediately, instead returned with a copy of the charter and FAQ;
you acknowledge this message, and then are automatically cleared to post.
Only if the poster is abusive is their clearance to post yanked.
I am willing to handle the moderation; I was a moderator for
soc.history.moderated, so I'm aware of the technical side, and I control
several domains so it would be easy to do dedicated moderator and contact
addresses. Assuming y'all trust me to do it and not be eviiiiil. Okay, I
*am* cranky and evil, but generally in the service of keeping things on
topic.
For Pamela: I assure you, I have no interest in banishing subjects from
alt.tv.x-files; I am not half so foolish as to try to change the nature
of a group, thus the proposal of a new one.
For Laura Cap: I agree about the desirability of quick posting, thus my
suggestion of robo-moderating. It also vastly reduces the burden of the
moderator's job.
After a bit of thought, I think the name I prefer is
alt.tv.x-files.analysis; analysis is the strongest and most focused word
for the sort of post I'd like to see. It doesn't need a .moderated
extension; that's generally only used when a unmoderated group has become
overwhelmed and a new parallel moderated group is created. In fact, I
suspect that atxfam would be bashed in alt.config as the creation of an
unnecessary heirarchy level.
So what say you? Shall I draft a charter and FAQ?
Laura Burchard
In article <6khlm6$u00$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, <bl...@southwind.net> wrote:
>I believe I suggested it, and it wasn't flippant in the least.
I was assuming that by suggesting it as alt.tv.x-files.creative.written
and commenting "That way, if people would like to discuss the show in
between discussions of writing, they can feel free to do so. If they want
to simply post and discuss writing, they can do that." it was meant more
as a chiding to the folks who had taken to posting show discussion instead
of stories in atxfc because they were finding atxf too overwhelming. I'm
naturally sarcastic, so I tend to see it in all things :) Sorry!
This is a somewhat different focus, though it would address a portion of
the same problem in atxfc.
Loligo Opalescens
l...@Radix.Net (Laura Burchard) wrote:
>After a bit of thought, I think the name I prefer is
>alt.tv.x-files.analysis; analysis is the strongest and most focused word
>for the sort of post I'd like to see. It doesn't need a .moderated
>extension; that's generally only used when a unmoderated group has become
>overwhelmed and a new parallel moderated group is created. In fact, I
>suspect that atxfam would be bashed in alt.config as the creation of an
>unnecessary heirarchy level.
>
>So what say you? Shall I draft a charter and FAQ?
>
Robo-moderating? Cool!
I'm still kind of sad that there will be no return to a day when all sorts of XF
posts could live peaceably and manageably in one newsgroup, but even if we're
all on our best behavior, the traffic is still so huge that it makes a lot of
sense to specialize. And I do get the impression that there is a sizeable
audience for this sort of post, who are just waiting for a more civil,
manageable forum in which to participate. So I second your proposed name, and
support this idea.
If we do get the group up and running before the movie opens, we could prime the
pump with something like "Greatest Hits of XF Analysis": people repost their
favorite works of XF commentary (by themselves or by others), and talk about why
they like it, what it means to them now, what questions it raises, etc.
(Also, I'd definitely be interested in having a look at the FAQ/charter, if you
want to get a second opinion before you send it out).
L.O.
Maureen S. O'Brien
As a big fan of overanalysis, I think atxa sounds like a wonderful
idea. Besides, it may save the X-Files list I'm on from a number of my
incredibly long posts. <g>
Maureen
<You go, Laura!>
Bill O'Connell
The idea of alt.tv.x-files.analysis is wonderful. Count me as another
enthusiastic supporter of the new ng. When do we start?
Bill O'Connell
Coleen Sullivan-Baier
>I've always wondered..........how do you start up a newsgroup? Ok, it
>may seem like a stupid question, but I really am clueless to the
>process. Who runs these things anyway?
The elephant in the red sneakers.
XXXXXXXXXXXgizzieXXXXXXXXXXX
Obsidian
Okay.
Obsidian
"In order to find the edge, you must risk going
over the edge."
- Dennis Dugan
Akakan
Laura Burchard wrote
Absolutely. You know the technical side far better than I. As long as we
can eliminate flame-antiflame threads, and OT posts, robo-mod should be
fine.
Three cheers for you!
Jon Osborn
On 27 May 1998, Pamela T. Pon wrote:
>The last thing I want is to see the DD/GA posts banished elsewhere,
I'm not going to go on a holy crusade, but what are aftdd and aftga
for, if not DD and GA fandom posts?
Just in the interest of debate, I would say that DD and GA, as people
and celebrities, would ideally have no place in a NG about "The
X-Files". It';s far too late to do anything about but complain, so I
try to keep those complaints to almost nothing, but I still feel that
way.
Jon Osborn
On 27 May 1998, Svatipatel wrote:
>I've always wondered..........how do you start up a newsgroup? Ok, it may seem
>like a stupid question, but I really am clueless to the process. Who runs
>these things anyway?
I don't know if "alt" NGs are special, but this URL coughs up info:
http://sunland.gsfc.nasa.gov/info/guide/Newsgroup_Creation.html
Teddi Litman
In article <6kh9f7$r...@saltmine.radix.net>,
l...@Radix.Net (Laura Burchard) wrote:
>In article <01bd8925$31e92480$e48f0fce@default>,
>Akakan <NOSPAM...@ziplink.net> wrote:
>>Laura Burchard wrote
>>> So my thought: a new subgroup, perhaps alt.tv.x-files.analysis or
>>> atxf.criticism;
>
>>Best bet: alt.tv.x-files.analysis.moderated
>
>I hadn't thought moderated when I first proposed, but it's true, it would
>be a lot easier to keep on focus (and a lot easier to have it born
>moderated then to do alt.tv.x-files.analysis, have it fail, and have to
>redo the whole process for .moderated) My problem with moderated groups
>is the lag between posting and having them appear; my suggestion,
>therefore, would be to do robo-moderation along the lines of the B5
>moderated group. That is, the first post you make to a group is not
>posted immediately, instead returned with a copy of the charter and FAQ;
>you acknowledge this message, and then are automatically cleared to post.
>Only if the poster is abusive is their clearance to post yanked.
>
Great compromise! That would at least keep the SPAM out. Hopefully real X
philes will read the FAQ and honorably not post anything OT.
>
>For Pamela: I assure you, I have no interest in banishing subjects from
>alt.tv.x-files; I am not half so foolish as to try to change the nature
>of a group, thus the proposal of a new one.
>
I think there are enough X-philes that a new group won't take anything away
from existing groups.
>So what say you? Shall I draft a charter and FAQ?
>
I think it's a good idea. Such a group might flounder awhile in the
summer...after the movie has been out awhile; but should start to thrive
when the new season starts.
Teddi
Jon Osborn
On Thu, 28 May 1998,, Teddi Litman wrote:
>Great compromise! That would at least keep the SPAM out. Hopefully real X
>philes will read the FAQ and honorably not post anything OT.
The only problem with moderated groups is that *someone* has to
moderate them, which does indeed take time and effort.
Teddi Litman
In article <356ccdfa.8335404@news>,
jon.o...@eudoramail.com (Jon Osborn) wrote:
Did I miss something or didn't Laura B. volunteer?
Dampiress
I was looking for sights on Nich Lea's character when I came across SPAK that
had a link, didn't write it down, any ways it siad that Chris Carter was
planning on killing of Krycek. DOes any body know about this? If so where can
I get more info?
Come the dawn, come the day.
Warm the darkness with in my being.
Aniont me with your light.
Come the dawn, come the day.
Jon Osborn
On 27 May 1998, Laura Burchard wrote:
<snip>
If there were an ATX-FA (moderated or not), I would totally abandon
this NG for the new one
joolz
Dampiress <damp...@aol.com> wrote in article
<199805280409...@ladder03.news.aol.com>...
> I was looking for sights on Nich Lea's character when I came across SPAK
that
> had a link, didn't write it down, any ways it siad that Chris Carter was
> planning on killing of Krycek. DOes any body know about this? If so
where can
Nooooooooooooooooo!!!!
Monkey5s
Cynthia J. DeLap noted:
>I would love to see another newsgroup that would be moderated and full of
>the interesting information most people long to read.
Uh huh. And how will you define "interesting," and who will decide which people
constitute "most people"?
Monkey5s
dull,thimble
Loligo Opalescens
whom...@bigfoot.com (﹁homever!) wrote:
<snip>
>I can see the rational for a new group, but think that the problems can
>and should be solved, as I showed above, within the ATX. I think there
>is a value of keeping the groups as few as possible and the x-philes
>community intact. If a new group nevertheless is created then please
>think twice before you decide moderate it. It won't be necessary for
>maintaining the integrity off the new group and would be against the
>spirit of the altnet and free speech.
But the purpose of moderation, in this case, has nothing to do with weeding out
controversial posts or authors. People would still be allowed to express
unpopular opinions like that GA's portrayal of Scully as a sullen,
passive-aggressive mouth-breather sickens them. Or that DD has been phoning in
his performances since season 4 started, and close analysis of the episodes
reveals that any acting we think he's doing is just a trick of the
cinematography.
The purpose of moderation would be to keep out topics like DD's personal life,
GA's Golden Globe acceptance speech, speculations on how much the movie will
gross, announcements about fan get-togethers, etc. Not that there's anything
wrong with these topics, per se, but I think traffic on this group is high
enough that there might be some merit to specializing. For myself, I'm doing
fine just picking out the threads I want to read and ignoring the rest. But I
support this idea because of my suspicion that there are a number of people out
there who would participate in discussion more often if access to "analysis"
type posts were made easier.
Given this proposed group's more specialized mission, I think moderation would
be crucial to keep it from going off-topic and just becoming ATXF II.
L.O.
keir
laura capozzola wrote in message <356C06...@erols.com>...
>
>One of the reasons that I like ATXF is because it isn't moderated. I
>just don't read the posts I'm not interested in. Same goes for ATXC.
>
There is something to be said for a filter, though...especially if the
resulting moderated posts hold the precise information the reader seeks.
Maybe we should define exactly the type of group we are in need of, be it
.announce, .criticism, or .whatever ...this will give everyone a better
change to weigh the feasability of such a spin-off.
>There's something really great about people hopping on the newsgroup
>immediately after the show airs and offering their take on the episode
>before they are overwhelmed by people with an opposing opinion who may
>be more schooled in commentary and analysis. So, in that vein, I hope a
>separate newsgroup wouldn't kill those "gut reaction" posts we get on
>ATXF on Sunday night and Monday.
I think that the original idea was to leave those "from-the-hip" opinion
posts here (and I'm a big fan of them too, no question), and direct the more
factual information to the new group, which would allow those who look for a
forum for their two-cent pitches to stay put, and the seekers of syndication
air dates, signing appearances, and other such information can look to the
considerably less overwhelming new group. A valid idea, IMO, and I'd be
more than willing to help in any way possible, if there is such a thing as
team-moderation.
In other words, as a note to Laura B., my humble services (and free time)
are at your disposal if needed.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Keir Hansen - Head Librarian, the Vogon Poetry Archives
[contact : established] - http://listen.to/aliens
"Infinity itself looks flat and uninteresting. Looking up into the
night sky is looking into infinity - distance is incomprehensible
and therefore meaningless."
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Rachel
Nick is signed on for 3 more seasons, and he said at one of the Expos
(Boston, I believe) that he was going to be in 5 or 6 episodes in each
upscoming season. It's doubtful CC is going to kill him off, at least for
awhile.
-Rachel
April 18, 1998: I made Mitch blush.
WUDEC: We suck, too ------ Don't we Coz?
*************************************
"He's not evil - he's a survivalist.
A survivalist who sometimes likes to
kiss other guys."
- Nick Lea
*************************************
Loligo Opalescens
"keir" <keir-sp...@webquill.com> wrote:
>
>I think that the original idea was to leave those "from-the-hip" opinion
>posts here (and I'm a big fan of them too, no question), and direct the more
>factual information to the new group, which would allow those who look for a
>forum for their two-cent pitches to stay put, and the seekers of syndication
>air dates, signing appearances, and other such information can look to the
>considerably less overwhelming new group.
Just to clarify, this is, in fact, backwards. The new group currently being
discussed would be for analysis & critique of the show (and the movie). The
kind of facts you're talking about would NOT be on-topic for this group, and
would stay on ATXF.
(Though if anyone has a passion for the idea of alt.tv.x-files.news or
announce, I suppose we could discuss that, too.)
L.O.
meg the paste-eating diva
And it came to pass that on 28 May 1998 04:09:39 GMT,
damp...@aol.com (Dampiress) ventured to say...
>I was looking for sights on Nich Lea's character when I came across SPAK that
>had a link, didn't write it down, any ways it siad that Chris Carter was
>planning on killing of Krycek. DOes any body know about this? If so where can
>I get more info?
Krycek was going to be offed at one point, yes.
But that was YEARS ago, back in season two, I believe.
I am not who I am-
Meg
+-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-+
| http://www.pine-scented.com/snerk/ |
| "And by the way: Duchovny was in a kilt." |
| -Ken Tucker, 'Entertainment Weekly' |
+-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-+
...RIP...Phil Hartman...
Laura Burchard
In article <356f07b0.691959@news>,
Jon Osborn <jon.o...@eudoramail.com> wrote:
>On Thu, 28 May 1998, Teddi Litman wrote:
>>>The only problem with moderated groups is that *someone* has to
>>>moderate them, which does indeed take time and effort.
>> Did I miss something or didn't Laura B. volunteer?
>before, that doesn't necessarily mean she'll actually do it again. She
>may change her mind, having second thoughts about the effort involved.
Hey! I'm not that fickle! I'm poking at a charter and FAQ, and I set up
email addresses and am trying to get ahold of source code for STUMP,
which is a good robomoderator, to see if this will be practical.
Jon Osborn
On Thu, 28 May 1998, Teddi Litman wrote:
>>The only problem with moderated groups is that *someone* has to
>>moderate them, which does indeed take time and effort.
> Did I miss something or didn't Laura B. volunteer?
She did, but is it carved in stone? Even though she says she's done it
before, that doesn't necessarily mean she'll actually do it again. She
may change her mind, having second thoughts about the effort involved.
I'm not trying to be discouraging, just realistic.
Teddi Litman
In article <356f07b0.691959@news>,
jon.o...@eudoramail.com (Jon Osborn) wrote:
<shrug> So if she decides she doesn't want to do it anymore she won't.
Right now she has an interest in starting a new group and she's trying to
see if anyone else would be interested in such a group. Those of us who
feel we might be interested are responding. Are you suggesting we all say
no because she may change her mind? We are talking about a proposal for an
entertainment based Usenet Ng; not a proposal of marriage. If this Ng ends
up not working out (for whatever reasons), it's not really like we stand to
lose anything. If it does work out though, there will be another
entertaining XF Ng for philes to read.
Teddi
Jon Osborn
On 28 May 1998, Laura Burchard wrote:
>Hey! I'm not that fickle! I'm poking at a charter and FAQ, and I set up
>email addresses and am trying to get ahold of source code for STUMP,
>which is a good robomoderator, to see if this will be practical.
It's not a question of fickleness. I didn't mean to imply that you
were flaky or anything. Sometimes people say, "Hey, I'll do this"
because they're caught up in the enthusiasm and later realize, "Hey,
I'd really like to do this, but I forgot how much effort it is". If
you are willing to do it, I say, "Great!", and I am first in line to
appreciate your efforts.
Rufie710
I
>
> Hey! I'm not that fickle! I'm poking at a charter and FAQ, and I set up
> email addresses and am trying to get ahold of source code for STUMP,
> which is a good robomoderator, to see if this will be practical.
>
>
> --
> Laura Burchard -- l...@radix.net -- http://www.radix.net/~lhb
> X-Review: http://traveller.simplenet.com/xfiles/episode.htm
how does a Robomoderator work , anyhow??
Ruth , technologically challenged.
--
rufie710
"I tried Reality once, I found it too confining"
Pamela T. Pon
Jon Osborn <jon.o...@eudoramail.com> wrote:
>If there were an ATX-FA (moderated or not), I would totally abandon
>this NG for the new one
Someone PLEASE create ATX-FA ASAP.
;-)
Pamela T. Pon
Laura Burchard <l...@Radix.Net> wrote:
>For Pamela: I assure you, I have no interest in banishing subjects from
>alt.tv.x-files; I am not half so foolish as to try to change the nature
>of a group, thus the proposal of a new one.
I assure you, I never thought *you* did! I thought I'd deleted the line
with your attribution before I posted. I was only responding to Jon's
post, not yours, which is why I only quoted what *he* wrote. Sorry for
accidentally leaving in your name!
(Blame it on my failing to proof the mistakes caused since last
October by Best's new shell software, which has been wreaking havoc with
vi, causing random lines to disappear or reappear on-screen whenever
I delete OR insert material ...)
Jon Osborn
On Fri, 29 May 1998, dayb...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
> <shrug> So if she decides she doesn't want to do it anymore she won't.
Exactly.
>Right now she has an interest in starting a new group and she's trying to
>see if anyone else would be interested in such a group. Those of us who
>feel we might be interested are responding.
Including me.
>Are you suggesting we all say no because she may change her mind?
I already said "yes" myself, so I could not possibly be suggesting
that others say "no".
>We are talking about a proposal for an
>entertainment based Usenet Ng; not a proposal of marriage. If this Ng ends
>up not working out (for whatever reasons), it's not really like we stand to
>lose anything.
When did I say anyone stood to lose anything? I said sometimes people
change their minds.
Would you like to get into a long drawn-out argument over whether or
not people ever change their minds?
Rachel
In article <6knk59$q1j$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, mj...@aol.com wrote:
> In article <r-george-280...@bootp245130.medill.nwu.edu>,
> r-ge...@nwu.edu (Rachel) wrote:
> >
> > In article <01bd89f9$a1bb2360$909191c6@default>, "joolz"
<jo...@q7.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Dampiress <damp...@aol.com> wrote in article
> > > <199805280409...@ladder03.news.aol.com>...
> > > > I was looking for sights on Nich Lea's character when I came across SPAK
> > > that
> > > > had a link, didn't write it down, any ways it siad that Chris Carter was
> > > > planning on killing of Krycek. DOes any body know about this? If so
> > > where can
> > >
> > > Nooooooooooooooooo!!!!
> >
> > Nick is signed on for 3 more seasons, and he said at one of the Expos
> > (Boston, I believe) that he was going to be in 5 or 6 episodes in each
> > upscoming season. It's doubtful CC is going to kill him off, at least for
> > awhile.
> >
> > -Rachel
>
>
> Agreed; he said that in DC on May 16 as well, if I recall correctly.
> Besides, it's a cardinal rule of the show: No one ever actually dies on the
> X-Files -- even if they DID try it, he'd be right back anyway...
>
> MJ
Did he actually mention the number of episodes in DC? I remember him
talking about having a 3-season contract and how that didn't necessarily
mean the show would go that long, but I don't recall anything about how
many eps he'd be in. Of course, I was in the third row, and the proximity
to Nick might have been preventing my brain from functioning properly ....
:-)
mj...@aol.com
In article <r-george-280...@bootp245130.medill.nwu.edu>,
r-ge...@nwu.edu (Rachel) wrote:
>
> In article <01bd89f9$a1bb2360$909191c6@default>, "joolz" <jo...@q7.com> wrote:
>
> > Dampiress <damp...@aol.com> wrote in article
> > <199805280409...@ladder03.news.aol.com>...
> > > I was looking for sights on Nich Lea's character when I came across SPAK
> > that
> > > had a link, didn't write it down, any ways it siad that Chris Carter was
> > > planning on killing of Krycek. DOes any body know about this? If so
> > where can
> >
> > Nooooooooooooooooo!!!!
>
> Nick is signed on for 3 more seasons, and he said at one of the Expos
> (Boston, I believe) that he was going to be in 5 or 6 episodes in each
> upscoming season. It's doubtful CC is going to kill him off, at least for
> awhile.
>
> -Rachel
Agreed; he said that in DC on May 16 as well, if I recall correctly.
Besides, it's a cardinal rule of the show: No one ever actually dies on the
X-Files -- even if they DID try it, he'd be right back anyway...
MJ
XFU Slashfic and slash/gay studies departments
OBSSE
FWMW
NLEB
"Wake the Russian bear, and he may find we have stolen his honey." -- CSM,
"Terma"
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
Flukeman
>Would you like to get into a long drawn-out argument over whether or
>not people ever change their minds?
Yes! Yes I would, dammit.
Then again... maybe
Aw forget it.
=================
Flukeman,
scarcely worth the bother
Teddi Litman
In article <35714ba8.678871@news>,
jon.o...@eudoramail.com (Jon Osborn) wrote:
>
>Would you like to get into a long drawn-out argument over whether or
>not people ever change their minds?
Who's arguing about whether people change their minds? A few of us felt
the only way to keep a specialized Ng specialized would require some
moderation. Laura then put forth her offer to moderate by setting up a
system where people could only be registered to post after being e-mailed a
copy of the FAQ. I believe I responded basically stating this seemed like a
good idea. You responded to my post by stating the problem with such
moderation is it requires someone to do it. I was perplexed by your response
because the whole point was Laura had already volunteered to do it;
therefore, said problem is not a problem. Your rebuttal was that maybe
she'll change her mind. My reaction to that was and still is, "So?" <shrug>
Teddi
Extex1013
Great idea.
extex
TruthFindR
alt.xfiles. analysis sounds good to me.
Monica
Monica
->Screamin Pileggian
--->1013 Bald Men Brigade
------->NoRomo
---------->Cult-Phile
"The older the grape, the sweeter the wine." ---- Janis
Joplin
Julia Milton
> l...@Radix.Net (Laura Burchard) wrote:
> >
> > So my thought: a new subgroup, perhaps alt.tv.x-files.analysis or
> > atxf.criticism; something like this was flippantly suggested on
creative
> > a bit back. Not only would it make it easy to find analysis-centered
posts
> > from atxf, but it would take a load off of .creative -- there are a
number
> > of people who have been posting commentaries there because they find
atxf
> > overwhelming.
Absolutely! I'm working on some analysis (lit crit?) and would love to
post it, BUT ... it's so hard to find stuff on atx or atxc ... and I don't
know if other people would find mine, either. It's discouraging to put a
lot of work into a posting and have it get lost -- as you say -- amongst
the "Look! Mulder has a wedding ring" threads.
It would be just wonderful to have a forum for this work alone. Please,
let's do.
-- Julia
Rufie710
In article <199805310157...@ladder03.news.aol.com>,
truth...@aol.com (TruthFindR) wrote:
> alt.xfiles. analysis sounds good to me.
>
can there be no falming allowed??or even flaming?? we can allow plaming
though....
Seriously ,I need a place to go to obsess where people are not allowed to
assinate each others character.......and take up 100s of posts doing it...
I know, I fell off the nice wagon a few weeks back , but I promise to be
good if I can have a safe NG to play on.