Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!samsung!caesar.cs.montana.edu!ogicse!blake!maddox
From: maddox@blake.acs.washington.edu (Tom Maddox)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: CALL FOR DISCUSSION:  SCI.VIRTUAL-WORLDS
Message-ID: <4859@blake.acs.washington.edu>
Date: 11 Dec 89 05:04:35 GMT
References: <1989Dec5.173743.651@mentor.com> <3186@com50.C2S.MN.ORG> <4828@blake.acs.washington.edu> <3203@com50.C2S.MN.ORG>
Reply-To: maddox@blake.acs.washington.edu (Tom Maddox)
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Lines: 61

In article <3203@com50.C2S.MN.ORG> craig@com2serv.c2s.mn.org (Craig S. Wilson) writes:

>>>Just to correct a possible misconception, alt.cyberspace was created
>>>to discuss the technical aspects of cyberspace and virtual realities 
>>>without lifestyle overtones.  Alt.cyberpunk exists to discuss more 
>>>fictional (predominately Gibsonian) aspects of these subjects.
>>
>to which Mr. Maddox responded:
>>	I think this is an instance of revisionist net.history.  
>>Alt.cyberpunk, alt.cyberspace, alt.cyberpunk.tech, and whatever other 
>>alt.cyber* groups that might spring up in the next few minutes are the 
>>products of someone's ability to issue the command creating an alt group,
>>not of some supposed consensus about the nature of the group; there was 
>>and is little in the way of consensus concerning what belongs where or what
>>postings are appropriate to what groups. 
>>
>
>I was the one who issued the command creating alt.cyberspace after
>some discussion in alt.cyberpunk.  Alt.cyberspace was created for the
>reason stated above.

	Right.  And Peter da Silva "created" the other groups for
*his* reasons (see his posting, if you wish, on this matter),
and people who have actually posted to the groups and cross-posted
among them have done so for their reasons.  I have noticed before this
tendency of people who issued the message creating groups to think
that somehow (a) others know precisely why they did so, (b) the actual
practice in the group will somehow conform to what the message creator
had in mind. 
 
>Alt.cyberpunk, since the last flamewar died down (you remember that
>one don't you, Tom? Or didn't you survive?) has been dealing with
>issues such as direct neural upload/download and performance art
>involving computers, among other things.  I would call the direct 
>neural hookup, "more fictional", at this juncture of the time/space 
>continuum.  But that doesn't mean that the discussions are not interesting 
>or appropriate.

	No one said they weren't.  And such discussions will doubtless
continue so long people find them interesting.  However, I think
you'll find that many of these discussions will take place on sci.vw,
should it come about--if I'm wrong, that's fine by me.

> This way we do not need an
>"alt.frustrated-author.virtual-reality" etc. newsgroup.  Although, Tom, 
>you may be waiting for the creation of it.

	The only frustrations I have with the net have nothing to do
with being a writer--with one exception, which is the lamentable
tendency of a few pinheads to take shots at me *because* I'm a writer.
Are you doing just that?  If not, you might explain why I would be
waiting for the creation of such a group.  If you think I'm frustrated
as a writer, I'd also be interested to hear why.  

>>	Sci.virtual-worlds would probably have the effect of siphoning
>>off the various technical (or pseudo-technical) discussions about 
>>implmentation of cyberspace from the alt groups; alt.cyberpunk might
>>or might not survive.  

	Your crystal ball seems to be working much better than mine.
I'll admit I'm just guessing.