Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site riccb.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!bellcore!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!hropus!riccb!rjnoe From: rjnoe@riccb.UUCP (Roger J. Noe) Newsgroups: net.news.group Subject: Re: Re: Silly, silly us: net.columbia Message-ID: <635@riccb.UUCP> Date: Mon, 24-Feb-86 18:07:02 EST Article-I.D.: riccb.635 Posted: Mon Feb 24 18:07:02 1986 Date-Received: Wed, 26-Feb-86 20:31:48 EST References: <19000004@hpfcla.UUCP> <628@riccb.UUCP> <1975@peora.UUCP> Organization: Rockwell International - Downers Grove, IL Lines: 94 In article <1975@peora.UUCP> J. Eric Roskos writes: > The discussions would have gone on anyway; people would have said, "I think > it is a fitting memorial to rename net.space.shuttle to net.space.challenger" > and all the postings would have occurred. I disagree. The change to net.challenger was first proposed BECAUSE the newsgroup was already named after another shuttle orbiter vehicle. Had it been generically named net.space.shuttle such ideas would probably never have been publicly expressed and even if they had, probably would not have gotten the (temporary) popular support the net.columbia->net.challenger name change had. But then neither of us is going to be able to PROVE that such postings would or would not have occurred. > Rather, it is the handful of people who are dissatisfied with the name who > provoked a lot of the annoying discussion; it is one thing to have to go > through myriads of votes for and against renaming the newsgroup, but quite > another to have the Challenger tragedy exploited by a few who want to > foist their ideas of what the newsgroup should be named on those who were > participating in it long before the tragedy, and who were quite satisfied > with the name. Since I am dissatisfied with the name net.columbia, I assume you are lumping me in with the people who "provoked a lot of the annoying discussion." Actually, the only things I found annoying were the hundreds of votes posted. There were maybe a half dozen well thought out articles, both in net.columbia and net.news.group, calmly discussing the pro's and con's of such a name change. I contributed a two-line article suggesting that no name change take place until people had calmed down a bit and talked about the matter a while. The only thing that was "annoying" was the sheer volume of "yes, let's do it"/"no, let's not" variety. This was all provoked by one off-hand comment and it snowballed. Just WHO is exploiting the Challenger tragedy? WHO are the "few who want to foist their ideas of what the newsgroup should be named on those who were participating in it long before the tragedy, and who were quite satisfied with the name?" Certainly you can't mean lil' ol' me! As I posted in the article which was being followed up, "I and others suggested several times long before the Challenger accident that the name should be net.space. shuttle." It is only because it seems inevitable that the newsgroup will be renamed that I feel this should be brought to everyone's attention again. And, judging by the heap of positive responses to my previous posting, I'd say we're not a few. Nor are we "foisting" our ideas on others. We're observing proper netiquette by stating our position and the reasons behind it in the appropriate forum. Rather, it is some of the net.challenger proponents who are "foisting" their choice of a newsgroup name on others. The net.challenger newsgroup was created within days of its proposal, without proper discussion beforehand, by one of these people. THIS is what I call exploiting the Challenger tragedy! Roskos also seems to equate being satisfied with the name "net.columbia" and participating in the newsgroup for a long time before the tragedy. Clearly, they are not the same. I've been posting intelligent, informative articles (at least, I think they are) to net.columbia for over three years. When Adam Buchsbaum could no longer post wire service summaries because he left for school, I think I might have been the only one who volunteered to take over this task for him and keep net.columbia readers informed. I can remember WEEKS (plural!) of time when I was the only one posting to net.columbia. I know what I'm talking about and I know that the arguments I have advanced are sound. I also know that there is a lot of popular support for this name change. I'd like to see some postings or mail discussing the disadvantages of changing a newsgroup name. I've heard claims that it's difficult or costly in some respects and I'd be very interested in hearing why this is. If it's true, then maybe the name shouldn't change at all. But it's pretty clear that the net.challenger name has virtually no serious support any more. > . . . You have to base your decision on what the people who use the > newsgroup want . . . . Quite right. And just who is going to be using the newsgroup when the furor over the tragedy dies down? I guarantee I'll be one of them. I've contributed more to net.columbia than I have to the entire remainder of USENET newsgroups over the past few years and I'm going to continue that pattern as long as I have access to USENET. > We've been over and over this issue before. There's nothing wrong with > the name. Someone who can speak English, with all it idiosyncrasies, > certainly should be able to deal with an idiosyncratic newsgroup name. > It's what makes the language interesting. And it's what makes USENET a pain in the neck. Such "let them eat idiosyncrasies" attitudes have no place on this multinational network. The fact is that the name net.columbia HAS caused significant problems in the past. Anyone who has truly participated in USENET for a couple years would know this. In addition to me, Roger Long (felix!bytebug) is apparently taking a poll on what to do with net.columbia. I urge him to post to net.news.group so others (and I) can get a path to him. I'll continue to accept and tally opinions mailed to me for future summary. Please, if you net-readers have any opinion on the matter at all, I encourage responses mailed to me at riccb!rjnoe. May the will of the net be done. -- Roger Noe ihnp4!riccb!rjnoe