From: kilroy@acme.gen.nz (earthbound misfit, I)
Subject: Re: nz.waffle
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 92 14:32:28 GMT
Organization: ACME BBS - Public Access Usenet, Palmerston North, New Zealand

dgd@kcbbs.gen.nz (David Dix) writes:

> Anyway I though this net was all about communications, I still cannot see
> _any_ good reason why new nz newsgroups should not be created on an almost
> ah-hoc basis. (Oooohh, I can hear the howls of Messrs Misfit and Dogbowl
> already)

Really? You must have been hallucinating. I see nothing wrong with saying "I
think the current rules are wrong, let's change them" (although I'm
personally not convinced that a change is needed), I've just been objecting
to the concept that this change is best achieved by randomly creating new
groups due to a lack of Clue and then saying "well, we need to change the
rules anyway?" How about some of that "communication" you mention? (and yes
David, I know it's not you that's the cause of nz.waffle's
pseudo-existance).

> Somehow none of the previous objections really mean too much when the
> alternative is that we could attract a *lot* more people into contributing
> to nz newsgroups.

Are you sure? Where are all these other people? I'm serious, let's here
about it. All you've done so far is some vague handwaving about lots of
people who supposedly would be part of the local Net if they weren't so
repulsed by the Evil group creation rules in NZ. If you said "I've got X
people who represent Organisation Y spread throughout the country who'd like
to use the Net for public discussion on specific topics A, B, & C" then some
serious discussion about newsgroups could take place (although if X is
sufficiently small that the creation of a newsgroup is unlikely, you'll
probably be told to create mailing lists).

And if you do want to change the group creation method for nz.*, adopting an
ad-hoc basis is wrong, wrong, wrong. I was dead serious in my comparison to
alt, and I'm perfectly willing to send out 2-300 extremely stupid newgrp
control messages for groups in nz.* to nail home my point.

> But we do not have a _reasonable_ established network in NZ. We either do
> what we are told (by a few of those net.fascist.bastards you referred to
> previously) or we go do something totally different.

Hey, Demarcation mate! Fascist Bastards is my sweeping generalisation. And
no-one involved in the "running" of the net (and our local namespace) are
deserving of that title, and I've never thought they were[*]. If you want to
have some say, just do so, and often. In Usenet, he who posts most and posts
longest quickly becomes perceived as a "voice of authority". That's all
there is to it.

> Maybe the net costs series of articles in cave.kcbbs will start to show how
> we are already paying for _all_ of the nz network :-)
> Time must come soon when someone else gets that NZ-USA newsfeed connection
> up and going.

Don't bother, the simple economics don't bear it out. If every non-internet
site in NZ bands together to share a V.32bis feed from UUNET, the telecoms
cost alone almost comes down to about 50% more than what we currently pay to
NewZnet. And that's without UUNET's connect charges. NewZnet is a *good
deal*.

>                                                                *
> dgd@kcbbs.gen.nz (David Dix), Fidonet 3:772/90.
> ZL1UZC (bbs on 144.75 Pac Comm 1200)                     k *      *
> Kappa Crucis Unix BBS, Auckland, NEW ZEALAND.                   .
> Pth.9817-3725/3714 v32/v42bis/MNP5
>    9817-3094/8424 v32bis/v42bis/MNP5                          *
>    9817-3324/3393 v22bis/MNP5  NZMC lines

7 lines. I may have to warlord this, one can only do it to Simon so many
times.....

						- k
-- 
Craig Harding            kilroy@acme.gen.nz             ACME BBS +64 6 3551342
"Jub'er lbh pnyyvat n obmb?"
Xref: sparky nz.general:1439 soc.culture.new-zealand:2773