From: mike@aloysius.equinox.gen.nz (Mike Campbell)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: RFD: rec.games.miniatures 
Distribution: world
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 93 22:02:18 GMT
Organization: Me? Organized?


In article <C19L6G.MGK@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> charbonn@silver.ucs.indiana.edu writes:

  > 
  > In article <C198uG.y0@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> ahabig@bigbang.astro.indiana.edu  >  (Alec Habig) writes:
  > >
  > >For more specific discussions, several well publicized mailing lists exist  >  (cf:
  > >FAQ, news.answers).  Mailing lists also have fewer distribution problems than
  > >do newsgroups - more people can't read a newsgroup than people who are not
  > >allowed to suscribe to lists (this was shown in a recent ASL list debate).

I don't know about your system, but here mail costs money and I find 
it a lot easier to read threads than mail.  If people want access to a 
newsgroup which they can't subscribe to then a Digest (weekly 
compendium of all messages, sent out as mail) might be a good idea.  

  > >While I would also like to see more miniature stuff on usenet, I think that
  > >the way to get it is not a new group (which if present volume is a good
  > >barometer, wouldn't have much traffic), but to post more about it on r.g.b.  A  > >discussion in the wider forum of r.g.b. would reach more people and stimulate
  > >more interest than the same discussion on a dedicated newsgroup with a smaller  > >readership.

How do you know there won't be much traffic?  As far as I have noticed 
most people stick to the newsgroup subject when posting, so you 
wouldn't expect much miniatures traffic on a boardgame group.  I have 
discussed matters on alt.war and sci.military which have come close to 
being rules discussions, and would probably have become so if they had 
been held on r.b.m.

  > However, if I might muddy the waters a bit, let me say that I would also
  > support a rec.games.war group that would include discussion of both
  > board and miniature wargames.  Others may find fantasy and sci fi games
  > interesting; to me, they're all noise and no signal.  To say that one
  > can "simulate" something that isn't real is something of an abuse of the
  > language.  But perhaps I am being a curmudgeon this morning....
  > 
  > Back to the main point: Absent a rec.games.war, I support this proposal,
  > although without a lot of enthusiasm -- the discussion will probably be
  > dominated by Warhammerites, etc.

Way down here we have also been "afflicted" by Warhammer.  By 
afflicted I mean that most of the older miniature gamers find they are 
unable to enjoy gaming in the same room as the typical warhammer game 
- it offends their aesthetic and aural sensibilities.  Personnaly I 
think this is a failing on the part of the older gamers - they (and I) 
were just as bad at the age of 12 - 20, however we were encouraged and 
tolerated by an even older generation.  I have no problem with 
warhammer, and in the context of a newsgroup I can easily avoid those 
messages which I don't want to read.  The only problem is that the 
extra messages will take a few extra seconds to upload, and occupy 
some extra sectors on my hd.  No prolem at all really.



Mike Campbell, Christchurch, New Zealand
mike@aloysius.equinox.gen.nz