From: hades@coos.dartmouth.edu (Hades)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: RFD: rec.arts.sf.tv.blakes7
Date: 2 Sep 92 15:07:43 GMT
Reply-To: hades@Dartmouth.Edu
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH
Disclaimer: Personally, I really don't care who you think I speak for.
Moderator: Rec.Arts.Comics.Info

kat@bacchus.esa.oz.au (Kathryn Andersen) writes:

>In <1992Aug31.170122.21968@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> hades@coos.dartmouth.edu (Hades) writes:

>>ckd@eff.org (Christopher Davis) writes:

>>>Given that the show's already dead, the argument that there won't be
>>>traffic after it dies doesn't hold a whole lot of water.

>>    I realize this, but I was speaking in a general manner. The fact
>>that the particular show we are talking about is already dead means this
>>group really shouldn't be created, IMHO.

>Ah, but fans have been discussing this "corpse" for years!  Do Star
>Trek and Doctor Who fans have a monopoly on discussing dead shows?
>Us Blake's 7 fans have discussed it for ten years after it was dead,
>and we shall keep discussing it!

    I never said that you shouldn't discuss this or any show, dead or
alive. However I would like to point out that Star Trek and Dr. Who got
their own groups a very long time ago, before there was a rec.* or an
alt.* for the simple reason that the level of traffic devoted to these 2
shows was so hig it drowned out discussion on the group net.sf-lovers.
As a solution to this net.startrek and net.drwho were created. When the
time of the Great Renaming(tm) came the groups were very popular and so
they were given rec.arts.* groups because that was the closest hierarchy
that they fit in. So in a sense Star Trek and Dr. Who do have a
"monolopy" of sorts. That being they are the only 2 Tv shows to have a
rec.arts.* group. And Start Trek doesn't even fit this description any
more. To claim that Star Trek is nothing more than a TV show now is
nothing short of ludicrous.

>And though new shows are not being made, you can't say nothing is
>happening out there; the videos are being released, and new novels
>are being written (is it true that Paul Darrow is doing a second one?).

    Well, up until a wayward post made it into r.a.sf.tv, I had never
heard of this show. This is not to say that I determin what is and isn't
popular, just that this show might not be as popular as you think.

>I want this group because I don't want to have to look for Blake's 7
>posts in rec.arts.tv.uk, rec.arts.drwho, rec.arts.sf.misc, aus.sf,
>rec.arts.startrek.misc *and* rec.arts.sf.tv!  And I think having
>a group of its own will encourage Blake's 7 fans to get together;

    This is have no problem with, and that was why I suggested that
discussion of this show be moved to rec.arts.sv.tv, which is probably
the group witht he lowest traffic and widest distribution combination of
the ones you mentioned.

>I would expect its traffic to increase if it had its own group.

    Probably. But that is a good thing. If the traffic really increases
then perhaps it would be time to create alt.tv.blakes7, but i seriously
doubt that you could get rec.arts.*.blakes7 created.

>As someone said earlier, an alt group would not solve this problem,
>becuase those who can't get alt would still be posting to these other
>groups, and you'd be cross-posting alot.

    Well, apparantly there is already a lot of crossposting, but if you
moved everything to rec.arts.sf.tv you wouldn't have this problem.

>Come on, long live B7!

    Sure. Why not.

--
-Hades (Brian V. Hughes) 
	    "Egads! These look like a women's fingerprints"
						   -- Durlock Holmes
Newsgroups: news.groups,news.newusers.questions