From: coop1w13@bnr.ca (Mike Hammond)
Subject: Re: The Return of Quantum Leap to r.a.t.
Reply-To: coop1w13@bnr.ca
Organization: BNR Ottawa, Fibre Systems Development
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 92 20:44:51 GMT

In article <BMq9Cq.MG9@world.std.com>, dmb@world.std.com (Deborah M Brown) writes:
|> In article <300@romana.Tymnet.COM> sally@romana.Tymnet.COM (Sally 'Lucky Bitch' Smith) writes:
|> >In article <1992Apr13.225321.1432@HQ.Ileaf.COM> tyg@HQ.Ileaf.COM (Thomas Galloway) writes:
|> 
|> >>The really amusing thing is that it seems that the people most vocally opposed
|> >>to having any sort of QL group, even a full-fledged rec.arts.tv.quantum_leap,
|> >>are the Leapers themselves.
|> 
|> >Look, most new groups are started when the people who like the {show,
|> >computer, sport, etc.} want one and start it themselves.
|> 
|> >In this case, it's constantly that OTHER people are trying to MAKE us
|> >Leapers go off into our own group, even though we have repeatedly said
|> >we don't want one. This is just a little teeny bit prejudicial.
|> 
|> You know, I *THOUGHT* there was something weird about this whole argument.
|> Sally, I think you hit this nail on the head.
|> 
|> [...]
|> >Look -- we don't want to go. Please respect our wishes and our personal
|> >freedoms as net.people and don't force us to.
|> 
|> Good idea.  Besides, even if the anti-ql people DO get one created, there is 
|> nothing that says people will actually USE it (and THEN what would be
|> the point?).
|> 
|> I don't particularly care if a ggroup is actually created - I probably won't
|> even vote on it.  I seriously doubt I would use it.
|> 
|> >Besides which, the QL traffic is usually at a reasonable level until
|> >someone brings this topic up again. Ignore us and we're fairly quiet. And
|> >the traffic now is much less than it was the last time the CFV went out, so
|> >I'd say it has even less chance of passing.
|> 
|> I'd say you were right. :-)

As a huge fan of Quantum Leap (read: Leaper), I apologize for starting this
thread. I'm new to the network/newsgroups, and was originally disappointed
when Quantum Leap didn't have a newsgroup dedicated exclusively to it. I had
read that there was a vote about Quantum Leap becoming a newsgroup and that
the motion was defeated, but I had assumed it wasn't because the fans didn't 
want one! 
 
I attempted to renew the bid for its own newsgroup not because I wanted to 
quiet other Leapers, but because I wanted to encourage their postings. It
was my opinion that people would be more likely to post something to a 
newsgroup if it wasn't going to be read/analyzed/ridiculed by some non-fans
and totally ignored by others. I realize now that this was a mistake, that
most Leapers don't want to have their own newsgroup, but I still wish to 
encourage you silent Leapers to speak out! Just look: if one stupid newcomer
(me) can generate so much traffic with a topic that was apparently beaten to
death a long time ago, you, too, can contribute something to the net and to
everyone's general enjoyment of the best program on television. 
 
I again apologize for my stupidity.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
|      Mike Hammond       | ``Yes, I'm...too wascally for Bugs Bunny,   |
|      Co-op Student      |   too wascally for Bugs Bunny,              |
|       BNR Ottawa        |   so wascally...it's almost funny!''        |
|    and University of    |                        Right Said Fudd,     |
|        Waterloo         |                      ``I'm Too Wascally''   |
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=