From: kherron@ms.uky.edu (Kenneth Herron)
Subject: Re: New (and again, old) group proposals
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 19:34:47 GMT
Organization: University Of Kentucky, Dept. of Math Sciences

fsspr@acad3.alaska.edu (Sean P. Ryan, Hardcore Alaskan) writes:

>alt[.culture].alaska (originally proposed March 1992)
>alt[.culture].oregon (originally proposed February 1992)

I don't see anything wrong with either idea.  I'd much prefer to see
the "culture" part in the name, though.


>alt.fan.hucksters (originally proposed April 1992)

>This group would be for fans of colorful television spokesmen, referred
>to in slang terminology as "hucksters."  In the United States, examples
>of such would include Crazy Eddie, the late Earl Scheib, Cal
>Worthington, Tom Peterson and Jack Roberts.  Hell, even people like
>Robert Tilton and Hulk Hogan would qualify for inclusion here.  
>Likewise, countless thousands of lesser-known "hucksters" exist 
>everywhere else, including, no doubt, your local area.

I don't think this one is a good idea.  There aren't really a lot
of hucksters with broad scope, eg of the ones you mention the only
ones I've seen locally are Hulk Hogan and Earl Scheib once or twice.
Aside from the occasional anecdote, I doubt people would be too
interested in talk about local hucksters in other areas.  

A useful analogy might be car-for-sale ads:  Unless you're considering
buying a car, they're drop-dead boring.

>alt.tv.infomercials
>-------------------

>Yes, I will admit it, I've become an infomercial junkie.  For the
>benefit of those of you who live in caves, infomercials are half-hour
>paid advertisements for products and services, usually presented under 
>the guise of being talk shows, and usually airing late at night on cable
>TV.  Topics which can be discussed here are the production values and
>comedy values of the shows, the merits of the products being advertised
>and anything else that's relevant.  I don't know if misc.consumers or
>rec.arts.tv already cover the ideas that this group would cover, though. 
>Maybe someone could let me know about that.

>Plus, the following alt.politics.* groups.  These would cover some of
>the lesser-known presidential candidates, and would serve the same
>purpose as the currently-existing alt.politics.* groups for presidential
>candidates.

>alt.politics.fulani
>alt.politics.gritz
>alt.politics.hagelin
>alt.politics.larouche
>alt.politics.phillips

The problem is that it has so far proven impossible to remove an
alt group that has outlived its purpose [the reasons why this is true
are another whole article in itself].  LaRouche has shown staying
power, but for the most part there won't be any use for these groups
after the election.

Naming the groups after the party, rather than the candidate, would
be more reasonable, but I'd prefer to see some signs that there'd
be a reasonable amount of discussion for each party before creating
five groups at once.

I'm not going to suggest a name, but if you could put all of these
under one or two blanket categories that'd be best.  And be mindful
that every group is world-wide when you choose a name--ie, unless
it's really generic, like "alt.politics.alternative", it should
probably go under alt.politics.usa.  You *cannot* depend on posters to
use the usa distribution, or all sites handling distributions properly.
-- 
Kenneth Herron                                   kherron@ms.uky.edu
University of Kentucky                              +1 606 257 2975
Department of Mathematics      I just thought of a neat disproof of
     Fermat's last theorem, but .signatures can only be four lines.
Xref: sparky alt.config:6214 rec.games.frp.misc:6897 rec.games.frp.advocacy:2806