From: hjv@phil.ruu.nl (Hendrik Jan Veenstra)
Subject: Re: RFD: What to do with comp.binaries.atari.st/comp.sources.atari.st?
Organization: Department of Philosophy, University of Utrecht, The Netherlands
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 14:09:07 GMT

dmb@case.ai.mit.edu (David Baggett) writes:

>In article <hjv.726673126@groucho.phil.ruu.nl> hjv@phil.ruu.nl (Hendrik Jan Veenstra) writes:
>>And now we're at it: how about a group comp.sys.atari.flames ???  So we
>>can get back to the regular interesting stuff in c.s.a.st...

>WHAT interesting stuff?  Talking about all the great new software for
>Atari computers, I suppose?  The only thing I've seen here in the past
>year -- besides disussion about why Atari sucks -- is talk about the
>Falcon, which you can't even come close to buying in most parts of the
>world.

Which only supports my point-of-view: that's it's silly at least (annoying
at the most) that so much bandwidth is wasted on either childish flamewars
or discussions (which tend to get flamy too) about a non-existant machine.
The proposal for a flame-group wasn't entirely serious, but I often wonder
if it wouldn't be a good idea indeed...  And some time ago someone proposed
a falcon-group -- another not-too-bad idea maybe...
Once there was a time when reading c.s.a.st was fun and interesting -- and
the bad S/N ratio nowadays is _not_ just caused by the lack of interesting
developments for the ST or whatever.  I'm afraid the biggest cause of the
current S/N ratio is the continuous stream of pro/con Atari threads -- with
a functional contents of approx 0.00, always repeating the same religious
arguments, etc, etc.

>Those of you who CHOOSE to stay in a market dominated by the
>World's Worst Company shouldn't complain when people point out Atari's
>inadequacies.

In the meantime I think I (and most other c.s.a.st readers) know all about
Atari's inadequacies.  There's little use in repeating the same stuff over
and over again.  Please, tell me something new.
And another obvious remark: if people really hate Atari that much, why do
they make themselves (and others) tired with writing articles in this
group?  I myself absolutely don't feel the need to write articles on the
shortcomings of PCs in one of the ms-dos group -- why is that?  Am I just
being stoopid?  Should I write old-stuff-containing, contentsless articles
to the Amiga, IBM, ms-dos, Unix,... groups everyday?  C'me on...
OTOH, writing articles on 'how good Atari is' in an Atari-group is of course
as stupid as the reverse...

>After all, YOU own an ST/TT/Falcon because it does what
>YOU want, not because of what other people think about, right?  It's
>really NOT a religion, right?

Yes, indeed, I'm not interested whatsoever in what anyone thinks about Atari.
That's why I'd like to see some threads moved, aborted, killed, stopped.
And please, don't yell that much.  There's nothing wrong with my eyes or ears.

>BTW, if you want a new group, read news.announce.newgroups and learn
>about the hideously annoying (and flame-prone) process you have to go
>through before you can create it.

I know all about it -- that's why I'm not running a RFD or CFV (sp?)...

--
Hendrik Jan Veenstra    hjv@phil.ruu.nl  *  How can I save my dreams
Dept. of Philosophy                      *  in the nightmare, in the flood
University of Utrecht                    *  But I try.
The Netherlands                          *
Newsgroups: comp.sys.atari.st