From: mwgertz+@cs.cmu.edu (Matthew Gertz)
Subject: Re: BABYLON 5 - Where to post?
Organization: Dept. of ECE, The Robotics Institute, Carnegie Mellon
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 13:07:04 GMT

tlynch@cco.caltech.edu (Timothy W. Lynch) writes:
>wmorgan@stsci.edu (Windsor A. Morgan) writes:
>
>>>>Re; Posting in rec.arts.startrek.current on Babylon 5.
>
>>tlynch@cco.caltech.edu (Timothy W. Lynch) writes:
>
>>>Sounds fair enough to me; might I suggest, however, that you add a "Followup-
>>>To: rec.arts.sf.tv" to these posts to (hopefully) prevent long threads on 
>>>the subject from showing up in r.a.s.c?
>
>>>Does this seem satisfactory to everyone else?
>
>>No.  As I indicated previously, it doesn't belong in r.a.s.current.
>>If the posts where posted to r.a.startrek.misc and followups set to
>>r.a.sf.tv, I think that would be best.
>
>Ooch.  Point taken, although this is a difficult point.  The blanket
>statement "this is not about Star Trek" is strictly correct, and thus there
>is merit to the argument that "this doesn't belong in r.a.startrek.*!".  
>However, I think there are enough tenuous connections and enough interest
>(as evidenced by the fact that I count at least half a dozen to a dozen 
>voices supporting continuing posting it in the hierarchy vs. two opposed) that
>the "rules" could be bent.  (Right...like they're hard rules, and like it's 
>up to me.  :-) )  
>
>However, if we're *already* "bending the rules" to bring in the B5 material,
>I'd have to argue that, as Trek-related (loosely; it must be to belong in 
>the groups at all, remember), it is *definitely* current news and so ends up
>in r.a.s.current.  
>
>Aaaigh.  Any ideas, short of flat-out "it belongs/doesn't belong here"
>jingoism?

Destroying the Babylon-5 sets, thus removing B5 from production, would solve
the problem.  (You're closest, Tim; you go do it 8^)

I don't like B5 on r.a.s.*, since I feel that B5 is exactly the type of thing
which belongs on r.a.sf.tv by charter -- taking things to the extreme,
if every new sf series was discussed on r.a.s.c, then what would be the point
of r.a.sf.tv in the first place (other than to discuss old reruns of "Lost
In Space)?

I recognize, though, that the appeal of B5 is probably going to very strong
for us Trekkers, especially since there's this anticipation to see how
alike B5 and DS9 (a legitimate topic in r.a.s.c) will be.  On the other
hand, I don't see why it's so difficult for people to add one more
newsgroup to their subscribed list, namely r.a.sf.tv.

My not-so-humble-opinion:

Discuss B5 over on r.a.sf.tv, which has been chartered for science fiction
shows.  Keep the updates and discussions off r.a.s.c and r.a.s.m (if it's
inappropriate for r.a.s.c., then it's even more inappropriate for r.a.s.m.,
which is supposed to be spoiler-free).  If there are discussions about
ST vs. B5, they should be crossposted until the discussion bends towards
one or the other.

Recognizing that many people won't agree with this, I'd at least like to 
suggest that B5 discussions stay out of r.a.s.misc, which, as I said, is 
supposed to be spoiler-free, and B5 is at least "current" in the same sense 
that DS9 is.

--Matt Gertz--*, r.a.s.* netiquette guy
-- 
Matt Gertz, mwgertz+@cs.cmu.edu
Dept. of ECE, The Robotics Institute at Carnegie Mellon University.
Xref: sparky rec.arts.sf.tv:2803 rec.arts.startrek.current:11699