In article <C19L6G.MGK@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> charbonn@silver.ucs.indiana.edu writes:
>
> In article <C198uG.y0@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> ahabig@bigbang.astro.indiana.edu > (Alec Habig) writes:
> >
> >For more specific discussions, several well publicized mailing lists exist > (cf:
> >FAQ, news.answers). Mailing lists also have fewer distribution problems than
> >do newsgroups - more people can't read a newsgroup than people who are not
> >allowed to suscribe to lists (this was shown in a recent ASL list debate).
I don't know about your system, but here mail costs money and I find
it a lot easier to read threads than mail. If people want access to a
newsgroup which they can't subscribe to then a Digest (weekly
compendium of all messages, sent out as mail) might be a good idea.
> >While I would also like to see more miniature stuff on usenet, I think that
> >the way to get it is not a new group (which if present volume is a good
> >barometer, wouldn't have much traffic), but to post more about it on r.g.b. A > >discussion in the wider forum of r.g.b. would reach more people and stimulate
> >more interest than the same discussion on a dedicated newsgroup with a smaller > >readership.
How do you know there won't be much traffic? As far as I have noticed
most people stick to the newsgroup subject when posting, so you
wouldn't expect much miniatures traffic on a boardgame group. I have
discussed matters on alt.war and sci.military which have come close to
being rules discussions, and would probably have become so if they had
been held on r.b.m.
> However, if I might muddy the waters a bit, let me say that I would also
> support a rec.games.war group that would include discussion of both
> board and miniature wargames. Others may find fantasy and sci fi games
> interesting; to me, they're all noise and no signal. To say that one
> can "simulate" something that isn't real is something of an abuse of the
> language. But perhaps I am being a curmudgeon this morning....
>
> Back to the main point: Absent a rec.games.war, I support this proposal,
> although without a lot of enthusiasm -- the discussion will probably be
> dominated by Warhammerites, etc.
Way down here we have also been "afflicted" by Warhammer. By
afflicted I mean that most of the older miniature gamers find they are
unable to enjoy gaming in the same room as the typical warhammer game
- it offends their aesthetic and aural sensibilities. Personnaly I
think this is a failing on the part of the older gamers - they (and I)
were just as bad at the age of 12 - 20, however we were encouraged and
tolerated by an even older generation. I have no problem with
warhammer, and in the context of a newsgroup I can easily avoid those
messages which I don't want to read. The only problem is that the
extra messages will take a few extra seconds to upload, and occupy
some extra sectors on my hd. No prolem at all really.
