|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
sci.space.shenzou ?
sci.space.shenzou
Do we need this new newsgroup? |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
sci.space.shenzou ?
"Thomas Former" wrote ...
sci.space.shenzou Do we need this new newsgroup? No. Although I sometimes think we could do with a ... sci.space.check-your-national-prejudices-at-the-door |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
sci.space.shenzou ?
"Thomas Former" wrote in message ... sci.space.shenzou Do we need this new newsgroup? We need it as much as we need sci.space.soyuz. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
sci.space.shenzou ?
"Greg D. Moore (Strider)" schrieb im Newsbeitrag ... "Thomas Former" wrote in message ... sci.space.shenzou Do we need this new newsgroup? We need it as much as we need sci.space.soyuz. Right!!! |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
sci.space.shenzou ?
how about
sci.space.spacecraft instead or sci.space.politics or sci.space.emerging-technology Mike Thomas Former wrote: "Greg D. Moore (Strider)" schrieb im Newsbeitrag ... "Thomas Former" wrote in message ... sci.space.shenzou Do we need this new newsgroup? We need it as much as we need sci.space.soyuz. Right!!! |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
sci.space.shenzou ?
"Abrigon Gusiq" wrote in message ... how about sci.space.spacecraft instead I think perhaps sci.space.crewed might have been a better idea than sci.space.shuttle. And in case Thomas didn't get my sarcarm, no I don't hink we need a sci.space.soyuz. or sci.space.politics or sci.space.emerging-technology Mike Thomas Former wrote: "Greg D. Moore (Strider)" schrieb im Newsbeitrag ... "Thomas Former" wrote in message ... sci.space.shenzou Do we need this new newsgroup? We need it as much as we need sci.space.soyuz. Right!!! |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
sci.space.shenzou ?
On or about Sun, 12 Oct 2003 00:45:39 GMT, Greg D. Moore (Strider) made the sensational claim that:
I think perhaps sci.space.crewed might have been a better idea than sci.space.shuttle. And in case Thomas didn't get my sarcarm, no I don't hink we need a sci.space.soyuz. It's a tricky thing. I was thinking sci.space.craft for such things as progress, ATV, etc. Possibly sci.space.craft.manned for OSP and Soyuz, and whatever might follow. -- This is a siggy | To E-mail, do note | This space is for rent It's properly formatted | who you mean to reply-to | Inquire within if you No person, none, care | and it will reach me | Would like your ad here |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
sci.space.shenzou ?
On Sun, 12 Oct 2003 08:51:01 +0000, LooseChanj wrote:
Greg D. Moore (Strider) said: I think perhaps sci.space.crewed might have been a better idea than sci.space.shuttle. And in case Thomas didn't get my sarcarm, no I don't hink we need a sci.space.soyuz. It's a tricky thing. I was thinking sci.space.craft for such things as progress, ATV, etc. Possibly sci.space.craft.manned for OSP and Soyuz, and whatever might follow. And sci.space.flash-in-the-pan for X-prize candidates? And where do you put unmanned probe talk...? -- Chuck Stewart "Anime-style catgirls: Threat? Menace? Or just studying algebra?" |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
sci.space.shenzou ?
On Sun, 12 Oct 2003 09:22:37 -0500, "Chuck Stewart" wrote:
On Sun, 12 Oct 2003 08:51:01 +0000, LooseChanj wrote: Greg D. Moore (Strider) said: I think perhaps sci.space.crewed might have been a better idea than sci.space.shuttle. And in case Thomas didn't get my sarcarm, no I don't hink we need a sci.space.soyuz. It's a tricky thing. I was thinking sci.space.craft for such things as progress, ATV, etc. Possibly sci.space.craft.manned for OSP and Soyuz, and whatever might follow. And sci.space.flash-in-the-pan for X-prize candidates? And where do you put unmanned probe talk...? Years ago, before .history and .station, sci.space.shuttle seemed to be the default group for everything that was not policy, tech, or science related. There were suggestions for sci.space.manned and sci.space.unmanned, or even sci.space.current.manned/.unmanned to go with a .history group. Then you could have sci.space.manned.shuttle, sci.space.manned.station, along with maybe something like sci.space.manned.other (though outside of shuttle and station and the very recent Shenzou, what else is there right now that could go there?) There really is no sci.space group for "everything else". I'm of the opinion that .policy should have been renamed to .misc long ago to both make it conform to usenet standards and make it clear where to put discussion for non-tech/science/shuttle/history/station, but that's an argument for another day.... Sci.space.moderated should never have been created. Those who voted for it don't use it. My ideal sci.space hierarchy: sci.space.history sci.space.manned.shuttle (formerly sci.space.shuttle) sci.space.manned.station (formerly sci.space.station) includes ATV, Progress, Soyuz, OSP, etc. that goes to the ISS sci.space.misc (formerly sci.space.policy) discussion of anything that doesn't fit in any of the other groups - Shenzou, Galileo probe, X-prize, policy, OSP development, etc. sci.space.news sci.space.science sci.space.tech |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
sci.space.shenzou ?
Michael R. Grabois ... change $ to "s" wrote:
There really is no sci.space group for "everything else". I'm of the opinion that .policy should have been renamed to .misc long ago to both make it conform to usenet standards and make it clear where to put discussion for non-tech/science/shuttle/history/station, but that's an argument for another day.... I disagree. I think the big problem with a .misc group would be that a lot of posts that should go to the other groups will end up there, rather than the appropriate group. Not having a .misc group means that those posts go to the right places (most of the time). Sci.space.moderated should never have been created. Those who voted for it don't use it. At the time I voted, I was still in favour of it, but my enthusiasm was weakening. Now I agree that it was a lousy idea. In hindsight, moderating sci.space.shuttle may have been a better option, but I've found that ruthlessly killfiling people works pretty well too. At the worst times, though, killfiling wasn't as effective as it is now. My ideal sci.space hierarchy: sci.space.history sci.space.manned.shuttle (formerly sci.space.shuttle) sci.space.manned.station (formerly sci.space.station) includes ATV, Progress, Soyuz, OSP, etc. that goes to the ISS sci.space.misc (formerly sci.space.policy) discussion of anything that doesn't fit in any of the other groups - Shenzou, Galileo probe, X-prize, policy, OSP development, etc. If a .manned hierarchy is going to be created, then why not have a ..manned.history and a .manned.misc (for X-prize, OSP, Shenzou etc)? I don't really think that a .manned hierarchy is worthwhile, especially if it is only going to have a small number of groups. ... I think what we have now serves well enough for the most part. I think that the Chinese space program is the only thing that doesn't fit fairly well into the existing hierarchy, but I think that we should avoid taking any steps towards a new group until the Chinese program matures a bit. Right now, the Chinese-related traffic doesn't justify a new group, and if China settles down to flying space stations, then no new group will be needed at all. --Chris |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|