From: utzoo!decvax!harpo!ihps3!ihuxx!rjnoe Newsgroups: net.startrek Title: Re: Topics for Discussion Article-I.D.: ihuxx.171 Posted: Fri Sep 10 09:31:02 1982 Received: Sat Sep 11 01:32:45 1982 Adam, what are you doing reading this newsgroup? You claim to believe that net.startrek is not broad enough a category to deserve its own newsgroup, insisting that this belongs on net.movies, yet you still read this newsgroup. You obviously are not a very avid reader of this group, because by your own count you have missed over half of the articles which have been posted here. And yes, you are correct in that you were the only person to mail me a note (or to voice the opinion anywhere) to the effect that net.startrek should not exist. Yet by my current count, over 168 others (plus some duplicates) were for this newsgroup. I agree that the number of postings has not been as high as anticipated, but you must remember that quite a few of these responses were from readers of net.movies who are not "Star Trek" fans and did not want to see that newsgroup crowded with discussions on how a phaser is supposed to work. Obviously these people are unlikely to submit articles to net.startrek or even read net.startrek for that matter. This was one of the reasons for net.startrek's existence which you failed to address in your solitary dissenting opinion. Do you really feel that "Star Trek" is not broad enough to merit a newsgroup? How about Atari video games? Or the LISP language? Or the 68000 microcomputer? How do you reconcile discussion of 79 hour-long television episodes originally aired between 1966 and 1969 (and now shown only in syndication--and more widely syndicated than any other show) with a newsgroup exclusively devoted to motion pictures? So now you may say "put it on net.tv" or something similar. Then where do "Star Trek: The Motion Picture" and "Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan" get discussed? For that matter, where does the philosophy of "Star Trek" go? If you were truly a "Star Trek" fan, you would not be able to forget the fact that "Star Trek" is much more than a television show or (so far) a couple of movies. All this aside, why do you care that net.startrek exists? If you don't like it, why don't you just unsubscribe from the newsgroup? You were entirely right to voice your opinion while debate over the creation of net.startrek was under way--but what good does it do now? Please don't take this the wrong way, Adam, but are you throwing a childish tantrum? I fail to see any logic in your position. I guess you just don't read other people's articles very closely. My previous article posed the question of whether or not articles on Star Wars, Galactica, etc. should be encouraged on this newsgroup. Explicit in the question was the fact that those topics were not as broad or widely followed to be likely to earn newsgroups on their own. I am interested in your responses to this, Adam. But let's keep it on the net--I think the other readers of this newsgroup have a right to know what's going on with net.startrek. Roger Noe ihuxx!rjnoe