Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.misc > #1053

Re: Fertility procedure risks designer babies

Show all headers | View raw

RS Wood wrote:
> I had a look at m.n.i.d. (too bad the acronym doesn't work out to 
> m.i.n.d.! - oh well).  It's not bad.  Two comments: 
> 1. The stuff posted there is often more whimsical often has no tech 
> angle at all (Japanese tourists arrested because they didn't understand 
> traffic signals etc.) whereas I'm finding and hoping to share articles 
> that are technical in nature but not necessarily related to computers or 
> computing.  I'd like to look around a bit longer. 

Agreed. I took a look at the history and it seems m.n.i.d changed quite
a bit from 2010 to 2011. These days, most topics are being posted by a
single person and replies seem relatively rare. The topics themselves seem
to cover (mostly non-IT) sci/tech, rights and politics, and unusual news
that might not get wide coverage else where. The amount of traffic is not
high, but seems fairly consistent.

> 2. There's already a bit of a community there, though a thin one.  In 
> light of Michael Black's concerns - which I think are legitimate - I 
> posted a note there saying they might see some names and faces.  It's 
> one thing to start using comp.misc which had nothing but robo-spam and 
> another to drop in on a community already sort of doing its own thing. 
> (I also invited them to come join us here). 

I saw your post. Good thinking. I agree that there does seem to be a
little community there, with some people having been there for years.
I didn't get the sense that they would be averse to more people joining
in, but your "Incoming!" post should tell us if it will be a problem or
not.

> In sum, let's look around a bit longer.  There's still alt.geek and 
> alt.nerd.obsessive.  alt.hackers.discuss seems available but it's not 
> quite right.  There's also alt.misc and misc.misc, both of which seem to 
> receive regular robo-spam posts of total garbage and neither of which 
> seems like a great fit. 

I've been looking around for a while myself. I've kind of convinced myself
that I'd rather we stayed in the Big-8 somewhere (i.e., not alt, despite
what I may have suggested in the past).

> I was going to say, perhaps it's time to propose to the Big-8 Board an 
> alt.something but what would it be and how would it differ from this? 
> Then we're back to posting the Your Rights Online type stuff in 
> alt.privacy and the hacker stuff in alt.2600 and we're spread out again. 

Would we even go to the Big-8 board for an alt group? Anyway, I've already
stated my preference for a non-alt group, but I'm not dead-set on it.
If we did propose a group, I'd currently be inclined to go for something
like misc.news.scitech or talk.nerd.

> In the short term while we get organized, I'll post the technical- but 
> not-comp stuff on m.n.i.d and I guess we'll see how it goes. 

See you there.

Regards,
Bill
-- 
Join an active tech-news-and-discussion community in comp.misc...
Saving Usenet since February 2014! :p

View this thread at http://squte.com/node/4773#comment-11333

Back to comp.misc | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Fertility procedure risks "designer babies" RS Wood  <rswood@therandymon.com> - 2014-02-25 20:30 +0000
  Re: Fertility procedure risks "designer babies" Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2014-02-25 23:19 +0200
    Re: Fertility procedure risks "designer babies" Rob <monst.oorzudo@ntlworld.com> - 2014-02-26 09:36 +0000
    Re: Fertility procedure risks "designer babies" SlimmPickens <lachlanmoss@gmail.com> - 2014-02-26 02:50 -0800
      Re: Fertility procedure risks "designer babies" Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2014-02-26 15:03 +0200
        Re: Fertility procedure risks "designer babies" "Andy K." <andy.k466@gmail.com> - 2014-03-02 23:42 +0100
    Re: Fertility procedure risks "designer babies" Shadow <Sh@dow.br> - 2014-02-26 11:24 -0300
  Re: Fertility procedure risks "designer babies" Peter Percival <peterxpercival@hotmail.com> - 2014-02-26 12:51 +0000
    Re: Fertility procedure risks  designer babies "wjwlsn" <ibillwilson@gmail.com> - 2014-02-26 11:06 -0600
    Re: Fertility procedure risks "designer babies" RS Wood <rsw@therandymon.com> - 2014-02-26 17:13 +0000
      Re: Fertility procedure risks "designer babies" Peter Percival <peterxpercival@hotmail.com> - 2014-02-27 12:18 +0000
        non-comp tech articles (was fertility ...) RS Wood <rsw@therandymon.com> - 2014-02-27 15:44 +0000
          Re: non-comp tech articles (was fertility ...) Peter Percival <peterxpercival@hotmail.com> - 2014-02-27 16:58 +0000
          Re: Fertility procedure risks  designer babies "wjwlsn" <ibillwilson@gmail.com> - 2014-02-27 11:05 -0600
            Re: Fertility procedure risks  designer babies "tdk" <forum.tdk@squte.com> - 2014-02-27 12:22 -0600
            Re: non-comp tech articles (was fertility ...) RS Wood <rsw@therandymon.com> - 2014-02-27 20:09 +0000
              Re: Fertility procedure risks  designer babies "wjwlsn" <ibillwilson@gmail.com> - 2014-02-27 14:39 -0600
                Re: Fertility procedure risks  designer babies RS Wood <rsw@therandymon.com> - 2014-02-27 20:50 +0000
              Re: non-comp tech articles (was fertility ...) Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2014-03-01 04:59 -0400
                Re: non-comp tech articles (was fertility ...) Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2014-03-02 23:48 -0500
              Re: non-comp tech articles (was fertility ...) Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2014-03-02 23:43 -0500

csiph-web