In article <B74ak+Mg+mTIFwgU@baradel.demon.co.uk>,
Helen Hall <usenet@delete.this.baradel.demon.co.uk> wrote:

> What it boils down to is: if you can explain briefly how this issue
> directly pertains to a story that you are currently working on (or at
> least thinking about) and it's an issue that by discussing it here
> you'll be able to unstick the story or do the planning or editing of it,
> then the discussion belongs in rasfc.
>
> Otherwise, if it's just discussion in the abstract, then even if it
> doesn't get heated, it's still clutter and would be better in
> rec.arts.sf.misc where it *is* on topic.

You are saying that rasm gets all the chocolate, cats, and pancakes?

--
http://www.daviddfriedman.com/ http://daviddfriedman.blogspot.com/
Author of _Harald_, a fantasy without magic.
Published by Baen, paperback in bookstores now

David Friedman <ddfr@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> wrote:

> > Otherwise, if it's just discussion in the abstract, then even if it
> > doesn't get heated, it's still clutter and would be better in
> > rec.arts.sf.misc where it *is* on topic.
>
> You are saying that rasm gets all the chocolate, cats, and pancakes?

Well, *I* wouldn't mind much, but I certainly think it would be futile
to try insist upon it.

--
Michelle Bottorff -> Chelle B. -> Shelby
L. Shelby, Writer http://www.lshelby.com/
Livejournal http://lavenderbard.livejournal.com/
rec.arts.sf.composition FAQ http://www.lshelby.com/rasfcFAQ.html

In article <1iibnt7.1oo5o7d1o1ha8qN%mbottorff@lshelby.com>,
mbottorff@lshelby.com (Michelle Bottorff) wrote:

> David Friedman <ddfr@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> wrote:
>
> > > Otherwise, if it's just discussion in the abstract, then even if it
> > > doesn't get heated, it's still clutter and would be better in
> > > rec.arts.sf.misc where it *is* on topic.
> >
> > You are saying that rasm gets all the chocolate, cats, and pancakes?
>
> Well, *I* wouldn't mind much, but I certainly think it would be futile
> to try insist upon it.

All it takes is a little coordination. Any time anyone in rasfc mentions
any of those subjects, one of us politely asks the poster to move it to
rasfm where it belongs.

And we get it all. A fine dastardly plot.

--
http://www.daviddfriedman.com/ http://daviddfriedman.blogspot.com/
Author of _Harald_, a fantasy without magic.
Published by Baen, paperback in bookstores now

David Friedman <ddfr@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> wrote:
> mbottorff@lshelby.com (Michelle Bottorff) wrote:
>> David Friedman <ddfr@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> wrote:

>>>> Otherwise, if it's just discussion in the abstract, then even if
>>>> it doesn't get heated, it's still clutter and would be better in
>>>> rec.arts.sf.misc where it *is* on topic.
>>>
>>> You are saying that rasm gets all the chocolate, cats, and
>>> pancakes?
>>
>> Well, *I* wouldn't mind much, but I certainly think it would be
>> futile to try insist upon it.

> All it takes is a little coordination. Any time anyone in rasfc
> mentions any of those subjects, one of us politely asks the poster to
> move it to rasfm where it belongs.

Not.

This wasn't about off-topic, but unwanted discussions, based on their
style.

They do harm, harmless chat doesn't.

And that's _on top_ of not being concerned with writing. Even if one
were concerned with writing, discussions of such nature would do harm,
thus they're what's moved.

--
Tina
>> Why not an alien race that truly is alien?
> Like the Teletubbies?
No, those are demons from hell. -- seen in rec.arts.sf.tv

David Friedman <ddfr@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> wrote:

> In article <1iibnt7.1oo5o7d1o1ha8qN%mbottorff@lshelby.com>,
> mbottorff@lshelby.com (Michelle Bottorff) wrote:
>
> > David Friedman <ddfr@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > Otherwise, if it's just discussion in the abstract, then even if it
> > > > doesn't get heated, it's still clutter and would be better in
> > > > rec.arts.sf.misc where it *is* on topic.
> > >
> > > You are saying that rasm gets all the chocolate, cats, and pancakes?
> >
> > Well, *I* wouldn't mind much, but I certainly think it would be futile
> > to try insist upon it.
>
> All it takes is a little coordination. Any time anyone in rasfc mentions
> any of those subjects, one of us politely asks the poster to move it to
> rasfm where it belongs.
>
> And we get it all. A fine dastardly plot.

It doesn't really "belong" in rasfm, even if it originates in rasfc.
Discussion of chocolate probably belongs in rec.food.chocolate or
alt.food.chocolate

Similarly, there are six groups in the rec.pets.cats hierarchy, as well
as a lot of other groups about cats which may or may not be about
felines. (I suspect alt.cats.world.domination *might* be about cats, but
what about calstate.cats.tools ? Your guess is probably better than
mine. [And why does my newsserver carry calstate newsgroups?])

As for pancakes, I find only one group: alt.food.pancakes

I'm a bit suspicious of using alt groups, so maybe there isn't anywhere
better than r.a.sf.misc for discussing pancakes. :-)

Of course, there isn't anywhere better than rasfc for discussing cats
and chocolate either, dedicated groups notwithstanding.

Jonathan

In article <MSGID_2=3A240=2F2199.13=40fidonet_555cf98a@fidonet .org>,
Tina_Hall@kruemel.org (Tina Hall) wrote:

> David Friedman <ddfr@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> wrote:
> > mbottorff@lshelby.com (Michelle Bottorff) wrote:
> >> David Friedman <ddfr@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> wrote:
>
> >>>> Otherwise, if it's just discussion in the abstract, then even if
> >>>> it doesn't get heated, it's still clutter and would be better in
> >>>> rec.arts.sf.misc where it *is* on topic.
> >>>
> >>> You are saying that rasm gets all the chocolate, cats, and
> >>> pancakes?
> >>
> >> Well, *I* wouldn't mind much, but I certainly think it would be
> >> futile to try insist upon it.
>
> > All it takes is a little coordination. Any time anyone in rasfc
> > mentions any of those subjects, one of us politely asks the poster to
> > move it to rasfm where it belongs.
>
> Not.
>
> This wasn't about off-topic, but unwanted discussions, based on their
> style.
>
> They do harm, harmless chat doesn't.

If you look at the first bit you quote above, you will see that I was
pointing out its implications, not agreeing with it.

--
http://www.daviddfriedman.com/ http://daviddfriedman.blogspot.com/
Author of _Harald_, a fantasy without magic.
Published by Baen, paperback in bookstores now

David Friedman <ddfr@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> wrote:
> Tina_Hall@kruemel.org (Tina Hall) wrote:
>> David Friedman <ddfr@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> wrote:
>>> mbottorff@lshelby.com (Michelle Bottorff) wrote:
>>>> David Friedman <ddfr@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>>> Otherwise, if it's just discussion in the abstract, then even if
>>>>>> it doesn't get heated, it's still clutter and would be better in
>>>>>> rec.arts.sf.misc where it *is* on topic.
>>>>>
>>>>> You are saying that rasm gets all the chocolate, cats, and
>>>>> pancakes?
>>>>
>>>> Well, *I* wouldn't mind much, but I certainly think it would be
>>>> futile to try insist upon it.
>>
>>> All it takes is a little coordination. Any time anyone in rasfc
>>> mentions any of those subjects, one of us politely asks the poster
>>> to move it to rasfm where it belongs.
>>
>> Not.
>>
>> This wasn't about off-topic, but unwanted discussions, based on
>> their style.
>>
>> They do harm, harmless chat doesn't.

> If you look at the first bit you quote above, you will see that I was
> pointing out its implications, not agreeing with it.

Yes. It veered off from that. From a question to actions. I was replying
to the latest comment.

(In the light that the reason for moving some discussion still seems to
be unclear to you.)

--
Tina
Don't throw links at me. Internet requires a reboot and costs money. If
I want one, I'll ask, and otherwise not bother to look at whatever it is.
To Hell with internet. ### XP v3.40 RC3 ###