REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION
Creation of Unmoderated newsgroup aus.food

This is a formal Request For Discussion (RFD) for the creation of a new
Australian unmoderated newsgroup aus.food. This is not a Call For Votes
(CFV); you cannot vote at this time.

Newsgroup line:
aus.food Australian food: its cooking and consumption!

RATIONALE:

The creation of a new aus newsgroup called aus.food would be for
the discussion of all things to do with food. Buying, cooking,
storing, and the best bit, eating!

There is currently no aus.* newsgroup that covers these topics.
Other newsgroups that discuss food are completly oriented towards
every other country except Australia.

My opinion is that this group would become very popular, simply
because everyone loves food, whether preparing it, or eating it!
I feel that this group would be excellent for those just starting
out in the kitchen, and feel that the recipes that I have to share,
along with others that I, and others, could learn, would make this
a popular group. Also, the name "aus.food" leaves further room for
expansion, if required, at a later date.

Some advantages of the proposed group would be:

* A place to discuss food and cooking of all varieties in Australia,
ie: bush tucker, BBQs, cuisine, pizza, soup, bakeries, anything to
do with food!

* A place to talk about food/drinking experiences, restaurants,
recipes - anything food-related.

* Not limited to Australians, but it's nice to have a local hangout,
with local recommendations, reviews, tips and ideas.

END RATIONALE.

CHARTER: aus.food

aus.food is for the discussion of food, its preparation, and its
consumption in Australia. Examples of on-topic posts include:

- food recipes
- preparation
- storage
- drinks with meals
- restaurant reports and recommendations (good or bad!)

Off-topic posts, such as the following subjects, are discouraged:

- discussion about television cooking shows (more relevant to aus.tv)
- recipes designed to make people ill!

What is not acceptable:

- HTML posting
- Binaries (post a URL instead)
- Crossposting to more than 3 other newsgroups
- Commercial advertisements, unless prefixed with [COMM]
- For sale advertisements, unless prefixed with [FS]
- Auction advertisements, unless prefixed with [FA]
- Flaming and ad-hominem attacks
- Spam and chain letters

END CHARTER.

PROPOSER: Leanne Bertram >

PROCEDU

This is a Request For Discussion, not a call for votes. In this phase of
the process, any potential problems with the proposal should be raised
and resolved. The discussion period will continue for a minimum of 21 days
(starting from when the first RFD for this proposal is posted by ausadmin
to aus.net.news), after which a Call For Votes (CFV) may be posted
by ausadmin (see http://aus.news-admin.org/ for further information).
Please do not attempt to vote until this happens.

All discussion of this proposal should be posted to aus.net.news.

Please see http://aus.news-admin.org/Faq/aus_faq for more information
about the aus.* newsgroup creation and modification processes.

DISTRIBUTION:

alt.2eggs.sausage.beans.tomatoes.2toast.largetea.c heerslove
alt.food.wine
aus.culture.true-blue
aus.family
aus.general
aus.net.news
rec.food.cooking

This is a cross-posted response (to the cross-posted RFD).

"ausadmin" in message :
| REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION
| Creation of Unmoderated newsgroup aus.food
|
| This is a formal Request For Discussion (RFD) ...
| . . .
| CHARTER: aus.food
|
| ...Examples of on-topic posts include:
|
| - food recipes
| - preparation
| - storage
| - drinks with meals
| - restaurant reports and recommendations (good or bad!)


Wait a minute, there is a basic problem as the proposal is stated.

Taking nothing away from the constructive tone and sincere desire evident in
the proposal --

-- the charter above overlaps existing international food newsgroup
rec.food.cooking (RFC). That is traditional basis for rejecting creation of
a new newsgroup (but bear with me a bit). Quoted below is the announcement
of RFC on net.general, 31 January 1982 (RFC was created then as net.cooks,
and continued as rec.food.cooking after the Great Renaming of late 1986 with
which you are presumably acquainted if you are proposing new newsgroups).

"all about food, cooking, cookbooks, recipes and other alimentary effluvia."

(This charter-overlap issue should not be news, by the way, if the proposed
new group was indeed well researched prior to this RFD. I do not know why
this issue was not addressed explicitly in the RFD.)

The real core of the problem is the prospect of a new group, even if
unintentionally, siphoning off future traffic that could otherwise appear on
RFC (and be of interest to its wider readership also). The issue is both
important and touchy because among the very long-standing newsgroups, RFC is
unusual in maintaining its identity, not fracturing into related or
competing fora despite periodic, deeply well-meaning proposals to do so
(from people who continue to arrive and depart over the years).

(The subject of international recipe translation and ingredients, by the
way, is perennial. Brian Reid talked about copha in the 1980s for instance,
though people re-ask frequently, rather than looking at past information in
archives.)

I am a friendly observer of this proposal and would like to suggest
constructively that a charter more carefully distinct from rec.food.cooking
could garner very wide support -- not just from the people who like the
existing one. Restaurant topics for instance are local, and frequently
occupy local newsgroups. (Australian wines have been discussed with fervor
for years on alt.food.wine.) Topics earlier in the proposed charter
duplicate RFC.

-- Max Hauser

Hi Max,
I think you've brought up some good points. As an Aussie I lurk here but
rarely post because I have found that most posts are way too American
focused for me. You only have to look at the map of members of RFC to see
how weighted to the US it is. I have found it mildly interesting to read
about okra, chipotle and gumbo but these are not things I could cook or be
able to get ingredients for. A lot of recipes by and large contain
ingredients we can't get here and it's a pain to have to adjust the
measurements all the time. I doubt I could achieve the required result in
any of the baked recipes for example. Sometimes I just want to ask a quick
question about what to cook for dinner tonight and at the moment I do that
in another non-food related group where it is acceptable but still off
topic.

My feeling is that by having aus.food I would still lurk here but I would be
more likely to post there for feedback about recipes, ingredients and
kitchen implements because if I talk about a particular brand of something
the others will know what I'm talking about.

Liz


"Max Hauser" > wrote in message
...
> This is a cross-posted response (to the cross-posted RFD).
>
> "ausadmin" in message :
> | REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION
> | Creation of Unmoderated newsgroup aus.food
> |
> | This is a formal Request For Discussion (RFD) ...
> | . . .
> | CHARTER: aus.food
> |
> | ...Examples of on-topic posts include:
> |
> | - food recipes
> | - preparation
> | - storage
> | - drinks with meals
> | - restaurant reports and recommendations (good or bad!)
>
>
> Wait a minute, there is a basic problem as the proposal is stated.
>
> Taking nothing away from the constructive tone and sincere desire evident
> in the proposal --
>
> -- the charter above overlaps existing international food newsgroup
> rec.food.cooking (RFC). That is traditional basis for rejecting creation
> of a new newsgroup (but bear with me a bit). Quoted below is the
> announcement of RFC on net.general, 31 January 1982 (RFC was created then
> as net.cooks, and continued as rec.food.cooking after the Great Renaming
> of late 1986 with which you are presumably acquainted if you are proposing
> new newsgroups).
>
> "all about food, cooking, cookbooks, recipes and other alimentary
> effluvia."
>
> (This charter-overlap issue should not be news, by the way, if the
> proposed new group was indeed well researched prior to this RFD. I do not
> know why this issue was not addressed explicitly in the RFD.)
>
> The real core of the problem is the prospect of a new group, even if
> unintentionally, siphoning off future traffic that could otherwise appear
> on RFC (and be of interest to its wider readership also). The issue is
> both important and touchy because among the very long-standing newsgroups,
> RFC is unusual in maintaining its identity, not fracturing into related or
> competing fora despite periodic, deeply well-meaning proposals to do so
> (from people who continue to arrive and depart over the years).
>
> (The subject of international recipe translation and ingredients, by the
> way, is perennial. Brian Reid talked about copha in the 1980s for
> instance, though people re-ask frequently, rather than looking at past
> information in archives.)
>
> I am a friendly observer of this proposal and would like to suggest
> constructively that a charter more carefully distinct from
> rec.food.cooking could garner very wide support -- not just from the
> people who like the existing one. Restaurant topics for instance are
> local, and frequently occupy local newsgroups. (Australian wines have
> been discussed with fervor for years on alt.food.wine.) Topics earlier in
> the proposed charter duplicate RFC.
>
> -- Max Hauser
>

"Max Hauser" > writes:


>"ausadmin" in message :
>| REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION
>| Creation of Unmoderated newsgroup aus.food

>Wait a minute, there is a basic problem as the proposal is stated.
>-- the charter above overlaps existing international food newsgroup
>rec.food.cooking (RFC).

aus.* is a regional hierarchy and as such its charters need to
be consistent only within the hierarchy. Overlap between charters
of international groups or other regional hierarchies is irrelevant.

You're saying something like "you can't have an aus.computers.linux
because there are already comp.os.linux groups". That's not the way
regional hierarchies work.

Nick.
--
http://www.nick-andrew.net/ http://aus.news-admin.org/
I prefer USENET replies. Don't send email copies. Drop the spamtrap to reply.

In article >, Nick Andrew > wrote:
>"Max Hauser" > writes:
>
>>"ausadmin" in message :
>>| REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION
>>| Creation of Unmoderated newsgroup aus.food
>
>>Wait a minute, there is a basic problem as the proposal is stated.
>>-- the charter above overlaps existing international food newsgroup
>>rec.food.cooking (RFC).
>
>aus.* is a regional hierarchy and as such its charters need to
>be consistent only within the hierarchy. Overlap between charters
>of international groups or other regional hierarchies is irrelevant.
>
>You're saying something like "you can't have an aus.computers.linux
>because there are already comp.os.linux groups". That's not the way
>regional hierarchies work.

Well, that seems clear enough. :-)

But continuing... What happens to regional proposals, such as this
one, if the good denizens of the parallel international group decide
they don't like the "competition" and vote against it in numbers?
Do you only count "local" votes, or are votes from anywhere valid?

Cheers, Phred.

--
LID

"Nick Andrew" in message :
>
> That's not the way regional hierarchies work.

Good point, I am accustomed to this arising on the "Big Eight" hierarchies
(which include RFC), and the same flow seemed present here.

I was reading some (offline) archives of newsgroups where related
discussions arose, around genuine perceived needs whose solution might be
two-edged. Example to hand, in 1991 there was a single drinks newsgroup
rec.food.drink, which before the Renaming was a wines group (net.wines).
Some posters demanded in 1991 a separate newsgroup on home beer brewing.
One of them, arguing for such a spinoff, posted:

> I don't really mind the liquor posts but these wines posts get real old.
> It's hard to relax and have a homebrew when you have to sort through
> massive amounts of extra stuff ...

(That, remember, appeared on a newsgroup created for wines.) There had not
been nearly enough homebrew postings earlier to argue for a group on the
subject, so they ended up on RFC or rec.food.drink. (Actually in early days
there were barely enough wine postings even; circa 1983-84 Steve Pope and I
would "seed" the wines group with them, to keep it active.) A new group was
not much of an issue in 1991 though, because the subject matters were
distinct in this case.


Extend the concept of regional spinoffs from rec.food.cooking: Imagine a
dozen major regional food newsgroups. (Not just restaurant fora like
existing localized *.food and *.eats.) This would surely affect RFC. The
effect would defy newsgroup decorum (however formally legal the regional
formations might be by their own rules).

And now, in high fidelity ASCII, it's Phred with some words for
aus.net.news:

<followups set to aus.net.news, since I suspect it's only on-topic for RFC
as a meta thread>
<snip>

}But continuing... What happens to regional proposals, such as this
}one, if the good denizens of the parallel international group decide
}they don't like the "competition" and vote against it in numbers?
}Do you only count "local" votes, or are votes from anywhere valid?

It's not immediately clear to me how you'd (a) define "local" (do you
include New Zealand as covered by the aus.* hierarchy? South Africa?
Brazil?); and (b) distinguish between local and foreign voters where
someone is minded to keep their geographical location secret?

I don't believe the latter can be done in absolute terms, but you could
certainly make aus.admin hit an unfavourable cost/benefit ratio fairly
rapidly, in trying to work it out.

If the RFD is going to be spammed to groups off the distribution list, as
it has been, then I see no merit in disenfranchising regulars in groups
which may well be affected.

--
Brett

"I'm a Greek God, you're Nick Giannopolous
I'm Julio Iglasias, you're Tommy Raudonikis"

On 30-Aug-2005, (Phred) wrote:

> >>| Creation of Unmoderated newsgroup aus.food
> >
> >>Wait a minute, there is a basic problem as the proposal is stated.
> >>-- the charter above overlaps existing international food newsgroup
> >>rec.food.cooking (RFC).
> >
> >aus.* is a regional hierarchy and as such its charters need to
> >be consistent only within the hierarchy. Overlap between charters
> >of international groups or other regional hierarchies is irrelevant.
> >
> >You're saying something like "you can't have an aus.computers.linux
> >because there are already comp.os.linux groups". That's not the way
> >regional hierarchies work.
>
> Well, that seems clear enough. :-)
>
> But continuing... What happens to regional proposals, such as this
> one, if the good denizens of the parallel international group decide
> they don't like the "competition" and vote against it in numbers?
> Do you only count "local" votes, or are votes from anywhere valid?
>
> Cheers, Phred.

The administration of usenet and specifically the inclusion or exclusion
of new groups is not contingent upon a general vote. That is, there is
no one to tally votes and thus authorize or deny a new group. The
purpose of the RFD is to provide the identification of a proposed new
group and to identify the pros and cons for such a group. The ensuing
discussion will allow the OP to further refine his/her newgroup
proposal pursuant to posting a formal 'newgroup' message. Providing
the 'newgroup' message meets various usenet criteria, it will likely
not be 'remgrouped' by one or more of the existing usenet administration
contributors. Who are the administration contributors? This is usenet
therefore there isn't a formally organized administration. Nevertheless,
it is pretty well managed by a number of IM professionals, typically
managers of major information systems such as universities.

In actual practice, anyone can post a 'newgroup' message, just as
anyone can post a 'remgroup' message. Generally speaking a 'newgroup'
will stand unless or until it is challenged with a 'remgroup' msg. Any
valid 'remgoup' will include the reason for posting it. In which case the
OP may correct or otherwise overcome the reason for rejection and
repost a 'newgroup' msg.

Case in point; we just read here that the posted objection to aus.food
stating it's comparison to rec.food.cooking is invalid due to aus.food
and rec.food being like apples and oranges. This the reason and
validation for the RFD. One does not have to be an expert to initiate
a new group. Plenty of experts will help if the request is valid. Beware
that the OP will have to present convincing evidence that the new
group will attract enough traffic to make it realistic. (That's one of
the requirments for a 'newgroup' msg.) Ultimately, individual ISP's
may carry or ignore group(s) at will.

--
The Brick said that (Don't bother to agree with me, I have already changed my mind.)

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

Nick Andrew > wrote:

> "Max Hauser" > writes:
>
> >Wait a minute, there is a basic problem as the proposal is stated.
> >-- the charter above overlaps existing international food newsgroup
> >rec.food.cooking (RFC).
>
> aus.* is a regional hierarchy and as such its charters need to
> be consistent only within the hierarchy. Overlap between charters
> of international groups or other regional hierarchies is irrelevant.

Quite right. However, the objection, as I read it, isn't really about
legalities, it is about practicalities. If the charter of a proposed
regional newsgroup duplicates that of the global one, some of the
denizens of the latter may just decide that this is damaging to their
newsgroup, creating a de-facto split. As a result, some "no" votes may
be forthcoming.

Personally, I happen to be basically sympathetic to this particular
proposal and just wish to be persuaded of its merit and of the viability
of the proposed newsgroup. Some hard statistics on the actual interest
in the newsgroup, such as that of food-related postings specifically in
the Australian context on other newsgroups over the recent years would
be welcome and even necessary, as far as I'm concerned.

I notice that Staycalm provided two good reasons:
1. Problems of recipe conversions
2. Australian-specific food brands used in recipes.

Victor

On Mon, 29 Aug 2005 15:23:53 -0700, Max Hauser >
wrote:

[...]

> The real core of the problem is the prospect of a new group, even if
> unintentionally, siphoning off future traffic that could otherwise appear on
> RFC (and be of interest to its wider readership also).

It is normal and natural for regonal newsgroups to overlap with
international ones. The only good reson for a regonal newsgroup to
not overlap with an international one is if it can be argued that the
local one would not be diffrent to the international one.

However food perhaps more then anything else is highly localized and
the product of local culture and ingredients. I'm quite sure that
aus.food will have a totally diffrent flavour to RFC (forgive the
pun).

RFC for all its virtues has a tendency to be US focused, this is
natural because the majority of english speaking usenet user's reside
in the US.

--
Please excuse my spelling as I suffer from agraphia. See
http://dformosa.zeta.org.au/~dformosa/Spelling.html to find out more.
Free the Memes.

G'day Brick,

In article >, "Brick"
> wrote:
>On 30-Aug-2005, (Phred) wrote:
>
>> >>| Creation of Unmoderated newsgroup aus.food
>> >
>> >>Wait a minute, there is a basic problem as the proposal is stated.
>> >>-- the charter above overlaps existing international food newsgroup
>> >>rec.food.cooking (RFC).
>> >
>> >aus.* is a regional hierarchy and as such its charters need to
>> >be consistent only within the hierarchy. Overlap between charters
>> >of international groups or other regional hierarchies is irrelevant.
>> >
>> >You're saying something like "you can't have an aus.computers.linux
>> >because there are already comp.os.linux groups". That's not the way
>> >regional hierarchies work.
>>
>> Well, that seems clear enough. :-)
>>
>> But continuing... What happens to regional proposals, such as this
>> one, if the good denizens of the parallel international group decide
>> they don't like the "competition" and vote against it in numbers?
>> Do you only count "local" votes, or are votes from anywhere valid?
>
>The administration of usenet and specifically the inclusion or exclusion
>of new groups is not contingent upon a general vote. That is, there is
>no one to tally votes and thus authorize or deny a new group. The

As Nick pointed out to you in aus.net.news (the group you cut out here
in a fit of mindlessness) that is not the way it works for the aus.*
regional hierarchy. (In fact I'm not even sure that is the way it's
*supposed* to work for the Big Eight either -- but it's 15 years since
I took much interest in those international CFVs, so things may have
changed behind my back.

In aus.*, once the votes are tallied (and they are) and if the new
group "passes" then Nick, acting as ausadmin, sends out the 'newgroup'
message and USENET admins here in Oz automatically execute it. They
won't respond to other sources of 'newgroup' (or 'rmgroup' come to
that).

>purpose of the RFD is to provide the identification of a proposed new
>group and to identify the pros and cons for such a group. The ensuing
>discussion will allow the OP to further refine his/her newgroup

Yep.

>proposal pursuant to posting a formal 'newgroup' message. Providing

Actually, before the formal Call For Votes.

>the 'newgroup' message meets various usenet criteria, it will likely
>not be 'remgrouped' by one or more of the existing usenet administration
>contributors. Who are the administration contributors? This is usenet
>therefore there isn't a formally organized administration. Nevertheless,
>it is pretty well managed by a number of IM professionals, typically
>managers of major information systems such as universities.
>
>In actual practice, anyone can post a 'newgroup' message, just as
>anyone can post a 'remgroup' message. Generally speaking a 'newgroup'
>will stand unless or until it is challenged with a 'remgroup' msg. Any
>valid 'remgoup' will include the reason for posting it. In which case the
>OP may correct or otherwise overcome the reason for rejection and
>repost a 'newgroup' msg.

Though true in theory, it's not really done in practice AFAIK (but see
above disclaimer). The main reason for the alt.* hierarchy is (was?)
the difficulty of getting new Big Eight groups approved though the
formal RFD/CFV process.

>Case in point; we just read here that the posted objection to aus.food
>stating it's comparison to rec.food.cooking is invalid due to aus.food
>and rec.food being like apples and oranges. This the reason and
>validation for the RFD. One does not have to be an expert to initiate
>a new group. Plenty of experts will help if the request is valid. Beware
>that the OP will have to present convincing evidence that the new
>group will attract enough traffic to make it realistic. (That's one of
>the requirments for a 'newgroup' msg.) Ultimately, individual ISP's
>may carry or ignore group(s) at will.

Yep. And that would still apply here, but the "automatic" approval of
new aus.* groups coming from the correct source is very widely
implemented (though I hesitate to say "universally" -- there could be
one of those white crows out there. ;-).

Cheers, Phred.

--
LID

"Phred" in :
>
> The main reason for the alt.* hierarchy is (was?) the difficulty of
> getting new Big Eight groups approved though the formal RFD/CFV process.



Russ Allbery, 23 May 1999:
| I think people have lost track of what alt.* was *for* in
| the first place, and exactly what ticked off Brian Reid
| enough to create it.


Brian Reid in :
| Remember that alt.gourmand is in alt.* (in fact, alt.*
| was created for the purpose of carrying alt.gourmand)."


More Net history from Lee Bumgarner's review of it, 5 June 1996:
>
> At some point, Net.Legend Brian Reid, a member of the Cabal, decided he
> didn't like how things were going. So he, John Gilmore, and Gordon Moffett
> discussed the creation of an "Alternet" over dinner on May 7, 1987 at
> G.T's Sunset BBQ in Mountian View, California. An "alternative"
> distribution system was organized by this group that didn't use the
> "backbone" links. A new top-level hierarchy name"alt.*" was created for
> this distribution. . . .
>
>Reid created the first alt.* group, alt.gourmand, because the Cabal wanted
>to put his recipe group under rec.food.* Reid, who was moderating
>mod.recipes, objected to the name rec.food.recipes because there were
>non-food recipes. Gilmore objected to the Cabal's dropping of net.flame and
>the refusal to create rec.drugs. (Moffett just wanted to help.)


Further history of alt.gourmand (and the first "cookbook" spun out of this
newsgroup), from Ken Herron in , 7 Feb 1995:
> . . .
> Pardon me while I show my age... [! --MH]
>
> Back before the great renaming, Brian Reid presided over the moderated
> group mod.recipes. This was a recipes-distribution group, but (with all
> due respect to Stephanie and the other r.f.r moderators) much more
> sophisticated. Reid distributed his recipes as nroff/troff source, using
> a custom macro package based on the man-page macros. Between this macro
> package and his editorial standards (instructions had to be clear, mention
> all the ingredients, etc.) he usually had to completely rewrite each
> recipe for posting. He also supplied ingredient quantities in both US and
> european measurements, which is much more difficult than you'd think; his
> formatting macros had a switch to select the desired measurement.
>
> On top of that, he had a formatting kit available to format batches of
> recipes into a complete cookbook, with an introduction and keyword index.
>
> As you can imagine, this was quite a bit of work; as I recall, Reid
> distributed about 5 recipes per week. They were of extremely high quality
> though; I built the cookbook once, and consider it quite valuable.
> (Favorite line: "Precision: count the muskrats.")
>
> Besides this, I think Reid was running the arbitron system and doing
> various other things which made him something of a net.VIP; his site,
> decwrl.dec.com, was a rather important site but I don't know how much of
> that was directly due to him (I was a newbie at the time).
>
> So, the great renaming comes around and it's decided that the new name for
> mod.recipes would be rec.food.recipes (I think). Reid didn't like that
> decision; as I recall, he felt that this name trivialized the group as
> merely a recipe-distribution system; he viewed his group as an online
> cooking magazine and wanted it under rec.mag (I think). I don't think he
> ever posted anything to the new group, other than perhaps a goodbye
> message.
>
> Then, not long after the great renaming, the alt hierarchy was created;
> Reid was instrumental in this. He created alt.gourmand shortly thereafter
> with the intention of continuing his cookbook there, but I think he only
> published a handful of recipes there. I've seen something from him since
> then saying that he just didn't have the time to continue recipe
> distribution; I suspect another reason might be that, after the big fight
> about the group name, he just didn't find it enjoyable any more.
>
> The old recipe archive--over 500 recipes--and formatting software is still
> available on ftp.dec.com under /pub/recipes; if you have the necessary
> formatting software (troff, or groff I suppose) and some savvy about using
> it, it's well worth the time and tree needed to print the cookbook.



(I witnessed much of this at the time. Not the dinner at Sunset BBQ. Which
no longer exists, alas. -- Max)

G'day Max,

In article >, "Max Hauser"
> wrote:
[...]
>> The old recipe archive--over 500 recipes--and formatting software is still
>> available on ftp.dec.com under /pub/recipes; if you have the necessary
>> formatting software (troff, or groff I suppose) and some savvy about using
>> it, it's well worth the time and tree needed to print the cookbook.
>
>(I witnessed much of this at the time. Not the dinner at Sunset BBQ. Which
>no longer exists, alas. -- Max)

Thanks for posting that historical stuff -- if I ever get time to look
through my floppy disk archives I might find something about it too.
;-)

Did you try accessing that ftp.dec.com site? I suspected it would be
as dead as DEC now, but out of curiosity I tried.

It still resolves to an IP number (204.123.2.25) but WS_FTP failed to
connect. Tried PING, but it simply timed out.

So it is dead but still in at least some of the DNS lists?

Cheers, Phred.

--
LID

"Phred" in :
> G'day Max,

G'day

>
> Thanks for posting that historical stuff ...
>
> Did you try accessing that ftp.dec.com site? I suspected it would be
> as dead as DEC now, but out of curiosity I tried.
>
> It still resolves to an IP number (204.123.2.25) but WS_FTP failed to
> connect. Tried PING, but it simply timed out.
>
> So it is dead but still in at least some of the DNS lists?
>
> Cheers, Phred.

I see what you mean. Like DEC itself, it saw better days. But stands
instead as a mute tribute to pioneers. DEC sites especially decwrl (DEC
Western Research Lab as I remember, where Brian Reid worked around the time
he edited that recipe collection and started the "alt" groups) were central
in the history of these newsgroups just as DEC was central in the history of
computers. DEC's small, approachable minicomputers were the point of
departure from the longtime stereotype of computers costing millions and
filling rooms and flashing their lights and spinning their magtapes (one set
of friends wrote code just to do that on IBM machines, it was called ITL for
impress-the-laymen), and constantly threatening to become self-aware and
take over the world, according to movies.

DEC, practically speaking, brought computers to mankind. Not as important
as fire, but something. The firm made small cheap ones in the 1960s that
you could put on a table and approach. DEC used colorful front panels with
rocker or paddle switches copied deliberately from home appliances.
Successfully: These minicomputers did actually take over the world. After
30 years of electronic computers that filled rooms, the minis took over. By
1973 a good part of the world's computers were from DEC. One third of all
installed machines (according to DEC advertising at the time) were PDP-8s,
the classic mini. (The cheapest and slowest original, the
serial-architecture PDP-8S, had premiered at under USD $10000 which was
unprecedented.) Within a few years they'd evolved to the larger VAX class
that, circa 1980, became a de-facto standard for what in the US had just
been renamed the ARPA "Internet."

[If anyone is interested or forgot, PDP = Programmed Data Processor, VAX =
Virtual Address eXtension, DEC = Digital Equipment Corporation.]

So DEC was a parent of modern computers. Sort of like Steve Upstill and
Brian Reid were parents of food on the Internet. Steve for starting this
newsgroup in 1982, Brian for promoting recipes and other things a few years
later.

Cheers -- Max.

On Tue, 30 Aug 2005 23:47:31 +0200, (Victor Sack)
wrote:

>Personally, I happen to be basically sympathetic to this particular
>proposal and just wish to be persuaded of its merit and of the viability
>of the proposed newsgroup. Some hard statistics on the actual interest
>in the newsgroup, such as that of food-related postings specifically in
>the Australian context on other newsgroups over the recent years would
>be welcome and even necessary, as far as I'm concerned.
>
This would be extraordinarily difficult to do. Most of the posts
relating to food or recipe requests in Australian newsgroups would not
be under headings that would be easily identifiable in Google until
recently (approx the last 5 months) when Ms Leebee started the whole
discussion about whether or not to request an aus.food group.
Generally any group which has a bunch of women posting in it will
inevitably end up with a "what's for dinner?" discussion, and this is
not just just for the usual interest reason but because it has turned
out to be a great way of deflecting trolls.

In alt.mothers, misc.kids.pregnancy, misc.kids and
misc.kids.breastfeeding there are Australian posters and all of these
groups have had recipe posts and recipe requests over the 3-5 years I
have been reading/posting. Going back and looking for these posts
would be time consuming as particularly in alt.mothers topic drift and
cascades are common.

Cheryl

Cheryl > wrote:

> On Tue, 30 Aug 2005 23:47:31 +0200, (Victor Sack)
> wrote:
>
> >Personally, I happen to be basically sympathetic to this particular
> >proposal and just wish to be persuaded of its merit and of the viability
> >of the proposed newsgroup. Some hard statistics on the actual interest
> >in the newsgroup, such as that of food-related postings specifically in
> >the Australian context on other newsgroups over the recent years would
> >be welcome and even necessary, as far as I'm concerned.
> >
> This would be extraordinarily difficult to do.

Why, pray, do you think so? Even with rudimentry search skills this
shouldn't so extraordinary difficult. I know that such statistics are
compiled with some regularity by the proponents of new Big-8 newsgroups.

> Most of the posts
> relating to food or recipe requests in Australian newsgroups would not
> be under headings that would be easily identifiable in Google until
> recently (approx the last 5 months) when Ms Leebee started the whole
> discussion about whether or not to request an aus.food group.

No one in his right mind would do it this way. Instead, if you were the
proponent, you would compile a list of keywords relevant to food from an
Australian perspective, refine it with Boolean operators, and limit it
all to newsgroups you consider relevant. You could get your results in
one fell swoop and they would provide you with enough details to refine
the search still further. Do this a few more times and you are there.
It doesn't really take very long or require all that much effort. If
the proponents don't know how, they ought to ask for advice and help -
and I have said this several times already. David has agreed to provide
advice (thank you again, David!) and if he can't help in this particular
matter, maybe he can point to someone who can.

Victor

On 1-Sep-2005, "Max Hauser" > wrote:

> "Phred" in :
> > G'day Max,
>
> G'day
>
> >
> > Thanks for posting that historical stuff ...
> >
> > Did you try accessing that ftp.dec.com site? I suspected it would be
> > as dead as DEC now, but out of curiosity I tried.
> >
> > It still resolves to an IP number (204.123.2.25) but WS_FTP failed to
> > connect. Tried PING, but it simply timed out.
> >
> > So it is dead but still in at least some of the DNS lists?
> >
> > Cheers, Phred.
>
> I see what you mean. Like DEC itself, it saw better days. But stands
> instead as a mute tribute to pioneers. DEC sites especially decwrl (DEC
> Western Research Lab as I remember, where Brian Reid worked around the time
> he edited that recipe collection and started the "alt" groups) were central
> in the history of these newsgroups just as DEC was central in the history of
> computers. DEC's small, approachable minicomputers were the point of
> departure from the longtime stereotype of computers costing millions and
> filling rooms and flashing their lights and spinning their magtapes (one set
> of friends wrote code just to do that on IBM machines, it was called ITL for
> impress-the-laymen), and constantly threatening to become self-aware and
> take over the world, according to movies.
>
> DEC, practically speaking, brought computers to mankind. Not as important
> as fire, but something. The firm made small cheap ones in the 1960s that
> you could put on a table and approach. DEC used colorful front panels with
> rocker or paddle switches copied deliberately from home appliances.
> Successfully: These minicomputers did actually take over the world. After
> 30 years of electronic computers that filled rooms, the minis took over. By
> 1973 a good part of the world's computers were from DEC. One third of all
> installed machines (according to DEC advertising at the time) were PDP-8s,
> the classic mini. (The cheapest and slowest original, the
> serial-architecture PDP-8S, had premiered at under USD $10000 which was
> unprecedented.) Within a few years they'd evolved to the larger VAX class
> that, circa 1980, became a de-facto standard for what in the US had just
> been renamed the ARPA "Internet."
>
> [If anyone is interested or forgot, PDP = Programmed Data Processor, VAX =
> Virtual Address eXtension, DEC = Digital Equipment Corporation.]
>
> So DEC was a parent of modern computers. Sort of like Steve Upstill and
> Brian Reid were parents of food on the Internet. Steve for starting this
> newsgroup in 1982, Brian for promoting recipes and other things a few years
> later.
>
> Cheers -- Max.

I couldn't figure out how to snip the quote without losing the context.

Enjoyed the history lesson Max. Now can you verify where CPM came from.
I'm thinking it was from DEC. That was the OS on my Heathkit H-89. Now
there was a 2Mhz marvel. It weighed only a little less then an anvil, but I
loved it.
--
The Brick said that (Don't bother to agree with me, I have already changed my mind.)

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

On 1-Sep-2005, "Max Hauser" > wrote:

> "Phred" in :

<snipped this time>

>
> [If anyone is interested or forgot, PDP = Programmed Data Processor, VAX =
> Virtual Address eXtension, DEC = Digital Equipment Corporation.]
>
> So DEC was a parent of modern computers. Sort of like Steve Upstill and
> Brian Reid were parents of food on the Internet. Steve for starting this
> newsgroup in 1982, Brian for promoting recipes and other things a few years
> later.
>
> Cheers -- Max.

Oh, I forgot. DEC published the first (I think) graphical environment interface
(GEM). While it was Zerox that actually pioneered the graphical interface,
it was DEC that first made it public, but even they never pushed it enough
to gain wide acceptance. It took Bill Gates and Steve Jobs to push computer
graphics into the 21st Century.
--
The Brick said that (Who worked with Word Processing Computers before they
were considered to be computers.)

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

Brick wrote:

> Enjoyed the history lesson Max. Now can you verify where CPM came from.
> I'm thinking it was from DEC. That was the OS on my Heathkit H-89. Now
> there was a 2Mhz marvel. It weighed only a little less then an anvil, but I
> loved it.

It was developed by Gary Kildall of Digital Research. It ran on
a number of 8080 based machines. Those were the days...

The company and the man have a very interesting history.

http://www.cadigital.com/kildall.htm


--
Reg email: RegForte (at) (that free MS email service) (dot) com