A new Newsgroup?

A new Newsgroup?

Post by Mugwu » Tue, 08 Oct 1996 04:00:00


If the proposals for a Superleague consisting of an amalgamation
of British/Australian/Kiwi teams becomes a reality - won't
we need a new Newsgroup?

RSSL Possibly?

Mugwump.

    !!    |-------------------------------------------|    !!

   !!!!   |Haydock, St Helens, Merseyside, England    |   !!!!
  /    \  |-------------------------------------------|  /    \
 ( O||O ) |"I think it's time for you boys to share my| ( O||O )
 (  /\  ) |last taste of the true black meat - flesh  | (  /\  )
  (/##\)  |of the giant aquatic Brazilian Centipede"  |  (/##\)

 
 
 

A new Newsgroup?

Post by David Bradsh » Wed, 09 Oct 1996 04:00:00

: If the proposals for a Superleague consisting of an amalgamation
: of British/Australian/Kiwi teams becomes a reality - won't
: we need a new Newsgroup?
:
: RSSL Possibly?

A new newsgroup is a fair idea, though I'd suggest STRONGLY against
rec.sport.super.league.

IMHO it would be better to fit it into the current rubgy.* heirachy, as
it is after all just another rugby code (just like union and league).

Hence I would suggest rec.sport.rugby.super-league or (less preferably)
rec.sport.rugby.league.super-league.  The first option would be best for two
reasons:  Firstly it places it logically in the r.s.rugby.* heirachy (for
the reasons mentioned above), and secondly it complies with newsgroup
naming conventions (super-league as opposed to super.league, which would
be frowned upon by many).

I'd suggest you read news.announce.newgroups for a while and look for the
FAQ articles on submitting a newsgroup proposal.  I'd actually consider
creating the proposal myself, though I have major, major, MAJOR exams (ie
H.S.C.) coming up.

TTYL,

David Bradshaw

 
 
 

A new Newsgroup?

Post by Paul McNall » Wed, 09 Oct 1996 04:00:00



Quote:
>I'd suggest you read news.announce.newgroups for a while and look for the
>FAQ articles on submitting a newsgroup proposal.  I'd actually consider
>creating the proposal myself, though I have major, major, MAJOR exams (ie
>H.S.C.) coming up.

Before you all start you can***off. I'm not doing it :) I did the
last one for rsrl. It's a pain in the arse and it may be difficult to
get 200+ votes to make it vaid. When we went for the split with RU we at
least had some of them voting for it too....

Paul
        ww
    |\---/ >

     \____/      --------------------------------------------


 
 
 

A new Newsgroup?

Post by WiganRLf » Thu, 10 Oct 1996 04:00:00


Quote:
(Mugwump) writes:
>If the proposals for a Superleague consisting of an amalgamation
>of British/Australian/Kiwi teams becomes a reality - won't
>we need a new Newsgroup?

>RSSL Possibly?

What for?  Just because the comp is called super league does not mean the
teams are not playing rugby league.  After all if the ARL folds in a few
years there will only be one comp to talk about and also ,in r.s.r.l the
amateur game is rarely discussed.

In other words r.s.r.l would be *empty* with everyone in rssl or whatever
it would be called.  Seems a bit pointless to me.

Mind you if we got a new newsgroup, it would be quite funny to pop into
r.s.r.l to look at all the flame bait*** around unanswered from the
RU types.

Dave

Wigan RLFC - Simply the Best

 
 
 

A new Newsgroup?

Post by Michael Burk » Thu, 10 Oct 1996 04:00:00

Quote:

>A new newsgroup is a fair idea, though I'd suggest STRONGLY against
>rec.sport.super.league.

Another new newsgroup would be a ***y disaster.  there are already
too many by a factor of thousands.
_______________________________________________________________

FIDONET: 3:620/243.10    CompuServe: 100351,2307
Voice: +61-6-2316847     Fax:   +61-6-2313050
 
 
 

A new Newsgroup?

Post by scs.. » Fri, 11 Oct 1996 04:00:00



Quote:

>>A new newsgroup is a fair idea, though I'd suggest STRONGLY
against
>>rec.sport.super.league.

>Another new newsgroup would be a ***y disaster.  there are
already
>too many by a factor of thousands.
>____________________________________________________________
___

>FIDONET: 3:620/243.10    CompuServe: 100351,2307
>Voice: +61-6-2316847     Fax:   +61-6-2313050

Not more rumours about a super league breakaway!!

Seriously, I enjoy this newsgroup because every rugby league
team can be represented on it.  I think it's a step backwards
to separate into our respective league groupings.

Linda

 
 
 

A new Newsgroup?

Post by Greg Forreste » Fri, 11 Oct 1996 04:00:00

Quote:

> Another new newsgroup would be a ***y disaster.  there are already
> too many by a factor of thousands.

Can't agree more, just because ARL/SL is split doesn't me we have to!

--
Regards
Greg Forrester
StatsWare
Ph: 015 811 213
P.O. Box 172
Ormond
Australia  3204

Check out my Home Page!

http://SportToday.org/~statware

 
 
 

A new Newsgroup?

Post by David Bradsh » Fri, 11 Oct 1996 04:00:00



: >I'd suggest you read news.announce.newgroups for a while and look for the
: >FAQ articles on submitting a newsgroup proposal.  I'd actually consider
: >creating the proposal myself, though I have major, major, MAJOR exams (ie
: >H.S.C.) coming up.
: >
:
: Before you all start you can***off. I'm not doing it :) I did the
: last one for rsrl. It's a pain in the arse and it may be difficult to
: get 200+ votes to make it vaid. When we went for the split with RU we at
: least had some of them voting for it too....

I might bother doing it post 14th November (the date of my final HSC
exam), depending on how everything goes...  I'm certainly no fan of Super
League though I can see a place for a seperate group- it would at least
leave the two groups to discuss the games without constant "ARL vs SL"
interjections at every turn.

David Bradshaw

 
 
 

A new Newsgroup?

Post by David Bradsh » Fri, 11 Oct 1996 04:00:00

[...]
: What for?  Just because the comp is called super league does not mean the
: teams are not playing rugby league.  After all if the ARL folds in a few
: years there will only be one comp to talk about and also ,in r.s.r.l the
: amateur game is rarely discussed.

Actually, I believe as the number of rule changes increase, we will see
in Super League a sport markedly different from Rugby League (SL will no
longer truely be RL, just as one can not say League is really just a
variation of Union).  Sure, at the moment their are few differences, but
it will only be a matter of time before there are major differences.

I'm all for seperate groups.

DB

 
 
 

A new Newsgroup?

Post by Leigh Gillespi » Sat, 12 Oct 1996 04:00:00


Quote:

> [...]
> : What for?  Just because the comp is called super league does not mean the
> : teams are not playing rugby league.  After all if the ARL folds in a few
> : years there will only be one comp to talk about and also ,in r.s.r.l the
> : amateur game is rarely discussed.

> Actually, I believe as the number of rule changes increase, we will see
> in Super League a sport markedly different from Rugby League (SL will no
> longer truely be RL, just as one can not say League is really just a
> variation of Union).  Sure, at the moment their are few differences, but
> it will only be a matter of time before there are major differences.

> I'm all for seperate groups.

        Let's at least wait until we're sure that SL will actually go
ahead. Not much point in having a r.s.s.l or r.s.r.l.s-l if SL and the ARL
reach a compromise for a single comp and there is no SL. If there's no
sign of compromise by February or March next year then start thinking
about a new group.

Catchya round, Leigh

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* Leigh T. Gillespie                  *    "It takes leather balls      *
* Phone - Australia (077) 791219      *     to play Rugby!"             *

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

 
 
 

A new Newsgroup?

Post by Vibrating Bum-Faced Goa » Sat, 12 Oct 1996 04:00:00


: : Another new newsgroup would be a ***y disaster.  there are already
: : too many by a factor of thousands.

: Believe it or not, I'm all for a massive consolidation (+ subsequent
: reduction) of usenet newsgroups in nearly all areas.  It's just that in
: this area, I believe it would lead to (marginally) more rational
: discussion, rather than having "ARL vs SL" interjections present in every
: thread.

You'd get the same argument in both groups, with it tending towards the
r.l group. What's the point in having the same discussion in two places
at once?

: BTW - followups sent to poster - feel free to reply to newsgroup however :)

Exactly my point! :)

--
Chris Russell                       | Unofficial Rugby League Home Page:
Electronic Imaging Unit             |
University of Bradford              | ...is looking for a new home. Can  

TEL: +44 1274 385463                | on their web server please? 500+ hits
FAX: +44 1274 687834                | per day approx...

 
 
 

A new Newsgroup?

Post by Michael Burk » Sat, 12 Oct 1996 04:00:00

Quote:


>[...]
>: What for?  Just because the comp is called super league does not mean the
>: teams are not playing rugby league.  After all if the ARL folds in a few
>: years there will only be one comp to talk about and also ,in r.s.r.l the
>: amateur game is rarely discussed.

>Actually, I believe as the number of rule changes increase, we will see
>in Super League a sport markedly different from Rugby League (SL will no
>longer truely be RL, just as one can not say League is really just a
>variation of Union).  Sure, at the moment their are few differences, but

                                           ^^^^^
Quote:
>it will only be a matter of time before there are major differences.

>I'm all for seperate groups.

             ^^^^^^^^
Go concentrate on your HSC stuff, David.  Your spelling needs work.
:-)

Seriously, all the best for the exams, whatever.

Mike
_______________________________________________________________

FIDONET: 3:620/243.10    CompuServe: 100351,2307
Voice: +61-6-2316847     Fax:   +61-6-2313050

 
 
 

A new Newsgroup?

Post by David Bradsh » Sat, 12 Oct 1996 04:00:00


:
:
: >A new newsgroup is a fair idea, though I'd suggest STRONGLY against
: >rec.sport.super.league.
:
:
: Another new newsgroup would be a ***y disaster.  there are already
: too many by a factor of thousands.

Believe it or not, I'm all for a massive consolidation (+ subsequent
reduction) of usenet newsgroups in nearly all areas.  It's just that in
this area, I believe it would lead to (marginally) more rational
discussion, rather than having "ARL vs SL" interjections present in every
thread.

DB

BTW - followups sent to poster - feel free to reply to newsgroup however :)

 
 
 

A new Newsgroup?

Post by Mugwu » Sun, 13 Oct 1996 04:00:00


Quote:
>Believe it or not, I'm all for a massive consolidation (+ subsequent
>reduction) of usenet newsgroups in nearly all areas.  It's just that in
>this area, I believe it would lead to (marginally) more rational
>discussion, rather than having "ARL vs SL" interjections present in every
>thread.

>DB

Well if SL gets off to a flyer it would be pointless having ASRL and RSRL we
may as well make one newsgroup and cover the lot, granted it might upset a
few of the ARL bunch but I'm sure we could compromise over the name.

Mugwump

    !!    |-------------------------------------------|    !!

   !!!!   |Haydock, St Helens, Merseyside, England    |   !!!!
  /    \  |-------------------------------------------|  /    \
 ( O||O ) |"I think it's time for you boys to share my| ( O||O )
 (  /\  ) |last taste of the true black meat - flesh  | (  /\  )
  (/##\)  |of the giant aquatic Brazilian Centipede"  |  (/##\)

 
 
 

A new Newsgroup?

Post by Michael Courtne » Sun, 13 Oct 1996 04:00:00

Quote:



> >[...]
> >: What for?  Just because the comp is called super league does not mean the
> >: teams are not playing rugby league.  After all if the ARL folds in a few
> >: years there will only be one comp to talk about and also ,in r.s.r.l the
> >: amateur game is rarely discussed.

> >Actually, I believe as the number of rule changes increase, we will see
> >in Super League a sport markedly different from Rugby League (SL will no
> >longer truely be RL, just as one can not say League is really just a
> >variation of Union).  Sure, at the moment their are few differences, but
>                                            ^^^^^
> >it will only be a matter of time before there are major differences.

> >I'm all for seperate groups.
>              ^^^^^^^^
> Go concentrate on your HSC stuff, David.  Your spelling needs work.
> :-)

> Seriously, all the best for the exams, whatever.

I wosn't awear this was Aus.spellink...howeveer I shal trie to doo beter