za.sport.rugby

za.sport.rugby

Post by Henri Burge » Sun, 25 Oct 1998 04:00:00


This new newsgroup is now available for discussion of issues pertaining to
South African rugby.

--
Henri Burger, Tzaneen. RSA
'Afrika is nie vir Sissies nie!'
(e-mail: remove 'sukikaki.')

 
 
 

za.sport.rugby

Post by b.. » Tue, 27 Oct 1998 04:00:00



Quote:
> This new newsgroup is now available for discussion of issues pertaining to
> South African rugby.

> --
> Henri Burger, Tzaneen. RSA
> 'Afrika is nie vir Sissies nie!'
> (e-mail: remove 'sukikaki.')

I'm a bit concerned about the fracturing of rugby discussion. Didds and Co
have their mailing list, Paul Waite has his own newsgroup service, now a SA
group -- where is it all going? Are we going to subsist in tiny newgroups
with a smattering of postings, isolated into our areas of special interests,
afraid to talk to others of differing or opposing viewpoints?

I know some have expressed concern that idiot posters and abusive language
makes the rsru experience less pleasurable, but is opting out the real
answer? And what about the .za newsgroup? Are SA posters afraid to air their
opinions on rsru because they might get non-SA posters imposing their
viewpoint on things they see as SA issues? Is this to be an Afrikaans
newsgroup? Dare I say it, is this another form of apartheid? (That should
frighten some opinions out of the woodwork! No offence, Henri, I assure you).

The global village is heading towards more universal communications, not
less. Perhaps when rsru becomes swamped with mass posts from the great
unwashed it may be simply a practical requirement to divide into sub groups.
But until then, hey, let's communicate. Even props have something to say.

-- rick boyd

-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/       Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own    

 
 
 

za.sport.rugby

Post by John Cawsto » Tue, 27 Oct 1998 04:00:00

Quote:



> > This new newsgroup is now available for discussion of issues pertaining to
> > South African rugby.

> > --
> > Henri Burger, Tzaneen. RSA
> > 'Afrika is nie vir Sissies nie!'
> > (e-mail: remove 'sukikaki.')

> I'm a bit concerned about the fracturing of rugby discussion. Didds and Co
> have their mailing list, Paul Waite has his own newsgroup service, now a SA
> group -- where is it all going? Are we going to subsist in tiny newgroups
> with a smattering of postings, isolated into our areas of special interests,
> afraid to talk to others of differing or opposing viewpoints?

> I know some have expressed concern that idiot posters and abusive language
> makes the rsru experience less pleasurable, but is opting out the real
> answer? And what about the .za newsgroup? Are SA posters afraid to air their
> opinions on rsru because they might get non-SA posters imposing their
> viewpoint on things they see as SA issues? Is this to be an Afrikaans
> newsgroup? Dare I say it, is this another form of apartheid? (That should
> frighten some opinions out of the woodwork! No offence, Henri, I assure you).

> The global village is heading towards more universal communications, not
> less. Perhaps when rsru becomes swamped with mass posts from the great
> unwashed it may be simply a practical requirement to divide into sub groups.
> But until then, hey, let's communicate. Even props have something to say.

From what I've seen, the contributers to special groups are major contributors to
RSRU as well. So I would'nt worry too much.

JC

 
 
 

za.sport.rugby

Post by Steve Co » Tue, 27 Oct 1998 04:00:00

Quote:



>> This new newsgroup is now available for discussion of issues pertaining
to
>> South African rugby.

>> --
>> Henri Burger, Tzaneen. RSA
>> 'Afrika is nie vir Sissies nie!'
>> (e-mail: remove 'sukikaki.')

>I'm a bit concerned about the fracturing of rugby discussion. Didds and Co
>have their mailing list, Paul Waite has his own newsgroup service, now a SA
>group -- where is it all going? Are we going to subsist in tiny newgroups
>with a smattering of postings, isolated into our areas of special
interests,
>afraid to talk to others of differing or opposing viewpoints?

>I know some have expressed concern that idiot posters and abusive language
>makes the rsru experience less pleasurable, but is opting out the real
>answer? And what about the .za newsgroup? Are SA posters afraid to air
their
>opinions on rsru because they might get non-SA posters imposing their
>viewpoint on things they see as SA issues? Is this to be an Afrikaans
>newsgroup? Dare I say it, is this another form of apartheid? (That should
>frighten some opinions out of the woodwork! No offence, Henri, I assure
you).

>The global village is heading towards more universal communications, not
>less. Perhaps when rsru becomes swamped with mass posts from the great
>unwashed it may be simply a practical requirement to divide into sub
groups.
>But until then, hey, let's communicate. Even props have something to say.

>-- rick boyd

I believe you have a very fair point here Rick, I though the same when I
read the post. I also would not want our SA friends to restrict their
postings to their own newsgroups and devoid us of their very valued and
appreciated opinions. Please don't leave us SA.

Steve

 
 
 

za.sport.rugby

Post by Ferd » Tue, 27 Oct 1998 04:00:00

<<'m a bit concerned about the fracturing of rugby discussion. Didds
and Co

Quote:
>have their mailing list, Paul Waite has his own newsgroup service, now a SA
>group -- where is it all going? Are we going to subsist in tiny newgroups
>with a smattering of postings, isolated into our areas of special interests,
>afraid to talk to others of differing or opposing viewpoints?>>

Rick, *** you I agree with you again.

I will stay on this group - even if some people pisses me off greatly
at times (as I no doubt do to others at times).

My reasons are the same as yours.

What joy can there be in endlessly telling each other how good your
team is or how crooked the reff was of whatever.

The difference between a rugby practice and a rugby game is that in
the case of the latter there is another side. Another pavilion.
And what makes the game great is that after the game both sets of
supporters uses the same pub and pavement.

Newsgroup in this case.

And in any event, rugby is - as you point out - international now.

Duane Monkley is an illustration. He, by the way had a great game
again and is set to be a crucial player in the Currie Cup final this
Saturday against the Blue Bulls (crazy name... Pink Elephants? Yellow
Hippo's? sounds like a set of toys) - the old Northern Transvaal.

I mean what fun would it have been asking a lot of SA supporters "so,
who IS this Monkley guy...?"

You got to ask that to New Zealanders.

I like this group BECAUSE there are all nationalities here.

And I do think there is some interest in the domestic game of the
other major rugby countries. For very obvious reasons.

 
 
 

za.sport.rugby

Post by Geoff Budg » Tue, 27 Oct 1998 04:00:00

Quote:


>Duane Monkley is an illustration. He, by the way had a great game
>again and is set to be a crucial player in the Currie Cup final this
>Saturday against the Blue Bulls (crazy name... Pink Elephants? Yellow

Hippo's? sounds like a set of toys) - the old Northern Transvaal.

What about White Elephant, never mind Pink !

 
 
 

za.sport.rugby

Post by Ferd » Tue, 27 Oct 1998 04:00:00



<<Please don't leave us SA.>>

We've got the WC and we are NEVER gonna give it back.

 
 
 

za.sport.rugby

Post by Ferd » Tue, 27 Oct 1998 04:00:00

On Mon, 26 Oct 1998 11:38:42 +0200, "Geoff Budge"

<<>What about White Elephant, never mind Pink !>>

That's the Eastern Province.

They actually have given themselves the nicknames of the Jumbo's or
something like that. At this stage the name fits but if they ever were
to win the Currie Cup the name will star to look very silly.

With professiobalism arriving and the provinces of SA being
reconstituted and renamed, the rugby teams went onto a name giving
spree. And all seemed to be into the tourist thing and went for animal
names.

We have lions and cheetah's and falcons and bulls and jumbo's....
Then there are sharks too.

Whole ***ing zoo.

I am waiting for the next wave of urbanisation to hit SA. The mental
one - when people realise they are actually NOT living on the savannah
in a tent.

Then we will probably have names like the Boksburg Mongrels. Or the
Kimberley Pigs. The Port Elizabeth Chihuahua's? Durban Hamsters?
(Howzit Deon!)

 
 
 

za.sport.rugby

Post by lou » Tue, 27 Oct 1998 04:00:00

Quote:

> Then we will probably have names like the Boksburg Mongrels. Or the
> Kimberley Pigs. The Port Elizabeth Chihuahua's? Durban Hamsters?
> (Howzit Deon!)

What about the Durban Dodo's! Or the Toothless Sharks <GRIN>
 
 
 

za.sport.rugby

Post by Hecto » Tue, 27 Oct 1998 04:00:00

Quote:



> > This new newsgroup is now available for discussion of issues pertaining to
> > South African rugby.

> > --
> > Henri Burger, Tzaneen. RSA
> > 'Afrika is nie vir Sissies nie!'
> > (e-mail: remove 'sukikaki.')

> I'm a bit concerned about the fracturing of rugby discussion. Didds and Co
> have their mailing list, Paul Waite has his own newsgroup service, now a SA
> group -- where is it all going? Are we going to subsist in tiny newgroups
> with a smattering of postings, isolated into our areas of special interests,
> afraid to talk to others of differing or opposing viewpoints?

> I know some have expressed concern that idiot posters and abusive language
> makes the rsru experience less pleasurable, but is opting out the real
> answer? And what about the .za newsgroup? Are SA posters afraid to air their
> opinions on rsru because they might get non-SA posters imposing their
> viewpoint on things they see as SA issues? Is this to be an Afrikaans
> newsgroup? Dare I say it, is this another form of apartheid? (That should
> frighten some opinions out of the woodwork! No offence, Henri, I assure you).

> The global village is heading towards more universal communications, not
> less. Perhaps when rsru becomes swamped with mass posts from the great
> unwashed it may be simply a practical requirement to divide into sub groups.
> But until then, hey, let's communicate. Even props have something to say.

> -- rick boyd

> -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
> http://www.dejanews.com/       Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own

I don't think the forming of a newsgroup za sports rugby was intended to
be a ostrich style stick your head the sand and pretend the world does
not exist.   There was recently an egroup formed called sarugby and the
subscribers grew so fast, that I think this is where Mike Amm and Henri
Burger come to the conclussion that it might be nice to have a group,
that talks purely on the South African competitions and Currie Cup
results, that a lot of other people have no interest in.  I am quite
sure these very same people will be quite happy to post issues about and
discuss issues that are of an interest to the world at large about South
African rugby.  As I am sure you would not be interested in what the
result of say the Natal Sharks V Blue bulls in the Currie Cup(Oh shit we
lost that one did'nt we) would be.   Rick you are quite welcome to come
and join us in any discussions on South African rugby as is anybody.
The only thing would be that it would have to relate to South African
rugby in some way

Hector

 
 
 

za.sport.rugby

Post by Mike Am » Tue, 27 Oct 1998 04:00:00

Quote:

>I'm a bit concerned about the fracturing of rugby discussion. Didds
>and Co have their mailing list, Paul Waite has his own newsgroup
>service, now a SA group -- where is it all going? Are we going to
>subsist in tiny newgroups with a smattering of postings, isolated
>into our areas of special interests, afraid to talk to others of
>differing or opposing viewpoints?

Rick to a large extent what you describe above is a fait accompli. The
Didds & Co mailing list you refer to, is hosted by bds in Sydney.
The Aussie list, a S.African mailing list hosted by e-groups and
Paul Waite's group are all moderated groups and probably came
into existence as a direct result of too many idiot posts on rsru.

Quote:
>I know some have expressed concern that idiot posters and abusive
>language makes the rsru experience less pleasurable, but is
>opting out the real answer?

For some people it obviously was.  They no longer have the hassle
of dealing with posts from cretins like Chutia and Camperos.

Quote:
>And what about the .za newsgroup?
>Are SA posters afraid to air their opinions on rsru because they
>might get non-SA posters imposing their viewpoint on things they
>see as SA issues?

Hard to say, Rick. There was certainly a huge response to the SA
mailing list particularly from the large number of SAs living abroad
nowadays. It was a way to keep in touch with "rugby back home"

Ironically it was this huge response which showed up flaws in the
mailing list concept. Mail boxes were overflowing, blocking out an
important avenue of corporate communication unless alternative
methods of reading posts, were used.

It was Henri Burger who suggested an SA newsgroup as the best
solution to the technical problem that had arisen.

Quote:
>Is this to be an Afrikaans newsgroup? Dare I say it, is this another
>form of apartheid?

No, more-or-less the opposite to apartheid. We have eleven official
languages in SA and some of the new people coming into our rugby
may feel more comfortable posting in the language of their choice.

We don't know how much Afrikaans will be used on the group. Most
Afrikaners are pretty comfortable with English provided there is no
attempt to impose the language on them.

Whichever way it goes, IMO it will not have any detrimental effect
on r.s.r.u participation that has not already taken place. Certainly
those of us who subscribe to rsru will continue to do so.

In my own case I will continue to subscribe to both lists and both
newsgroups. As soon as my French is up to scratch, I intend to
subscribe to the French ng as well.

Cheers
Mike

 
 
 

za.sport.rugby

Post by Ian Wilso » Tue, 27 Oct 1998 04:00:00

Quote:
>I'm a bit concerned about the fracturing of rugby discussion. Didds and Co
>have their mailing list, Paul Waite has his own newsgroup service, now a SA
>group -- where is it all going? Are we going to subsist in tiny newgroups
>with a smattering of postings, isolated into our areas of special
interests,
>afraid to talk to others of differing or opposing viewpoints?

I can't presume to know why there are seperate newsgroups popping up, but I
would personally use the ZA newsgroup to talk about local SA rugby, like the
Currie Cup or Vodacom Cup. I would still use this newsgroup because it
pertains to world rugby more than anything else. If many people prattle on
for pages and pages in this newsgroup about their local club/provincial
rugby, wouldn't it be more suited elsewhere?  I don't think it's splitting
rugby up at all, just making it simpler to isolate related rugby subject
matter - much like having a few subdirectories on your harddrive :-)

Quote:
>answer? And what about the .za newsgroup? Are SA posters afraid to air
their
>opinions on rsru because they might get non-SA posters imposing their
>viewpoint on things they see as SA issues? Is this to be an Afrikaans
>newsgroup? Dare I say it, is this another form of apartheid? (That should
>frighten some opinions out of the woodwork! No offence, Henri, I assure

you).

Like I said above, perhaps they are trying to seperate local SA stuff from
world rugby. I don't see any logic in thinking that this is an attempt to
isolate themselves from the rest of world rugby???  And as for the pathetic
Apartheid statement .... Yawn! Yawn!
YAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAWWWWWWWWWWNNNNNNN!!!!
We've got enough people in SA blaming everything on Apartheid and it's
getting VERY monotonous. "Frighten an opinion" ... mmm, I don't think
"frighten" is the correct choice of wording here :-)

Quote:
>The global village is heading towards more universal communications, not
>less. Perhaps when rsru becomes swamped with mass posts from the great
>unwashed it may be simply a practical requirement to divide into sub
groups.
>But until then, hey, let's communicate. Even props have something to say.

:-)  I remember at one stage this newsgroup was bloated with NZ and SA
mails, and several complaints were made about it. Also, there were
complaints about the amount of "crap" floating around about the SA Currie
Cup a while back, so perhaps some subgroups would be a good idea :-)

Ian
From New Jersey

 
 
 

za.sport.rugby

Post by Ian Wilso » Tue, 27 Oct 1998 04:00:00

Quote:


>> Then we will probably have names like the Boksburg Mongrels. Or the
>> Kimberley Pigs. The Port Elizabeth Chihuahua's? Durban Hamsters?
>> (Howzit Deon!)

>What about the Durban Dodo's! Or the Toothless Sharks <GRIN>

Aaaargh!!! I'm already upset that they lost (and deserved it!!), now you're
rubbing salt into my wounds!! :-)
Ian
 
 
 

za.sport.rugby

Post by Ferd » Wed, 28 Oct 1998 04:00:00

On Mon, 26 Oct 1998 21:16:21 -0500, "Ian Wilson"

<<>I can't presume to know why there are seperate newsgroups popping
up, but I

Quote:
>would personally use the ZA newsgroup to talk about local SA rugby, like the
>Currie Cup or Vodacom Cup. I would still use this newsgroup because it
>pertains to world rugby more than anything else. If many people prattle on
>for pages and pages in this newsgroup about their local club/provincial
>rugby, wouldn't it be more suited elsewhere? >>

Not for me.
Firstly, I can choose not to read it.
And even if I do download it by mistake, it takes less than a minute
at most.
And I am using a dial up connection via an analog telephone line that
can go funny when there was a lot of rain or big thunderstorms.

So, it does not impose on me in terms of volume. And it does have
headers that allmost 100% of the time gives me a clear idea of what
the posting is about.

Then - I might WANT to read the prattle about club games.
These days SA players might be involved.
Secondly, many times there are very valuable bits of info - or very
funny bits - in there.
Thirdly, it gives me a glimpse of how rugby is done in other places.
That is rather fascinating.
Then also sometimes the best stuff of the day is in there. Like that
famous idiot S. Barnes' babbles - as was quoted in this group
yesterday. It was the best reading of the morning!

(This is - in my opinion - a lot of kak this grouping off into safe
little censored havens where all of a sort sit together talking about
their little worlds wondering about "them" out there at times.)