rec.autos.simulators

by **David Burto** » Thu, 25 Jul 1996 04:00:00

> My current estimation puts the "yes" votes at no less than 150.

Please add one more to the "yes" column

Thanks,

vetteracer

________________________________________________________________________
Vetteracer's Garage
http://www.racesimcentral.net/

________________________

by **Michael E. Carv** » Thu, 25 Jul 1996 04:00:00

: My current estimation puts the "yes" votes at no less than 150.

Can you say "election fraud"? I knew you could! Maybe there's a
floating point bug in your calculator. This ain't Peter Pan, so just
wishing Tinkerbell well again just doesn't cut it in the real world.
There are alot of people who have decided it's not "proper" to clutter
this newsgroup with their "vote". Besides, I think the voiced opinions
are pretty much evenly matched. Unless you count a Yes vote everytime
you post. It's one person, one vote here.

Go ahead and count away if it will make you feel better.

--
**************************** Michael E. Carver *************************
Upside out, or inside down...False alarm the only game in town.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=<[ /./. [- < ]>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

by **David W. Lo** » Thu, 25 Jul 1996 04:00:00

>I vote YES to creating a rec.autos.simulators.nascar group. Again, I vote
>YES and I urge everyone who wants to have discussion based SOLELY on NASCAR
>Racing to also put in an affirmative vote.

>Kirn Cromur

YES !!!
Give me NASCAR !!!

David W. Long

Memphis, TN

by **Dave Thaye** » Thu, 25 Jul 1996 04:00:00

I would like A. Keep the open wheel sims together.

Dave Thayer
IVGA #2789

by **Thomas E. Retkowsk** » Thu, 25 Jul 1996 04:00:00

> >Do you want:

> >A) REC.AUTOS.SIMULATORS
> > REC.AUTOS.SIMULATORS.NASCAR

> >B) REC.AUTOS.SIMULATORS
> > REC.AUTOS.SIMULATORS.NASCAR
> > REC.AUTOS.SIMULATORS.F1
> > REC.AUTOS.SIMULATORS.ICR2

> > C) REC.AUTOS.SIMULATORS left as it is

> I would like A. Keep the open wheel sims together.

> Dave Thayer
> IVGA #2789

Invalid point since there are no other options available.

by **Reginald Wilton** » Thu, 25 Jul 1996 04:00:00

I've been lurking around in r.a.s. for something like a year and half,
and posting only occasionally. In this time, I've seen lots of this come
and go, and that seems to be the way of it. I feel that splitting rec.
autos.simulators group into multiple divisions is crazy. While my own
preference is for NASCAR racing, I do however, use ICR 1, and plan to get
ICR2, and GP2 as money allows.

When I first got NASCAR and installed it, I had some sound problems,
but the idea and solution to the problem came from a post for ICR1. This
seems to happen on other fronts as well, since the above solution also
solved sound problems, with other games, that had plagued my system at the
time.

Currently, I feel that while there is a lot of volume for GP2, and the
ICR2 patch, these posts really don't need to be separated. Don't you
remember 5-6 weeks ago, when we were all discussing both Hawaii, and
freon substitutes. Before that, the volume of article here had lulled to the
point that just to keep in touch people were joking about when GP2 would hit
the stands. Before Christmas, it was all ICR2. I think you all can see
the tend showing up here. This group tends go through bouts of approx.
6-8 weeks, before we all move on to something different.

Why make things more difficult than they really need to be? To the
fellows who desperately want a nascar group, wait for a while, and we'll
get back to your toys, in the mean time if you really don't want to read
about GP2, don't, have your newsreader ignore these articles and read
only those that pertain to your interests.

Hell, at this point, I still haven't been able to get my provider to
subscribe to the binaries group yet, so it'll ages, if I ever do see the
split groups, if this gets passed. And what for, to sift through multiple
place to get the same kind of information I get here, right now.

What I would really like to see though is people who know how to snip an
original quote down to the contents that they are replying to. Do we
really need to see five copies of the same page and half signature?? Or
eight copies of the original multiple screen article with a "Me Too!!!!!"
stuck on the end of it??

My thoughts on the matter,
Kev

by **Kyle Langst** » Thu, 25 Jul 1996 04:00:00

[snip]

There have been a few posts from other pro-r.a.s.nascar people that
drive the other simulations as well as NASCAR. They have said that it
would organize things a lot better, from their viewpoints. So this
statement isn't entirely true.

Kyle Langston

by **Michael E. Carv** » Thu, 25 Jul 1996 04:00:00

: This posting makes no sense as the current newsgroup would remain
: unchanged. The proposal is for R.A.S.N. only. You can't propose more
: that one group at a time per request.

Thomas, can you quote a source for the above "factoid"?

: Votes are taken by a 3rd party and not via this newsgroup.

But, in the mean time it seems that you are the Holding Company for the
votes, right?

--
**************************** Michael E. Carver *************************
Upside out, or inside down...False alarm the only game in town.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=<[ /./. [- < ]>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

by **Don Scurlo** » Thu, 25 Jul 1996 04:00:00

>Subject: Re: CFD: rec.autos.simulators reorganization (was
>rec.autos.simulators.nascar)
>Date: Wed, 24 Jul 1996 03:11:04 GMT
>What I would really like to see though is people who know how to snip an
>original quote down to the contents that they are replying to. Do we
>really need to see five copies of the same page and half signature?? Or
>eight copies of the original multiple screen article with a "Me Too!!!!!"
>stuck on the end of it??

This speaks to the real problem, huge numbers of needless and/or pointless
postings. When I don't go online for a few days and then have 800!! posts
to plow through, splitting the group seems like a good idea, unfortunately
all those pointless postings will still be there. What this group really
needs is A: a FAQ , and B: people to leanout there posts by: reading the
f...ing manual, lerking and learning before posting, agreeing in silence
when someone says something that makes sense, and to quit asking the same
question over and over so many times that it needs it's own group.

by **Tony Joh** » Fri, 26 Jul 1996 04:00:00

sent shooting through ***space:

>: This posting makes no sense as the current newsgroup would remain
>: unchanged. The proposal is for R.A.S.N. only. You can't propose more
>: that one group at a time per request.

>Thomas, can you quote a source for the above "factoid"?

Don't bother waiting for his reply -- that "factoid" is utter
horse-hockey. Anyone who takes the time to read the RFD procedure FAQ
would know that.

--
Tony Johns (Hawaii: IWCCCARS)
IWCCCARS Project Coordinator

by **Keith Speron** » Fri, 26 Jul 1996 04:00:00

> Well, actually, I vote YES.

> First, I want to make it very clear that I do enjoy reading about all
> of the racing sims out there. From a personal and professional
> perspective, I think it's great. However, in trying to be a nice guy
> & answer Papyrus questions online, to me, rec.autos.simulators is just
> too much. Here are a few things that have me on the verge of
> disappearing from r.a.s.:

> 1) Ignorant flames. Hey, I don't mind taking some heat up here.
> However, when things get totally out of hand like they did with the
> ICR 2 patch, that's when I say ENOUGH. I said then that I would never
> make another post regarding ICR 2 and I never will. Was it a bad
> situation? Yes. Did the postings/flames go way too far? Absolutely.
> Who ends up losing? Not me! I don't NEED to be here. I don't NEED to
> try to help answer questions. The people who pushed my too far on the
> ICR 2 issue know who they are, and I hope they realize the result. I
> never will comment on the product again... I don't even read the
> threads anymore. Who's going to answer your questions now?

> 2) Piracy. For God's sake, people, if you're going to try to rip hard
> working people off by freely distributing software, DON'T DO IT IN
> FRONT OF THEM. Do you know how many times I've seen stuff up here
> about FTP sites, warez newsgroups, Daytona hacks, Indianapolis Motor
> Speedway give-aways, and the like. You know how that makes me feel?
> I'll tell you... every time, my reaction is "why the hell am I up here
> trying to help people like this?" The only thing that keeps me coming
> back is the realization that it is the vast minority of people who are
> doing this, and there are a lot more honest people that I'm hopefully
> helping than there are scum-bags trying to rip off my company. But
> that realizaton is starting to wear thin.

> 3) Noise. There is so much traffic up here, it's tough to find what
> you're looking for. The result is that peolple ask the same things
> over & over again. Also, the same discussions end up taking place in
> multiple threads.

> 4) My latest favorite: bogus postings. Some idiot thought it would be
> funny to post something with my name on it this weekend. That's the
> stuff that puts me over the edge. Do I need this? What a total
> moron!

> Just about all of the arguements up here that I've heard against
> spliting r.a.s. up have been along the lines of "hey, I like reading
> about all the different racing sims". OK, so explain to me why
> splitting r.a.s. into separate areas of interest would prohibit this?

> I think we should split r.a.s. into differnet areas. You know what?
> I'll frequent every one of them. However, it will give me the the
> ability to approach each one differently, sort through the noise more
> efficiently, and enjoy each one of them more than r.a.s. Yes, in
> comparison to many other newsgroups, this one is "moderate" in the
> amount of trafic it gets. However, that doesn't mean that it's not
> time to split this one up. There are some VERY focused areas of
> interest up here, each deserving of it own forum. Remember, just
> because r.a.s. gets split up doesn't mean that you can't take part in
> each of the pieces. Spliting it up is just going to make it easier &
> better.

> I fully support Tony's formal proposal to "the powers that be" to
> split r.a.s. up into focus areas, and I will actively take part in the
> official discussions & voting processs that is about to ensue. I
> encourage all of you to do the same.

Well after reading all of that (whew) i changed my descision to yes
also, i think now that it would be good to split up the newsgroup.

Keith
http://www.geocities.com/motorcity/2172

by **Flo** » Fri, 26 Jul 1996 04:00:00

>There is also too many of these "Split the newsgroups" posts. If these
>alond would stop, the traffic on the group would be cut in half!!
>LET IT GO.

But what would all the Nascar fans have to talk about then?

by **Mike Carrother** » Fri, 26 Jul 1996 04:00:00

writes:

>> >Do you want:

>> >A) REC.AUTOS.SIMULATORS
>> > REC.AUTOS.SIMULATORS.NASCAR

>> >B) REC.AUTOS.SIMULATORS
>> > REC.AUTOS.SIMULATORS.NASCAR
>> > REC.AUTOS.SIMULATORS.F1
>> > REC.AUTOS.SIMULATORS.ICR2

>> > C) REC.AUTOS.SIMULATORS left as it is

>> I would like A. Keep the open wheel sims together.

>> Dave Thayer
>> IVGA #2789

>Invalid point since there are no other options available.

There is also too many of these "Split the newsgroups" posts. If these
alond would stop, the traffic on the group would be cut in half!!

LET IT GO.

Mike

by **Jim G** » Fri, 26 Jul 1996 04:00:00

> This speaks to the real problem, huge numbers of needless and/or pointless
> postings. When I don't go online for a few days and then have 800!! posts
> to plow through, splitting the group seems like a good idea, unfortunately
> all those pointless postings will still be there. What this group really
> needs is A: a FAQ , and B: people to leanout there posts by: reading the
> f...ing manual, lerking and learning before posting, agreeing in silence
> when someone says something that makes sense, and to quit asking the same
> question over and over so many times that it needs it's own group.

IMHO
The problem with the large number of post is never going to stop. Usenet just keeps
growing as more and more people get on the web. Split Rec-sim into two groups and it
will just give you two groups with 800 post in a couple of weeks. As to agreeing in
silence and asking the same question....well..people will be people.:-]

Jim Glot

Diving officer, Make my depth 400 feet.

by **Cowen Wilso** » Fri, 26 Jul 1996 04:00:00