Kirk Pearson wrote:

In article <97BOc.7283$N77.377316@news.xtra.co.nz>,
~misfit~ <misfit61nz@yahoo-mung.co.nz> wrote:

John Donson wrote:

Kirk Pearson wrote:

As a friendly suggestion, please move discussions about
distributed computing projects and clients (and the BOINC aspects
of BOINC-based SETI@home) to the comp.distributed newsgroup.
You'll make the comp.distributed people happy by giving their
newsgroup more (and appropriate) traffic, and you'll make the
SETI purists here happy by not mentioning the word "BOINC" :-)
Thanks!

Oh? Are there many SETI-purists who object to BOINC?

If there are they're a dying breed. Or will be soon.

Kirk, stupid request mate. SETI is moving to BOINC, therefore
BOINC-based SETI@home is on-topic for these newsgroups buddy. You
want these NGs to die in a few months when SETI classic is turned
off?

Evolve or die.
--
~misfit~

G'day misfit,

Hi Kirk.

Please don't misunderstand me.  I am not a SETI purist.  I am a
distributed computing zealot, as anyone who's visited my website in
the past 5 years can attest.  BOINC is an important part of the
SETI@home project, and is making great contributions to the overall
SETI project.  But, the two Usenet newsgroups created for seti were
created for discussing the science of SETI and not for discussing the
distributed computing client applications used
for SETI@home.

Wrong  Kirk. alt.sci.seti was created on 1st June 1999. Guess what happened
17 days before that? That's right, S@H went 'live'. The original charter,
which I had the URL to in a post to Raj, that I'm not hunting for again,
said that the group was for the dicussion of all things SETI, including S@H.
It did mention that, if it was warranted, a new group, alt.sci.seti.at-home
would be created for S@H in particular. <Looks about> I don't see that group
so I'm still using this group as per it's original charter.

You, and others who have not been here since these
newsgroups were created, need to remember that SETI@home is not all
of SETI--it is only a part of it.

If you have been here since this newsgroup was created then I'm not telling
you anything new in the above. The charter was also the very first post to
this newsgroup. (ass). And thanks for the condescending attitiude, I'm fully
aware that there is more to SETI than the Berkeley initiative. I first heard
the term SETI in the early '70's and have been interested ever since. I must
have read three sci-fi books a week for a decade, in the "golden days" of
sci-fi. I'm not interested in using my PC to study medications for some
global phamacuetical company (working though sponsership of a university
project for 'legitimacy').

To "evolve or die," as you
suggest, we should leave the SETI newsgroups for discussion of the
science of SETI overall, and for the scientific aspects of SETI@home,
Optical SETI, and any other projects which arise to further the study
of SETI, and move the discussion of the technical and user aspects of
SETI@home and BOINC, and all other distributed computing projects, to
comp.distributed, where they are more appropriate.

No, the group alt.sci.seti.at-home should be created as originlly planned.
You remember that post of course, in June of '99, since you were here from
the beggining. (Although Google has no record of you posting here before
2000) I don't want to go to a group where over 50% of the discussion is
off-topic for me. I'm not interested in DC in and of itself, I'm interested
in SETI.

The SETI
newsgroups will not die, as you suggest.  They will contain
conversations more in line with the original goals for the SETI
newsgroups, conversations in which the "SETI purists" to which I
referred previously, are more interested.

As I said, you seem to have an inaccurate grasp of the 'original goals' of
at least one of these newsgroups. I don't know about the charter for sas (I
don't post there per-se, my posts only appear there if I reply to a
cross-posted message) but maybe you can make that a group for the "SETI
purists" and leave ass to it's original charter. Surely the "SETI purists"
don't need two groups, it would be far easier for them to stick to just one.
Wanting two groups is just plain greedy. Anyway, my ISP doesn't carry the
"comp.distributed newsgroup" so I'm not going anywhere.

To answer John's reply: most SETI purists probably appreciate BOINC,
since it is doing so much to further the study of SETI, but they DO
object to the discussion of technical and user aspects of BOINC in
the SETI newsgroups, as you will see in many past posts.

Aww, diddums. The 'alt' series of NG's are a lot more lax in what is, and
what isn't OT in them. I suggest you and your puritans stick to the NG sas.
But then you say you're not a purist. Hmmm, why would you presume to be
speaking on their behalf then?

Who created the comp.distributed newsgroup anyway?

Have a nice day.
--
~misfit~