Kirk Pearson wrote:

In article <gzeQc.9103$N77.444886@news.xtra.co.nz>,
~misfit~ <misfit61nz@yahoo-mung.co.nz> wrote:

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.

Fair enough, although I don't see how discussions of PC power
consumption and human bikkie consumption relate to the group's
original charter.

Then you are blind. The 'bikkie' comment was just a friendly comment amongst
friends discussing PC power consumption/real cost of SETI@Home
participation. That is on-topic. The thread wasn't about bikkies.

You really are reaching now. This very thread, started by you, is in fact
off-topic according to the charter. That's the whole thread, not just a
throw-away comment made in one post.

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.

Who is condescending now?  I have been a Usenet reader and poster
since 1988 (and yes, you will find postings from me in other
newsgroups from back then). "I don't want to go to a group where over
50% of the discussion is off-topic for me" is pretty much what many
early posters in s.a.s and a.s.s said when they were forced to wade
through endless, voluminous SETI@home classic discussions which
didn't interest them.

Then maybe they should have created their own group for discussion rather
than rely on one that came into being primarilly as a discussion forum for
S@H. Also, you'd think that they'd realise that they don't need to read
every post. These "endless, voluminous" discussions about SETI@home that
don't interest these people whom you presume to speak for, obviously
interest the people who are involved in posting and reading them. Are their
needs any less valid? If you cut them, do they not bleed?

I find it interesting that you claim to be
interested in science (after all of that science fiction you've
read), yet you have no interest in distributed computing applications
which will do so much to advance science in the coming decades.

I'm not interested in lining the pockets of pharmaceutical companies.
Climate prediction may be worth looking at at some stage.

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?

Because they have gotten tired of speaking on their own behalf, only
to
be ignored by people like you.

Woohoo! A newsgroup champion!

As you may have realised by now, your above statement is invalid, an
oxymoron in fact. I'm not ignoring you am I? And exactly who are "people
like me"? Have you pigeon-holed me? Are you a bigot or an elitist?

Who created the comp.distributed newsgroup anyway?

Not that you care, but it was created by David DiNucci, a distributed
computing theorist who also has an interest in applications of
distributed computing like SETI@home.

Thank you. I do care. Why else would I ask? How can you say "not that you
care"? Are you trying to start a 'flamefest'?

Have a nice day.

You too, diddums.  Enjoy your bikkies and your flamefests.

A 'flamefest' requires at least two people. By refering to my passing
reference to bikkies in a derogatory way twice in this post of yours it
shows me that you are quite interested in 'flamefests' yourself.

And your
corrections of others' unintentional misspellings.  I'm sorry you
don't have anything more useful to do with your time.

Good point, I'm starting to realise that talking to you *is* a waste of my
time.
--
~misfit~