Alt-BEAM Archive
Message #01004
To: TurtleTek@aol.com
From: "Pete McCarthy" dilbertpete@hotmail.com
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 1999 15:26:24 PST
Subject: [alt-beam] Re: comp.robotics.beam??
>From owner-beam-outgoing@corp.sgi.com Wed Feb 24 14:49:08 1999
>Received: from [204.94.214.10] by hotmail.com (1.1) with SMTP id
MHotMailB89DCCDA28FC0D101707ACC5ED60A35D00; Wed Feb 24 14:49:08 1999
>Received: from relay1.corp.sgi.com (spindle.corp.sgi.com
[198.29.75.13]) by deliverator.sgi.com
(980309.SGI.8.8.8-aspam-6.2/980310.SGI-aspam) via ESMTP id OAA25593;
Wed, 24 Feb 1999 14:47:26 -0800 (PST)
> mail_from (owner-beam-outgoing@corp.sgi.com)
>Received: (from majordom@localhost) by relay1.corp.sgi.com
(980427.SGI.8.8.8/970903.SGI.AUTOCF) id OAA35554 for beam-outgoing; Wed,
24 Feb 1999 14:44:58 -0800 (PST)
>Received: from deliverator.sgi.com (deliverator.sgi.com
[150.166.91.37]) by relay1.corp.sgi.com
(980427.SGI.8.8.8/970903.SGI.AUTOCF) via ESMTP id OAA92056 for
; Wed, 24 Feb 1999 14:44:57 -0800 (PST)
>Received: from imo17.mx.aol.com (imo17.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.7]) by
deliverator.sgi.com (980309.SGI.8.8.8-aspam-6.2/980310.SGI-aspam) via
ESMTP id OAA25267
> for ; Wed, 24 Feb 1999 14:44:45 -0800 (PST)
> mail_from (TurtleTek@aol.com)
>From: TurtleTek@aol.com
>Received: from TurtleTek@aol.com
> by imo17.mx.aol.com (IMOv18.1) id GBAKa03212
> for ; Wed, 24 Feb 1999 17:32:56 -0500
(EST)
>Message-ID:
>Date: Wed, 24 Feb 1999 17:32:56 EST
>To: beam@corp.sgi.com
>Mime-Version: 1.0
>Subject: Re: comp.robotics.beam??
>Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
>Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
>X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 13
>Sender: owner-beam@corp.sgi.com
>Precedence: bulk
>Reply-To: TurtleTek@aol.com
>
>Well, first of all, IF we take it to a newsgroup, I think we must move
it to a
>newsgroup! When I say move, I mean abandon the list and take all the
>discussion to the newsgroup. I don't know about you, but I like having
one
>source of news about what my fellow BEAMers are up to and one place
where all
>the BEAMers are.
Well, this still is uncertain, even by me. I will decide on what the
beamers want. As for the moving to the newsgroup, I feel that it would
be gradual, and not sudden. It will be at least a month before action
would occur. During this time, I plan on responding to most of my
e-mails and organizating some sort of debate (need to find a chat room,
etc) Also, even when the newsgroup is complete, I don't think it would
be like POP, THE NEWSGROUP IS DONE...EVERYONE IS FORCED TO MOVE OVER TO
IT. So, to answer your answer, there would be major discussion on this
subject, and (I'm HOPING) it would be a gradual change from the mailing
list to the newsgroup
>This allows me to address another topic. "The Zoz" has recently made an
>archive to the BEAM list. A great idea, if you ask me. However, on his
site it
>says "Subscribe to the BEAM Alternate Emailing List or read the
alt-beam
>archive" ok, it says "archive", good, but it also says "Alternate
Emailing
>List". I don't like the sound of that. Is it just me or does that sound
like a
>second emailing list? Ok, I can live with a having newsgroup instead of
>emailing list, I can maybe even learn to deal with BOTH a newsgroup and
an
>emailing list, but 2 emailing lists and a newsgroup?!? Am I reading it
wrong?
>Zozzles, are you out there?
So, Even if there is an alternate list, there is still is no problem.
Many people are still writing to both of them. I would hate to see how
many e-mails would be posted if there were "ONE ULTIMATE LIST"
>I hate this. Maybe I just hate change. Maybe, just maybe, the newsgroup
might
>be a change for the better, but more than one discussion forum? Most
likely a
>change for the worst!
Change ISN'T always bad.
>If we are looking to make a change to the current setup we have, it
should be
>losing this list and using only the list Zoz made at eGroups. I'm not
>suggesting we do this, however, as I am on the "keep it as it is" side.
>
>This reminds me of that old political cartoon with the snake in bits
with the
>names of each state on each segement, "Separated we die" or something
like
>that... 8)
That was for the ratification of the Constitution for the United States
of America. IT IS THE OLDEST FORM OF GOVERNMENT STILL IN EXISTANCE. IT
WAS A CHANGE FROM THE MONARCHY SYSTEM WHICH PROVES MY POINT THAT CHANGE
ISN'T ALWAYS BAD
>-TurtleTek
> "Yu, shall I tell you what knowledge is? When you know a thing,
> say that you know it. When you do not know a thing, admit you
> do not know it. This is knowledge."
> - K'ung-fu Tzu (Confucius)
>
>PS: Sorry if this seems old or out of date, I wasn't able to send email
>yesterday so this is what I wrote then.
No Problem, I have trouble keeping up with the flood of E-mails from
this subject
______________________________________________________
------------------------------------------------------------------------
eGroup home: http://www.eGroups.com/list/alt-beam
Free Web-based e-mail groups by eGroups.com
Home