RFD: rec.pets.cats.breeds

In t,
Agua Girl composed with style:
"~*SooZy*~" wrote in message
...

:-) AG that is why I would like to use a group for cat breeds

Well it's not like we have to all agree or vote or anything.
With all the bizzaro newsgroups, surely they aren't going to
deny alt.rec.cats.breeding or something of that sort.
Whoever wants to start it, start it. In other works...
"make it so" :-)

AG

I think it's just that the big 8 groups get carried automatically by
news servers or something. The alt.* hierarchy usually only gets
picked up by individual news servers as they are asked to by
customers. That's just what it seems to me so I may be wrong.

In t,
Agua Girl composed with style:
"~*SooZy*~" wrote in message
...

:-) AG that is why I would like to use a group for cat breeds

Well it's not like we have to all agree or vote or anything.
With all the bizzaro newsgroups, surely they aren't going to
deny alt.rec.cats.breeding or something of that sort.
Whoever wants to start it, start it. In other works...
"make it so" :-)

AG

I think it's just that the big 8 groups get carried automatically by
news servers or something. The alt.* hierarchy usually only gets
picked up by individual news servers as they are asked to by
customers. That's just what it seems to me so I may be wrong.

On Wed, 24 Sep 2003, Cat Protector wrote:
|I don't think there is. There are plenty of Web Sites about purebred cats.

Websites are for people with GUI's. Usenet is for people who know how
to type, and know where the keys on their keyboard are. Worlds apart!
Now, you unplug your mouse and boot up your DOS based term program
like the rest of us, and start enjoying the world for once.

|There are also enough usenet newsgroups about cats to also fit the bill as
|well.

I think you are missing the point. One of the theories underlying
the concept of 'newsgroups' is that a volume of traffic can be
categorized. Whether the traffic diverges and converges from one
newsgroup to another, is a matter of practicality - it is hard to
keep on just 'one' topic, it is easier to straddle two or more
topics by adding a comma, and the name of another newsgroup, whether
a newsserver upstream or downstream carries it or not. Newsservers
tend to propagate articles more reliably if the newsgroup line has
a couple more newsgroups that may be more on topic.

On Wed, 24 Sep 2003, Cat Protector wrote:
|I don't think there is. There are plenty of Web Sites about purebred cats.

Websites are for people with GUI's. Usenet is for people who know how
to type, and know where the keys on their keyboard are. Worlds apart!
Now, you unplug your mouse and boot up your DOS based term program
like the rest of us, and start enjoying the world for once.

|There are also enough usenet newsgroups about cats to also fit the bill as
|well.

I think you are missing the point. One of the theories underlying
the concept of 'newsgroups' is that a volume of traffic can be
categorized. Whether the traffic diverges and converges from one
newsgroup to another, is a matter of practicality - it is hard to
keep on just 'one' topic, it is easier to straddle two or more
topics by adding a comma, and the name of another newsgroup, whether
a newsserver upstream or downstream carries it or not. Newsservers
tend to propagate articles more reliably if the newsgroup line has
a couple more newsgroups that may be more on topic.

On Wed, 24 Sep 2003, Cat Protector wrote:
|I don't think there is. There are plenty of Web Sites about purebred cats.

Websites are for people with GUI's. Usenet is for people who know how
to type, and know where the keys on their keyboard are. Worlds apart!
Now, you unplug your mouse and boot up your DOS based term program
like the rest of us, and start enjoying the world for once.

|There are also enough usenet newsgroups about cats to also fit the bill as
|well.

I think you are missing the point. One of the theories underlying
the concept of 'newsgroups' is that a volume of traffic can be
categorized. Whether the traffic diverges and converges from one
newsgroup to another, is a matter of practicality - it is hard to
keep on just 'one' topic, it is easier to straddle two or more
topics by adding a comma, and the name of another newsgroup, whether
a newsserver upstream or downstream carries it or not. Newsservers
tend to propagate articles more reliably if the newsgroup line has
a couple more newsgroups that may be more on topic.

On Wed, 24 Sep 2003, Cheryl wrote:
| :-) AG that is why I would like to use a group for cat breeds
|
| Well it's not like we have to all agree or vote or anything.
| With all the bizzaro newsgroups, surely they aren't going to
| deny alt.rec.cats.breeding or something of that sort.
| Whoever wants to start it, start it. In other works...
| "make it so" :-)
|
| AG
|
|I think it's just that the big 8 groups get carried automatically by
|news servers or something. The alt.* hierarchy usually only gets
|picked up by individual news servers as they are asked to by
|customers. That's just what it seems to me so I may be wrong.

That observation seems to be pretty much right on the money. Also,
new individuals come along and put up a newsserver of their own, and
it makes a difference whether their newsserver is set on "autopilot"
constantly responding to 'control' messages from anybody and everybody;
if the newsserver is responding to these 'control' messages, the
individual is probably going to be running out of harddrive space
even before the 'real' traffic comes along. In theory, that shouldn't
happen, because there ought to be an equal number of remove-group
control messages, as 'approves' creating them... You will note that
I don't issue any control messages aside from 'cancels' of articles
that I actually have authored, life is so much easier that way.

On Wed, 24 Sep 2003, Cheryl wrote:
| :-) AG that is why I would like to use a group for cat breeds
|
| Well it's not like we have to all agree or vote or anything.
| With all the bizzaro newsgroups, surely they aren't going to
| deny alt.rec.cats.breeding or something of that sort.
| Whoever wants to start it, start it. In other works...
| "make it so" :-)
|
| AG
|
|I think it's just that the big 8 groups get carried automatically by
|news servers or something. The alt.* hierarchy usually only gets
|picked up by individual news servers as they are asked to by
|customers. That's just what it seems to me so I may be wrong.

That observation seems to be pretty much right on the money. Also,
new individuals come along and put up a newsserver of their own, and
it makes a difference whether their newsserver is set on "autopilot"
constantly responding to 'control' messages from anybody and everybody;
if the newsserver is responding to these 'control' messages, the
individual is probably going to be running out of harddrive space
even before the 'real' traffic comes along. In theory, that shouldn't
happen, because there ought to be an equal number of remove-group
control messages, as 'approves' creating them... You will note that
I don't issue any control messages aside from 'cancels' of articles
that I actually have authored, life is so much easier that way.

On Wed, 24 Sep 2003, Cheryl wrote:
| :-) AG that is why I would like to use a group for cat breeds
|
| Well it's not like we have to all agree or vote or anything.
| With all the bizzaro newsgroups, surely they aren't going to
| deny alt.rec.cats.breeding or something of that sort.
| Whoever wants to start it, start it. In other works...
| "make it so" :-)
|
| AG
|
|I think it's just that the big 8 groups get carried automatically by
|news servers or something. The alt.* hierarchy usually only gets
|picked up by individual news servers as they are asked to by
|customers. That's just what it seems to me so I may be wrong.

That observation seems to be pretty much right on the money. Also,
new individuals come along and put up a newsserver of their own, and
it makes a difference whether their newsserver is set on "autopilot"
constantly responding to 'control' messages from anybody and everybody;
if the newsserver is responding to these 'control' messages, the
individual is probably going to be running out of harddrive space
even before the 'real' traffic comes along. In theory, that shouldn't
happen, because there ought to be an equal number of remove-group
control messages, as 'approves' creating them... You will note that
I don't issue any control messages aside from 'cancels' of articles
that I actually have authored, life is so much easier that way.

In ,
Matthew Montchalin composed with style:

That observation seems to be pretty much right on the money. Also,
new individuals come along and put up a newsserver of their own, and
it makes a difference whether their newsserver is set on "autopilot"
constantly responding to 'control' messages from anybody and
everybody; if the newsserver is responding to these 'control'
messages, the individual is probably going to be running out of
harddrive space
even before the 'real' traffic comes along. In theory, that
shouldn't happen, because there ought to be an equal number of
remove-group control messages, as 'approves' creating them...

I understand about the control messages - someone created sort of a
vanity group in the alt.* hierarchy for my sick cat last year lol..
Very low traffic and I don't even post to it anymore but for a while
there we tried to see if we could create enough traffic for google to
archive it but it never was. I'll have to look back and see if I can
find the original control message with the "charter"... it was pretty
cute. All messages about *Shadow* are on-topic.

In ,
Matthew Montchalin composed with style:

That observation seems to be pretty much right on the money. Also,
new individuals come along and put up a newsserver of their own, and
it makes a difference whether their newsserver is set on "autopilot"
constantly responding to 'control' messages from anybody and
everybody; if the newsserver is responding to these 'control'
messages, the individual is probably going to be running out of
harddrive space
even before the 'real' traffic comes along. In theory, that
shouldn't happen, because there ought to be an equal number of
remove-group control messages, as 'approves' creating them...

I understand about the control messages - someone created sort of a
vanity group in the alt.* hierarchy for my sick cat last year lol..
Very low traffic and I don't even post to it anymore but for a while
there we tried to see if we could create enough traffic for google to
archive it but it never was. I'll have to look back and see if I can
find the original control message with the "charter"... it was pretty
cute. All messages about *Shadow* are on-topic.