Re: PROPOSAL: alt.comp.retro-computing

On Fri, 10 Mar 2023 15:30:53 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman" <[email protected]> did
make me awaken from my chaotic existentialism when they didst announce:

>OldbieOne <[email protected]> wrote:
>>Thu, 9 Mar 2023 23:54:18 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman" <[email protected]>:
>
>><snipped>
>
>>>You didn't look. There's an Italian language newsgroup.
>
>>>it.comp.retrocomputing
>
>>>There's always a place to discuss anything on Usenet, like
>>>alt.comp.hardware.
>
>>Outside of Italy, no one speaks Italian, my dude.
>
>I'm pointing out the obvious that it should have come up if you had
>searched properly.

It's obviously not mentioned because it's a bull$hit group that does not pertain
to international discussion in English. If I'd have been proposing an Italian
group, I would have made a proposal in Italian.

Example:

Proposta: alt.testa.di.pene

Un gruppo di notizie per discutere della testa del pene Adam H. Kerman che pensa
di essere indelligente fondendo una richiesta per un gruppo in inglese con un
gruppo Italiano morto

>>I specifically did NOT specify it a hardware group because it would not be for
>>hardware, but hardware, middleware, and software. The whole enchilada. Or in
>>italian, the whole plate of spaghetti and meatballs.
>
>Odd that it wasn't in the charter. I have no idea what middleware is
>with respect to retrocomputing.

Does *everything* have to be in a charter, or just a broad outline?

In case you didn't know, many people run virtualized instances of vintage
operating system on modern hardware, which would also be allowable in this
group.

Esistono cose come Dosbox, testa di cazzo!

>>Love the l@m3 attempt at trolling tho, my dude...
>
>>Are you like 12?
>
>This is alt.*. The proponent can do what he likes. But if you don't care
>to have the proposal discussed then don't offer it for discussion

I care for open and honest discussion, just not your snark

>There's always a place on Usenet to discuss a topic. The best proponents
>are the ones who are well known for discussing the topic among those
>already discussing the topic. The best proponents are very well
>acquainted with the audience. They perform a proper justification, which
>is a count of non-crossposted discussion in which the topic of the
>proposed newsgroup is the main topic of the article. It's actual
>discussion, not just reposted articles from the Web nor FAQ postings.

There is no "right" or "wrong" person to form a request where none currently
exists. If I'm the wrong person to make a proposal, tell me who's right, and
I'll ask them offline. Otherwise, sei solo un iduita flammeggiante.

>The article count is of a recent 90-day period and the proponent is
>looking for an average of 10 articles a day in several newsgroups AND an
>audience that's motivated to move non-crossposted discussion to the
>proposed group (requesting its creation locally if it's not yet
>created).
>
>If there's no audience, then there's no need for the group.

If you would like a more comprehensive proposal to include every specific
intended aspect of the group, along with numerical and empirical justification
for each, please let me know.

Also let me know what language you'd like to see it in, LOL!!!



--
OldbieOne [TM]
The One Who Tells It Like It is!
Brought to you by RetroPC