BF2 newsgroup

Archived from groups: alt.games.battlefield1942 (More info?)

"Old Chieftain" <OldChieftain@hotmailSPAM.com> wrote in message
news:4FTbe.13$kM6.12@okepread06...
> Was an alt.games.battlefield or .battlefield2 newsgroup started yet? just
> wondering before I harassed my isp for it.
> OC

Check google groups for it.

No mention of it has been here, so I assume not.

Archived from groups: alt.games.battlefield1942 (More info?)

Old Chieftain wrote
>Was an alt.games.battlefield or .battlefield2 newsgroup started yet?
>just wondering before I harassed my isp for it.
>OC

We've been harassing your ISP to *not* carry the group  

--
[AGB]Villy Vonka
Sheffield, UK
http://www.villyvonka.co.uk

Archived from groups: alt.games.battlefield1942 (More info?)

"Old Chieftain" <OldChieftain@hotmailSPAM.com> wrote in message
news:4FTbe.13$kM6.12@okepread06...
> Was an alt.games.battlefield or .battlefield2 newsgroup started yet?
> just wondering before I harassed my isp for it.
> OC

I believe someone was pushing for alt.games.ea.battlefield to cover the
whole series.

Archived from groups: alt.games.battlefield1942 (More info?)

"IcyHot" <IcyHot@agbgaming.com> wrote in message

> I believe someone was pushing for alt.games.ea.battlefield to cover the
> whole series.

That was me.

As A.G.B is just about dead now, I'll post the proposed charter in a new
thread and as long as there is general concensus we'll go for it.

L.

Archived from groups: alt.games.battlefield1942 (More info?)

Lorian wrote:
> "IcyHot" <IcyHot@agbgaming.com> wrote in message
>
>
>>I believe someone was pushing for alt.games.ea.battlefield to cover the
>>whole series.
>
>
> That was me.
>
> As A.G.B is just about dead now, I'll post the proposed charter in a new
> thread and as long as there is general concensus we'll go for it.
>
> L.
>
>
consider the motion seconded....
Mr. Nemo

Archived from groups: alt.games.battlefield1942 (More info?)

In article <4274dcf2$0$566$ed2619ec@ptn-nntp-reader03.plus.net>,
nospam@lorian.nod says...
>
> "IcyHot" <IcyHot@agbgaming.com> wrote in message
>
> > I believe someone was pushing for alt.games.ea.battlefield to cover the
> > whole series.
>
> That was me.
>
> As A.G.B is just about dead now, I'll post the proposed charter in a new
> thread and as long as there is general concensus we'll go for it.
>
> L.
>
>
>



just send the control message. it's not like the folks in alt.config or
the actual newsgroup admins actually "do" anything substantial for or
against the proposal/control message. they'll try to deny your post,
claim it's redundant, yet, the group will be created and it will be
propagated when folks start hounding their news admins about it.

been there, done that, bought the t-shirt.



/CF

Archived from groups: alt.games.battlefield1942 (More info?)

On Sun, 01 May 2005 15:43:15 +0200, Lorian <nospam@lorian.nod> wrote:

>
> "IcyHot" <IcyHot@agbgaming.com> wrote in message
>
>> I believe someone was pushing for alt.games.ea.battlefield to cover the
>> whole series.
>
> That was me.
>
> As A.G.B is just about dead now, I'll post the proposed charter in a new
> thread and as long as there is general concensus we'll go for it.
>
> L.
>
>

Go for it.

--
Flashhart

Archived from groups: alt.games.battlefield1942 (More info?)

"Colonel_Flagg"

> just send the control message. it's not like the folks in alt.config or
> the actual newsgroup admins actually "do" anything substantial for or
> against the proposal/control message. they'll try to deny your post,
> claim it's redundant, yet, the group will be created and it will be
> propagated when folks start hounding their news admins about it.

Thats exactly what I'm intending to do, but as the group will supersede this
one it's only fair to allow people to have their say beforehand.

Archived from groups: alt.games.battlefield1942 (More info?)

On Sun, 1 May 2005 15:32:25 -0400, Colonel_Flagg
<colonel_flagg@_NOSOUPFORJ00_internetwarzone.org> wrote:

>just send the control message. it's not like the folks in alt.config or
>the actual newsgroup admins actually "do" anything substantial for or
>against the proposal/control message. they'll try to deny your post,
>claim it's redundant, yet, the group will be created and it will be
>propagated when folks start hounding their news admins about it.

Except that groups that aren't at least a little official often don't
propagate. The polity at Verizon is that a group must be listed at
isc.org or Google:Usenet groups to be added.

Archived from groups: alt.games.battlefield1942 (More info?)

In article <1nma7110aaia5qr443en6ads4r856m7rf9@4ax.com>, bug@example.com
says...
> On Sun, 1 May 2005 15:32:25 -0400, Colonel_Flagg
> <colonel_flagg@_NOSOUPFORJ00_internetwarzone.org> wrote:
>
> >just send the control message. it's not like the folks in alt.config or
> >the actual newsgroup admins actually "do" anything substantial for or
> >against the proposal/control message. they'll try to deny your post,
> >claim it's redundant, yet, the group will be created and it will be
> >propagated when folks start hounding their news admins about it.
>
> Except that groups that aren't at least a little official often don't
> propagate. The polity at Verizon is that a group must be listed at
> isc.org or Google:Usenet groups to be added.
>


all control message sent to alt.config/control, etc. (for the alt.
hierarchy) wind up at isc without "approval" from anyone. it's alt. no
one gives a damn. you want to create a froup in one of the other tiers,
sure, there's a "proper" way of doing it. no in alt.



/CF

Archived from groups: alt.games.battlefield1942 (More info?)

On Mon, 2 May 2005 02:04:38 -0400, Colonel_Flagg
<colonel_flagg@_NOSOUPFORJ00_internetwarzone.org> wrote:

>In article <1nma7110aaia5qr443en6ads4r856m7rf9@4ax.com>, bug@example.com
>says...
>> On Sun, 1 May 2005 15:32:25 -0400, Colonel_Flagg
>> <colonel_flagg@_NOSOUPFORJ00_internetwarzone.org> wrote:
>>
>> >just send the control message. it's not like the folks in alt.config or
>> >the actual newsgroup admins actually "do" anything substantial for or
>> >against the proposal/control message. they'll try to deny your post,
>> >claim it's redundant, yet, the group will be created and it will be
>> >propagated when folks start hounding their news admins about it.
>>
>> Except that groups that aren't at least a little official often don't
>> propagate. The polity at Verizon is that a group must be listed at
>> isc.org or Google:Usenet groups to be added.
>>
>
>
>all control message sent to alt.config/control, etc. (for the alt.
>hierarchy) wind up at isc without "approval" from anyone. it's alt. no
>one gives a damn. you want to create a froup in one of the other tiers,
>sure, there's a "proper" way of doing it. no in alt.

http://www.faqs.org/faqs/alt-creation-guide/

FWIW, newsgroup addition requests from the alt hierarchy to the
Verizon On-Line news servers are regularly disapproved by the news
admin because, to quote his latest newsgroup addition announcement:

>alt.binaries.multimedia.cartoons.vintage Will not be added. Not
>found at the ISC or Google Usenet Groups.
>
>alt.binaries.tvseries Will not be added. Not found at the
>ISC or Google Usenet Groups.
>
>Thanks,
>
>Jeremy - Verizon News Admin

Can't speak to current policies at other ISP's.

Archived from groups: alt.games.battlefield1942 (More info?)

"bug" <bug@example.com> wrote in message

> Can't speak to current policies at other ISP's.

Same policy for most. I'll sort out ISC.

L.

Archived from groups: alt.games.battlefield1942 (More info?)

On Tue, 3 May 2005 11:00:13 +0100, "Lorian" <nospam@lorian.nod> wrote:

>
>"bug" <bug@example.com> wrote in message
>
>> Can't speak to current policies at other ISP's.
>
>Same policy for most. I'll sort out ISC.
>
>L.

Thank you, sir!