NASCAR Newsgroup

What do you mean "our" desire ??? Has there been a secret vote taken that I am not aware of that shows the majority of r.a.s. readers are behind you? or did you decide that you speak for all of "us"? So you don't want to hear what we other r.a.s. readers have to say about it??? I didn't know you actually owned USENET or this newsgroup. Please get your facts straight before you post, You better find out how the process of starting a new group works before posting messages like this one, I think you are actually hurting your cause more than anything. --John -- ------------------- John (Joao) Silva http://weber.u.washington.edu/~jsilva Seattle, Washington USA.

: This has absolutely nothing to do with ICR, GP2 or anything else. It : has to do with "our" desire to have a NASCAR group. This would not : preclude people from posting NASCAR questions in the current group. But why would we want NASCAR stuff in our group if you have your own? ;-) But seriously. Am I just being blind? Are "we" holding captive all of the NASCAR simmers? You are trying to make it sound like "they" are doing something to "them". But, that's not the case, "them" are us and "they" are us. : For those of you tieing this to a group for ICR and GP2 and any other : sim, if you want to put the time Tony Johns is into NASCAR, then do so. Okay, let's try this one more time. Go back and read very carefully Tony Johns' original post on his proposal. He is not, nor did he ever propose a rec.autos.simulators.nascar group! His proposal calls for the creation of: rec.autos.simulators.f1 rec.autos.simulators.indycar rec.autos.simulators.nascar It was NEVER Tony Johns intent to turn this into "our" desire to become a NASCAR group. His intent was to create a more amiable place for discussing auto simulators. : I don't want to hear it will weaken R.A.S. because it won't, and : mentioning HAWAII postings as an equivelant to GP2 are invalid because : those are for the most-part NASCAR related and would also follow us to : the new newsgroup. You don't want to hear what anyone has to say that may differ from your preception of reality? Well, I've have already discussed why I feel it would. Can show me how my logic and reasoning is full of bull shit? Just saying something is true or false, doesn't convince me it is. Try explaining how it won't weaken r.a.s. Try explaining to us how creating a nascar only group will strengthen r.a.s. I'm willing to listen. Explain what it is you want, why you want it, and how it won't effect r.a.s. as it now exists. You can put your fingers in your ears if you wish. First I need to quote from your paragraph above. "...NASCAR related and would also follow _us_ to the new newsgroup." I know you don't agree, but this does weaken r.a.s. As it is now we are a community comprised of people interested in a variety of auto sims. These sims have things in common and things uncommon. However, I really believe that this exposure to each others products is what keeps us interested in the overall subject of auto sims. Yes, I know, just because there is a separate newsgroup doesn't mean people can't read them all. It's a fact that some people can't even read this newsgroup cuz their server doesn't carry it. Some people who can, may not be able to read a new group cuz their server won't pick it up. Okay we've lost some of our community. Topics of discussion which could easily be useful by a follower of a particular discipline will be missed, unless they read all of the other "related" newsgroups. (Let's not get side-tracked with the issue of cross-posting at the present -- that's a whole 'nother chapter.) A follower of another discipline who has insight that might prove to helpful to NASCAR won't be able to help out, cuz they missed the discussion in the r.a.s.n. group. These are just a few examples of why I think r.a.s. can be weakened by splintering off. Okay, you can remover your fingers now. It may not be your intent. But your insistence to say the same thing over and over again without backing it up with reasoning or logic, comes across as "brow-beating". Has this becoming your mantra? "NASCAR separate, GOOD! NASCAR in r.a.s., BAD!" There are good points for both arguements and there are bad points to both. It may not really be your intent, but your single-minded approach to this is causing alot of people to say, "give 'em their NASCAR group and good riddance." If you really care about r.a.s. or even a r.a.s.n., it would be helpful if you could contribute to the discussion and be willing to listen to other people's thoughts on the issue. What we want to do here is calmly discuss the pros and cons of both sides of the issue. Then we can make an educated decision on the outcome of r.a.s. Or maybe, we will discover a better solution than keeping r.a.s. as it is or splitting it up. And it is true that Hawaii postings in the past are equivelant to the GP2 postings of the present. It was the HOT topic. GP2 is now the HOT topic. We are not talking about the content of the topic, we are talking about the ratio of the topic. When you look at this way there is a correlation. If you don't wish to see this, fine. But just denying it, makes it very hard to continue the discussion. -- **************************** Michael E. Carver ************************* Upside out, or inside down...False alarm the only game in town. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=<[ /./. [- < ]>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

[snip] Exactly how do you come up with that answer? Who's to say that Tony and the gang can't use their artistic and design talents to design cars for the new NASCAR 2 release? What does the configuration of NASCAR 2 have to do with anything? Kyle Langston

Quoted text (18 lines)

> >Once again for all of you who can't read.... > [snip] > >9. Do we need IWCCCARS anymore? No, since we already know how NASCAR 2 > >will be configured. > Exactly how do you come up with that answer? Who's to say that Tony > and the gang can't use their artistic and design talents to design > cars for the new NASCAR 2 release? What does the configuration of > NASCAR 2 have to do with anything? > Kyle Langston > After I read number 9 I came to the conclusion that this guy has no

brain. And if He does have one it's the size of a pea.

>> >Once again for all of you who can't read.... >> [snip] >> >9. Do we need IWCCCARS anymore? No, since we already know how NASCAR 2 >> >will be configured. So what your saying is that when the year 1997 comes around you don't want a cars97 and same for 98,99,etc. I think that the way Tony shoud distribute the cars when Nascar2 comes out is just one big .zip file or self extracting .exe file that has an individual .pcx for each car so the user can select the cars he/she wants and trash the ones they don't. Thanks for listening and Tom what "are" you snorting? Keith Speroni http://www.geocities.com/motorcity/2172 P.S. still looking for help on using frames on my page (to cluttered right now)

No comment on 1-8, but just what exactly does no.9 have to do with the forming of a Nascar group? Seems to me like you are now trying to slight Tony Johns, as if your cluelessness and poor posts haven't done enough damage on this group now you want to do the same to the IWCCCARS Project? Is that the new Crusade? Cheers. --John -- ------------------- John (Joao) Silva http://weber.u.washington.edu/~jsilva Seattle, Washington USA.