What is going to happen with this RFD...

Well, I'm getting the feeling that the RFD process is going to fail. I know, I know, it's only been a couple of weeks. But do you remember what happened in the 1992 U.S. Presidential election? When Perot stole all those conservative votes and left Bush dangling? It seems the same thing has happened over on news.groups. So far, we only have three or four people actually defending the RFD as it was written; the prevailing atmosphere, thanks to the "splinter" movement on rec.autos.simulators, is that the RFD is centered around splitting up the group because of factionism or "us vs. them" mentality. It seems like whatever I tried to voice in the RFD is getting muddled with a lot of "power to NASCAR!" rhetoric. The discussion on news.groups is clearly going the way of defeating the RFD, and I'm beginning to wonder if we even need to move on to the CFV (Call for Votes). I'm not sure if this whole deal was a mistake to begin with -- at least we're solving the question of whether the mood on r.a.s. dictated the creation of new venues to handle the volume. But I'm gradually getting the sense that I'm wasting my time with this. It's difficult to light a fire with wet wood.. <G> It looks like there are as many people rabid about maintaining the status quo as others are who are tired of it. A 50/50 split isn't enough -- a newsgroup referendum requires a clear 2/3 majority to pass. Unless some miracle happens within the next couple of days to get attention focused on the RFD and not this sectional ***that's replaced it lately, I think I'm going to allow a "pocket veto" to happen... that is, just let it die. That way I can move on to something more important that I and a few others have been discussing lately. I'm not terribly disappointed. I can't profess to be one of the "old guard" on rec.autos.simulators, nor do I really consider myself "one of the gang" that makes this place so special.. for heaven's sake, all I do is paint cars. So this gives me a little neutrality -- I can live with either rec.autos.simulators as it stands or with a reorganized hierarchy. Mainly I'm sad that this turned into a "NASCAR vs. the world" argument and needlessly filled up the group with a lot of finger pointing and "us vs. them" junk. I suppose I must have misjudged the climate here a bit. I kinda know how Pandora felt now, though... <G> -- IWCCCARS Project Coordinator [link lost in import] Hawaii: IWCCCARS

: Well, I'm getting the feeling that the RFD process is going to fail. It's really hard to tell, Tony. There are many more "lurkers" in the process than posters. Many people don't feel the need to post something just to say "Me Too!" They are only following the line in a Grateful Dead song, "Please don't dominate the rap, Jack, if you got nothing new to say." : I know, I know, it's only been a couple of weeks. But do you remember : what happened in the 1992 U.S. Presidential election? When Perot : stole all those conservative votes and left Bush dangling? It seems : the same thing has happened over on news.groups. So far, we only have : three or four people actually defending the RFD as it was written; : the prevailing atmosphere, thanks to the "splinter" movement on : rec.autos.simulators, is that the RFD is centered around splitting up : the group because of factionism or "us vs. them" mentality. It seems : like whatever I tried to voice in the RFD is getting muddled with a : lot of "power to NASCAR!" rhetoric. There are more than 2 sides and feelings about the issues at hand. Your RFD is one side. But it also lends itself to those who have a different agenda. Unfortunately, the "well was tainted" abit by this faction. It will take time to sort itself out. That's what the RFD is for. : The discussion on news.groups is clearly going the way of defeating : the RFD, and I'm beginning to wonder if we even need to move on to the : CFV (Call for Votes). I'm not sure if this whole deal was a mistake : to begin with -- at least we're solving the question of whether the : mood on r.a.s. dictated the creation of new venues to handle the : volume. But I'm gradually getting the sense that I'm wasting my time : with this. It's difficult to light a fire with wet wood.. <G> I can't really say that I see a 2/3 call for a split in the discussion, but I am not ready to call the election. However, it does seem that there are plenty of people who want to see the split and few "posters" calling for the status quo. : It looks like there are as many people rabid about maintaining the : status quo as others are who are tired of it. A 50/50 split isn't : enough -- a newsgroup referendum requires a clear 2/3 majority to : pass. Unless some miracle happens within the next couple of days to : get attention focused on the RFD and not this sectional ***that's : replaced it lately, I think I'm going to allow a "pocket veto" to : happen... that is, just let it die. That way I can move on to : something more important that I and a few others have been discussing : lately. Tony, this would be a mistake. Please let it go through the process. Give everybody the opportunity to voice their opinions. Then allow everybody to have their chance in shaping the outcome of r.a.s. It would be cruel if you were to take this away from the followers of r.a.s. now. : I'm not terribly disappointed. I can't profess to be one of the "old : guard" on rec.autos.simulators, nor do I really consider myself "one : of the gang" that makes this place so special.. for heaven's sake, all : I do is paint cars. So this gives me a little neutrality -- I can : live with either rec.autos.simulators as it stands or with a : reorganized hierarchy. Mainly I'm sad that this turned into a "NASCAR : vs. the world" argument and needlessly filled up the group with a lot : of finger pointing and "us vs. them" junk. Well, Tony, I consider you "one of the gang". You certainly show that you care and have taken on a task that few would even have considered. Hang in there and let things run their course. : I suppose I must have misjudged the climate here a bit. I kinda know : how Pandora felt now, though... <G> Which is exactly why you shouldn't even try to close the box! :-) -- **************************** Michael E. Carver ************************* Upside out, or inside down...False alarm the only game in town. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=<[ /./. [- < ]>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

In order to run Nascar Racing really good, what do I need in my autoexec.bat , and my config.sys for a startup disk? Please help!! Mark Light

Quoted text (42 lines)

>Well, I'm getting the feeling that the RFD process is going to fail. >I know, I know, it's only been a couple of weeks. But do you remember >what happened in the 1992 U.S. Presidential election? When Perot >stole all those conservative votes and left Bush dangling? It seems >the same thing has happened over on news.groups. So far, we only have >three or four people actually defending the RFD as it was written; >the prevailing atmosphere, thanks to the "splinter" movement on >rec.autos.simulators, is that the RFD is centered around splitting up >the group because of factionism or "us vs. them" mentality. It seems >like whatever I tried to voice in the RFD is getting muddled with a >lot of "power to NASCAR!" rhetoric. >The discussion on news.groups is clearly going the way of defeating >the RFD, and I'm beginning to wonder if we even need to move on to the >CFV (Call for Votes). I'm not sure if this whole deal was a mistake >to begin with -- at least we're solving the question of whether the >mood on r.a.s. dictated the creation of new venues to handle the >volume. But I'm gradually getting the sense that I'm wasting my time >with this. It's difficult to light a fire with wet wood.. <G> >It looks like there are as many people rabid about maintaining the >status quo as others are who are tired of it. A 50/50 split isn't >enough -- a newsgroup referendum requires a clear 2/3 majority to >pass. Unless some miracle happens within the next couple of days to >get attention focused on the RFD and not this sectional ***that's >replaced it lately, I think I'm going to allow a "pocket veto" to >happen... that is, just let it die. That way I can move on to >something more important that I and a few others have been discussing >lately. >I'm not terribly disappointed. I can't profess to be one of the "old >guard" on rec.autos.simulators, nor do I really consider myself "one >of the gang" that makes this place so special.. for heaven's sake, all >I do is paint cars. So this gives me a little neutrality -- I can >live with either rec.autos.simulators as it stands or with a >reorganized hierarchy. Mainly I'm sad that this turned into a "NASCAR >vs. the world" argument and needlessly filled up the group with a lot >of finger pointing and "us vs. them" junk. >I suppose I must have misjudged the climate here a bit. I kinda know >how Pandora felt now, though... <G> >-- >IWCCCARS Project Coordinator >[link lost in import] >Hawaii: IWCCCARS

I think this thing should run its course. Perhaps there aren't as many posters in news.groups for the split as there seem to be against it, but I would imagine many people are not posting there views because somebody already touched on them in an earlier article. When the voting process is started, then everyone will be free to post "I vote no" or "YES, SPLIT THE GROUP!" messages. Kyle Langston

Quoted text (47 lines)

>Well, I'm getting the feeling that the RFD process is going to fail. >I know, I know, it's only been a couple of weeks. But do you remember >what happened in the 1992 U.S. Presidential election? When Perot >stole all those conservative votes and left Bush dangling? It seems >the same thing has happened over on news.groups. So far, we only have >three or four people actually defending the RFD as it was written; >the prevailing atmosphere, thanks to the "splinter" movement on >rec.autos.simulators, is that the RFD is centered around splitting up >the group because of factionism or "us vs. them" mentality. It seems >like whatever I tried to voice in the RFD is getting muddled with a >lot of "power to NASCAR!" rhetoric. >The discussion on news.groups is clearly going the way of defeating >the RFD, and I'm beginning to wonder if we even need to move on to the >CFV (Call for Votes). I'm not sure if this whole deal was a mistake >to begin with -- at least we're solving the question of whether the >mood on r.a.s. dictated the creation of new venues to handle the >volume. But I'm gradually getting the sense that I'm wasting my time >with this. It's difficult to light a fire with wet wood.. <G> >It looks like there are as many people rabid about maintaining the >status quo as others are who are tired of it. A 50/50 split isn't >enough -- a newsgroup referendum requires a clear 2/3 majority to >pass. Unless some miracle happens within the next couple of days to >get attention focused on the RFD and not this sectional ***that's >replaced it lately, I think I'm going to allow a "pocket veto" to >happen... that is, just let it die. That way I can move on to >something more important that I and a few others have been discussing >lately. >I'm not terribly disappointed. I can't profess to be one of the "old >guard" on rec.autos.simulators, nor do I really consider myself "one >of the gang" that makes this place so special.. for heaven's sake, all >I do is paint cars. So this gives me a little neutrality -- I can >live with either rec.autos.simulators as it stands or with a >reorganized hierarchy. Mainly I'm sad that this turned into a "NASCAR >vs. the world" argument and needlessly filled up the group with a lot >of finger pointing and "us vs. them" junk. >I suppose I must have misjudged the climate here a bit. I kinda know >how Pandora felt now, though... <G> >-- >IWCCCARS Project Coordinator >[link lost in import] >Hawaii: IWCCCARS

Tony, I really think you should stick with it and let the process play itself out. I think that killing it now would just make all the hard work you've gone through for this come to nothing. Truly I don't know which way the vote or opinion is swinging, I bet there are many people who are not comfortable entering the discussion, but which will make their opinion felt when the time comes to vote. As far as this becoming a battle between the "power to NASCAR!" people and the "status quo" people, I would have to say that it may have begun a bit like that, but I think that by voicing our opinions and concerns each side is understanding a bit more about why the other side feels as they do. This will only help the group in the long run. Either way, we will at least know really what the group wants. If it does split up, then people will be aware of the concerns that there were about the split, and for that reason we will remain on the lookout not to let the good atmosphere degenerate. If on the other hand, the split doesn't go through then we will also be able to know that, and the next time someone calls for a split, we can let them know the amount of work it requires and to be sure that they think the group will support them. Still I would like to thank you for your work in this, and hope for your continued involvement. Cheers. --John -- ------------------- John (Joao) Silva http://weber.u.washington.edu/~jsilva Seattle, Washington USA.

Quoted text (42 lines)

>Well, I'm getting the feeling that the RFD process is going to fail. >I know, I know, it's only been a couple of weeks. But do you remember >what happened in the 1992 U.S. Presidential election? When Perot >stole all those conservative votes and left Bush dangling? It seems >the same thing has happened over on news.groups. So far, we only have >three or four people actually defending the RFD as it was written; >the prevailing atmosphere, thanks to the "splinter" movement on >rec.autos.simulators, is that the RFD is centered around splitting up >the group because of factionism or "us vs. them" mentality. It seems >like whatever I tried to voice in the RFD is getting muddled with a >lot of "power to NASCAR!" rhetoric. >The discussion on news.groups is clearly going the way of defeating >the RFD, and I'm beginning to wonder if we even need to move on to the >CFV (Call for Votes). I'm not sure if this whole deal was a mistake >to begin with -- at least we're solving the question of whether the >mood on r.a.s. dictated the creation of new venues to handle the >volume. But I'm gradually getting the sense that I'm wasting my time >with this. It's difficult to light a fire with wet wood.. <G> >It looks like there are as many people rabid about maintaining the >status quo as others are who are tired of it. A 50/50 split isn't >enough -- a newsgroup referendum requires a clear 2/3 majority to >pass. Unless some miracle happens within the next couple of days to >get attention focused on the RFD and not this sectional ***that's >replaced it lately, I think I'm going to allow a "pocket veto" to >happen... that is, just let it die. That way I can move on to >something more important that I and a few others have been discussing >lately. >I'm not terribly disappointed. I can't profess to be one of the "old >guard" on rec.autos.simulators, nor do I really consider myself "one >of the gang" that makes this place so special.. for heaven's sake, all >I do is paint cars. So this gives me a little neutrality -- I can >live with either rec.autos.simulators as it stands or with a >reorganized hierarchy. Mainly I'm sad that this turned into a "NASCAR >vs. the world" argument and needlessly filled up the group with a lot >of finger pointing and "us vs. them" junk. >I suppose I must have misjudged the climate here a bit. I kinda know >how Pandora felt now, though... <G> >-- >IWCCCARS Project Coordinator >[link lost in import] >Hawaii: IWCCCARS

Tony, Thanks for your time and effort. I will vote for the split, although I am not as hard core as I once was. I hope that those opposed remember all that you did to try to help. I really think many in this group will be surprised at the number of posts that the Nascar Racing League will create. Never before has a sim been advertised as this new league surely will be. Imagine one comercial during Daytona (40 to 60 million viewers). Not to mention the normal traffic a new software realease creates. Simulators are going to grow at a pace even faster than today, simply because of hardwares ability to create more believeable environment than ever before. I think our community should be thinking of the future rather than the past. A town builds new roads anticipating growth, I believe the evidence of comming and present growth in all racing sims is staggering. Please let us not wait to build the roads when we know the time is at hand now. After all starting a new group or splitting a group takes a while. I wonder if the best thing would be to have a seperate group for this new entity. I remember Ed posting something to this effect. If the curent RFD is voted down then I will help to start one for the league. I am not one to take my own opinion as more important than the other, as some who seem to be the most vociferous on this subject, but my opinion has been stated now I will shut up. I wish others would let thier opinion be stated then do the same. Repeatedly stating ones opinion does not make it any more right or wrong, simply anoying......

I _really_ hope the above doesn't happen <g>. Whatever the result, I would love to see a huge vote (will make a change from many of the Usenet votes!), but if I see anyone post "I vote no" or "YES, SPLIT THE GROUP" messages to r.a.s, I will....... well, suffice it to say that they will get a few non-complimentary replies <VBG> For those who may not be aware, when the CfV (call for votes), is issued, your vote will only be valid if it is emailed to a special voting address. Posts to r.a.s will not count one iota (other than to annoy intolerant people like me <G>). Richard

In my opinoin it would be useful to have a spilt group. Theamount of messages in here are getting rather too much to plough through, even with a good news reader it can take a long time just to browse through the subject line, yet alone read manby of the messages. It makes sense to spilt, but maybe still with a general group available. This would allow Gp2 fans to discuss there frame rates, and NASCAR fans would easily be able to avoid it! My vote goes for the spilt. Chris Fisher

: >Well, I'm getting the feeling that the RFD process is going to fail. [snip] : >-- : Tony, : Thanks for your time and effort. I will vote for the split, although : I am not as hard core as I once was. I hope that those opposed : remember all that you did to try to help. The opposition have nothing against Tony. I am sure they all support him. He is doing a great service for r.a.s. He is providing us with constructive contributions. : I really think many in this group will be surprised at the number of : posts that the Nascar Racing League will create. Never before has a : sim been advertised as this new league surely will be. [snip] : I think our community should be thinking of the future rather than : the past. A town builds new roads anticipating growth, I believe : the evidence of comming and present growth in all racing sims is : staggering. Please let us not wait to build the roads when we know the : time is at hand now. After all starting a new group or splitting a : group takes a while. : I wonder if the best thing would be to have a seperate group for this : new entity. I remember Ed posting something to this effect. If the : curent RFD is voted down then I will help to start one for the league. This is something I think many of those who oppose the current RFD could get behind. Creating a newsgroup to handle Hawaii/NRL and any other future "online" racing simulations (maybe r.a.s.online ?). However, the current RFD does nothing to really help in this direction. : I am not one to take my own opinion as more important than the other, : as some who seem to be the most vociferous on this subject, but my : opinion has been stated now I will shut up. I wish others would let : thier opinion be stated then do the same. : Repeatedly stating ones opinion does not make it any more right or : wrong, simply anoying...... If you are referring to me and John Silva, I think we only speak up again when we have something new to say. Maybe, we've come up with another view point to help express our concerns. That's the whole point of the RFD, to make sure that all concerns are aired and addressed before the die is cast. I am sorry if you find this annoying. You can do what I am sure others have done and put me in your twit/kill file.... BTW: If you wish to continue this discussion, please take it to its proper forum (news.groups), where I have cross-posted this reply. -- **************************** Michael E. Carver ************************* Upside out, or inside down...False alarm the only game in town. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=<[ /./. [- < ]>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

[snip] To Christopher and others wishing to continue this discussion: Please take this discussion to it's proper place: news.groups Your opinions are valuable, but this RFD is to be carried on the news.groups not here in r.a.s. -- **************************** Michael E. Carver ************************* Upside out, or inside down...False alarm the only game in town. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=<[ /./. [- < ]>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

Quoted text (27 lines)

>Tony, > Thanks for your time and effort. I will vote for the split, although >I am not as hard core as I once was. I hope that those opposed >remember all that you did to try to help. > I really think many in this group will be surprised at the number of >posts that the Nascar Racing League will create. Never before has a >sim been advertised as this new league surely will be. Imagine one >comercial during Daytona (40 to 60 million viewers). Not to mention >the normal traffic a new software realease creates. Simulators are >going to grow at a pace even faster than today, simply because of >hardwares ability to create more believeable environment than ever >before. > I think our community should be thinking of the future rather than >the past. A town builds new roads anticipating growth, I believe >the evidence of comming and present growth in all racing sims is >staggering. Please let us not wait to build the roads when we know the >time is at hand now. After all starting a new group or splitting a >group takes a while. > I wonder if the best thing would be to have a seperate group for this >new entity. I remember Ed posting something to this effect. If the >curent RFD is voted down then I will help to start one for the league. > I am not one to take my own opinion as more important than the other, >as some who seem to be the most vociferous on this subject, but my >opinion has been stated now I will shut up. I wish others would let >thier opinion be stated then do the same. > Repeatedly stating ones opinion does not make it any more right or >wrong, simply anoying......

Ahem.... I know we're not suppose to be discussing this here so I will crosspost this to news.groups and hope that this can be continued there. Anyone replying please trim the r.a.s. from the newsgroup line. Since you posted this here, you are probably not reading the discussion in news.groups and so would not see it there. First of all, I will take an educated guess and say that I am one of those that is annoying you by continually discussing this. Yes? Well yep, I have been pretty active in this discussion, and that is what an RFD is about. If they only wanted us to give our opinion once, and not elaborate on it, maybe even change our opinion in the process, then there would be no need for an RFD... the D is for Discussion. We could make our opinion known ONCE in the CFV call for votes. Secondly, yes "those of them opposed" do appreciate what Tony is doing to help, have you ever thought that maybe we are on the same team as Tony and just want what is best for the group? Your example of a town preparing for the future is a bit flawed. I think this NRL future load, is more like a mayor forcing residents to move out of their homes now, because he says there's going to be lots of traffic one day and we gotta build more roads now. When the NRL is going, and starts to overload this group, you will also see me involved in trying to make a group for online auto racing sims. I will probably also be on of those racing in the NRL. But that will be WHEN there is a need for it, and for now there is not. I think not all the Nascar enthusiasts will want NRL posts overflowing their group either. I am a Nascar enthusiast too and ended up making a killfile entry for hawaii, since I was not able to play it and there were a bit too many hawaii posts at one time here. When it calmed down, I removed the hawaii killfile entry. See how that works? Again please if you respond or reply to this, do it in news.groups. Cheers. --John -- ------------------- John (Joao) Silva http://weber.u.washington.edu/~jsilva Seattle, Washington USA.

> Mainly I'm sad that this turned into a "NASCAR >vs. the world" argument and needlessly filled up the group with a lot >of finger pointing and "us vs. them" junk. This reminds me of when rec.autos.sport was split. Mainly it sprang as a result of F1 fans being annoyed at NASCAR posts and NASCAR fans being annoyed at F1 posts. There are some rather ridiculous fanatics on each side, who care not a jot for any other form of motorsport than the one they follow. If anything, that's a reason >for< splitting. In the case of rec.autos.sport, the resulting rec.autos.sport.f1 and rec.autos.sport.nascar ended up each carrying as much traffic as the original rec.autos.sport itself had. The need was even greater than we imagined. But this is sim racing, and I'm not so sure one single product should get its own newsgroup -- not in the Big 7 anyway. An alt group perhaps... Then again, the amount of traffic people can generate about a single product is staggering (he says at 5 a.m. and only halfway through reading rec.autos.simulators tonight though he started two and a half hours ago and is only reading about five percent of the articles). I think, at this time, I'm more in the camp of "split off for online sim racing, like the NRL, should that become necessary at a later time" folks. Otherwise, I can see people in a r.a.s.nascar group getting fed up with NRL talk in the very near future. Heck, they were plenty annoyed at the "Hawaii" talk when it dominated r.a.s (before the release of GP2). People who want to play the normal computer simulation would be stuck for a place to go in that case. Having a generally-based rec.autos.simulators is a good idea, and, hey, it's one of the best multi-purpose newsgroups in terms of people identifying what they're talking about in the subject line. Nearly every Subject line starts with GP2, ICR2, NASCAR, or NFS. It's very easy to find articles on the simulation you're most interested in. So, though it takes me 10 or 15 minutes to download all the new headers, I don't think there's a need for a split. Plenty of information about all the current popular sims gets posted, and it's easy to find the topics because people in rec.autos.simulators are excellent about flagging their Subject lines. Y'know, I didn't think that would be my opinion when I started this article, but posting about it made me think, and, well, there it is. Followups to news.groups -- http://members.cruzio.com/~keeper/toons.html - Contemporary WB cartoons info http://www.armory.com/~keeper/midi.html - My own MIDI music and arrangements