Re: looking for groups

Ethan Carter <ec1828@somewhere.edu> wrote:

Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> writes:

Mon, 21 Apr 2025 16:11:15 -0300, Ethan Carter <ec1828@somewhere.edu>:

Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> writes:

Fri, 18 Apr 2025 21:51:03 -0300, Ethan Carter <ec1828@somewhere.edu>:

[...]

I'm also looking for a group on economics.  I'd like to ask questions
and learn a bit from people who study it.  We have sci.econ, but it
looks dead on Eternal September.

Crosspost to other groups that seem to deal with economics, and see if
anyone replies.

There doesn't seem to be other groups.  I don't think investment, for
example, has much to do with economics.

Well I did find these:

alt.economics.austrian-school
alt.economics.miroslav-verbic

I bet they're dead.  (I've already posted.  I'd have to post a new
article just to invite people to read a previous one.)

One of the strange things about Usenet is that people seem to rush to
start very narrowly specialised newsgroups, when there are not enough
general ones, or even when there are general groups, there is not
enough traffic in them to justify a more specialised one.

How long have you been on the USENET?  It used to have a lot of traffic.
Deleting groups seems to be a very hard thing to do.  But, yes, the fact
that these above belong to the alt node, they might have been created in
an experimental impulse.

Impulse, yes. Experiment, no.

It's Usenet. alt.*, free.*, and some other hierarchies are
unadministered. The proponent sends the newgroup message. Any idiot can
send a newgroup message. It's just a matter of getting the syntax right,
and plenty of proponents have failed to get that right.

Being a proponent the right way -- looking for an audience on Usenet and
developing it till the group thrives -- is actual work. The vast
majority of newgroup messages were sent by proponents who didn't give a
shit about making sure the group thrived.

Then we had a handful of proponents who sent a newgroup message, got
distracted, then sent a newgroup message for a group on an unrelated
topic, got distracted again, lather rinse repeat. They'd send hundreds
of newgroup messages; none of the groups thrived. And Hipcrime sent
thousands of newgroup messages in his war against the Big 8 hierarchy
administrators in the late 80s/early 90s.

Your typical proponent has no interest in participating in ongoing
discussion or starting interesting discussion. He doesn't see a group named
for the exact narrow topic he like. What, you think a group to discuss
the philosophy of Ludwig von Mises was warranted because Austrian school
discussion was so overwhelming a broader group for economics discussion?
Of course not.

A failed proponent is one who thinks that the mere act of sending that
newgroup message will force discussion, if any, to move from one group
to another. Well, it's Usenet. It's the author's choice where to post
his article, never the proponent's.

In any case, thanks very much for bringing these groups to my attention.