RFD: create unmoderated newsgroup uk.rec.skiing
 

Alex Heney wrote:

They should *IF* they think it will have a detrimental effect, either
on usenet as a whole (unlikely in this case), or on other specific
groups they read (likely in this case).

It isn't just a question of whether they intend reading the group, but
whether it will affect their usenet experience.


Alex, it affects my Usenet experience if another useless Usenet group is
created, there are already quite enough. It creates an administrative
overhead for everyone who uses Usenet and carries the uk.* hierarchy.
It affects my Usenet experience if groups get diluted to the point where
there is no longer sufficient critical mass, although my opinion is that
the propsed group will never get enough traffic to take-off, especially
as most of the declared 'yes' voters are people who've never posted to a
snowsports newsgroup in their lives.

There are far too many self styled 'net gods' who have created dud
newsgroups over the years, remember the birmingham.* debacle or r.s.a.m?

Now David Mahon called for a discussion on the proposed group and asked
interested parties to give their thoughts. That is what we, as European
skiers are doing. A number of the regular posters to r.s.r.e also
contribute to uk.* newsgroups so I think we pass the test of 'potential'
users of the group and are therefore entitled to say yes or no, either
way. I hope that does not appear unreasonable to unnc posters? A
simple check on the google archives would confirm the bona-fides many of
the r.s.r.e folks who've contributed to this thread.

As I said at the start of this thread, I'm not opposed to the idea of
creating the ng., and I've not even declared my voting intentions, but
I'd like to hear a sound rational. My experience in this area with
r.s.a.m and fr.r.n-g is that there is not sufficient demand from
snowsport enthusiasts for such a group and so far the majority of
proponents will be people who have declared that they will not use the
group. If you want to convince people to vote yes, post some good
arguments and counter those already put up.

RFD: create unmoderated newsgroup uk.rec.skiing
 

In message , David
Off writes


Alex, it affects my Usenet experience if another useless Usenet group
is created, there are already quite enough. It creates an
administrative overhead for everyone who uses Usenet and carries the
uk.* hierarchy.

The uk.* hierarchy is widely respected and propagated because it is so
well managed. To say that the creation of a new uk.* group would cause
an administrative overhead is just nonsense. This is one of the few
hierarchies which removes under-used groups.

--
Paul Giverin

British Jet Engine Website
http://www.britjet.co.uk

RFD: create unmoderated newsgroup uk.rec.skiing
 

Ali Hopkins wrote:

"BrritSki" wrote in message
...


I remember Chankel relating what a bunch of arses there were in unnc.

That remark ensures a few yes votes. Including mine.

So you were one of them then ?

RFD: create unmoderated newsgroup uk.rec.skiing
 

This subject is generating more traffic in this ng than I can recall in
many years.

Time it was laid to rest ... Please :-)

Any chance we can get back to talking about skiing ?????????

Nigel




BrritSki wrote:

Ali Hopkins wrote:

"BrritSki" wrote in message
...


I remember Chankel relating what a bunch of arses there were in unnc.

That remark ensures a few yes votes. Including mine.


So you were one of them then ?

RFD: create unmoderated newsgroup uk.rec.skiing
 

On Sun, 26 Oct 2003 12:39:29 +0100, David Off
wrote:

I think we pass the test of 'potential' users of the group
and are therefore entitled to say yes or no

There is no test. Anyone can vote.

--
Paul
My Lake District walking site (updated 29th September 2003):
http://paulrooney.netfirms.com

Please sponsor me for the London Marathon at:
http://www.justgiving.com/london2004

RFD: create unmoderated newsgroup uk.rec.skiing
 

In message , PG
writes

The uk.* hierarchy is for existing and potential users of that
hierarchy.

I use uk.rec.cycling, so I obviously have an interest in voting yes or
no either way.

Looks like that attempt at humour to lighten things up a little fell on deaf
ears :o)

I wondered what he used it for - it's a high traffic group with not that
much to offer people outside the UK. Except maybe reassurance that
cycling's better in France!
--
Sue ];(:)

RFD: create unmoderated newsgroup uk.rec.skiing
 

In message , Nigel
writes
This subject is generating more traffic in this ng than I can recall in
many years.

You're certainly right there.

Time it was laid to rest ... Please :-)

Any chance we can get back to talking about skiing ?????????

Sorry - it'll end before long anyway, but the discussion isn't
technically OT because groups can always discuss themselves.

You have a right, which they can't take away from you, to killfile the
entire thread. You can do this and still vote if you get someone to
forward you the call for votes. Eat this message.
--
Sue ];(:)

RFD: create unmoderated newsgroup uk.rec.skiing
 

In message , Paul Giverin
writes

To say that the creation of a new uk.* group would cause an
administrative overhead is just nonsense. This is one of the few
hierarchies which removes under-used groups.

Noted.
--
Sue ]:(:)

RFD: create unmoderated newsgroup uk.rec.skiing
 

In message , David Mahon
writes

Anyway, RSRE, by it's own charter's admission, is not an English
language forum. Feel free to try and get that changed.

No, it's better as it is.
If we had more posters we could try to keep the odd non-English thread
going, so new posters whose English is awful wouldn't feel obliged to
try to post in it.
--
Sue ]:(:)

RFD: create unmoderated newsgroup uk.rec.skiing
 

In message , David Mahon
writes

Perhaps it would be more useful to also look and see how many potential
yes voters it has produced from people who participate in the sport who
don't participate in RSRE. Then ask why not. Personally I avoid most
non uk.* groups for a variety of reasons, although I do occasionally
foray out.

That's an interesting point.
Could you summarise the reasons?
Also (sorry if I've missed this somewhere else in the thread) would you
be using the proposed group yourself?
--
Sue ]:(:)