RFD: create unmoderated newsgroup uk.rec.skiing
 

"John Briggs" wrote in message
...
Paul Rooney wrote:
On Sat, 25 Oct 2003 17:20:27 +0100, "John Briggs"
wrote:



Strictly speaking, those who are not interested in such a group and
would
not take part in it, should not vote.

Strictly speaking, that is false.

Only if those voting are "stakeholders" (to use an ugly modern expression)
in the uk.* hierarchy. Otherwise, the point stands - those whose only
interest in the uk.* hierarchy is opposing this particular group for
reasons
unconnected with the uk.* hierarchy should not be taking part in the vote.
--

That just doesn't make sense. How do you intend policing this interesting
system? The whole point is that the Internet knows no national boundaries.
If the vote is open to all, then all are entitled to vote as they see fit.

Pete

RFD: create unmoderated newsgroup uk.rec.skiing
 

PG wrote:
"John Briggs" wrote in message
...
David Off wrote:
John Briggs wrote:

Strictly speaking, those who are not interested in such a group and
would not take part in it, should not vote.

So only yes voters should take part in the vote... now I know where
Saddam Hussein's electorial commission have found work!

Well, certainly, if you have no interest in the uk.* hierarchy you should
not be voting "no".

Why's that? If someone is interested in preserving rsre from what he may
believe could result in unnecessary duplication and consequent dilution of
posters between groups, he is quite entitled to vote, imo.


The uk.* hierarchy is for existing and potential users of that hierarchy.
"Preserving" one's own preferred group is not a valid reason for interfering
in someone else's hierarchy. Has it it occurred to you that something which
needs "preserving" in this way, may not be worth preserving?
--
John Briggs

RFD: create unmoderated newsgroup uk.rec.skiing
 

PG wrote:
"John Briggs" wrote in message
...
Paul Rooney wrote:
On Sat, 25 Oct 2003 17:20:27 +0100, "John Briggs"
wrote:



Strictly speaking, those who are not interested in such a group and
would not take part in it, should not vote.

Strictly speaking, that is false.

Only if those voting are "stakeholders" (to use an ugly modern
expression) in the uk.* hierarchy. Otherwise, the point stands - those
whose only interest in the uk.* hierarchy is opposing this particular
group for reasons unconnected with the uk.* hierarchy should not be
taking part in the vote.

That just doesn't make sense. How do you intend policing this interesting
system? The whole point is that the Internet knows no national boundaries.
If the vote is open to all, then all are entitled to vote as they see fit.


Who said anything about policing? Just because a system is open to abuse,
that doesn't compel you to abuse it.
--
John Briggs

RFD: create unmoderated newsgroup uk.rec.skiing
 

"John Briggs" wrote in message
...
PG wrote:
"John Briggs" wrote in message
...
David Off wrote:
John Briggs wrote:

Strictly speaking, those who are not interested in such a group and
would not take part in it, should not vote.

So only yes voters should take part in the vote... now I know where
Saddam Hussein's electorial commission have found work!

Well, certainly, if you have no interest in the uk.* hierarchy you
should
not be voting "no".

Why's that? If someone is interested in preserving rsre from what he may
believe could result in unnecessary duplication and consequent dilution
of
posters between groups, he is quite entitled to vote, imo.


The uk.* hierarchy is for existing and potential users of that hierarchy.
"Preserving" one's own preferred group is not a valid reason for
interfering
in someone else's hierarchy. Has it it occurred to you that something
which
needs "preserving" in this way, may not be worth preserving?
--

If I am given a vote, then I'm entitled to use it. Your position is absurd
to my mind. My reasons for voting no go against the grain as far as you are
concerned, and you respond by suggesting that potential no-voters shouldn't
be able participate because they are "abusing the system"? Nonsense - change
the system if you're not happy.

Anyway, your argument is self-contradictory. On the one hand you say that
the uk. hierarchy is for potential users (such as myself) and then you say
that because I disagree with your position vis this particular group my
reasons for voting against are not valid. You can't have it both ways.

Oh, and rsre is an excellent forum, if a little quiet during the summer
months (despite my efforts on the green stuff). Unlike some who have
suddenly taken an interest in this thread, I and most others who contribute
regularly to this forum actually practice the sport.

Pete

RFD: create unmoderated newsgroup uk.rec.skiing
 

"John Briggs" wrote in message
...
PG wrote:
"John Briggs" wrote in message
...
Paul Rooney wrote:
On Sat, 25 Oct 2003 17:20:27 +0100, "John Briggs"
wrote:



Strictly speaking, those who are not interested in such a group and
would not take part in it, should not vote.

Strictly speaking, that is false.

Only if those voting are "stakeholders" (to use an ugly modern
expression) in the uk.* hierarchy. Otherwise, the point stands - those
whose only interest in the uk.* hierarchy is opposing this particular
group for reasons unconnected with the uk.* hierarchy should not be
taking part in the vote.

That just doesn't make sense. How do you intend policing this
interesting
system? The whole point is that the Internet knows no national
boundaries.
If the vote is open to all, then all are entitled to vote as they see
fit.


Who said anything about policing? Just because a system is open to abuse,
that doesn't compel you to abuse it.
--

So now I'm abusing *the system*?!! LOL. Please explain which part of the
system it is that I am abusing? Is it using my right to vote freely despite
my views differing from your own?

Pete
Pete

RFD: create unmoderated newsgroup uk.rec.skiing
 

PG wrote:
"John Briggs" wrote in message
...
PG wrote:
"John Briggs" wrote in message
...
David Off wrote:
John Briggs wrote:

Strictly speaking, those who are not interested in such a group and
would not take part in it, should not vote.

So only yes voters should take part in the vote... now I know where
Saddam Hussein's electorial commission have found work!

Well, certainly, if you have no interest in the uk.* hierarchy you
should not be voting "no".

Why's that? If someone is interested in preserving rsre from what he may
believe could result in unnecessary duplication and consequent dilution
of posters between groups, he is quite entitled to vote, imo.


The uk.* hierarchy is for existing and potential users of that hierarchy.
"Preserving" one's own preferred group is not a valid reason for
interfering in someone else's hierarchy. Has it it occurred to you that
something which needs "preserving" in this way, may not be worth
preserving?

If I am given a vote, then I'm entitled to use it. Your position is absurd
to my mind. My reasons for voting no go against the grain as far as you
are concerned, and you respond by suggesting that potential no-voters
shouldn't be able participate because they are "abusing the system"?
Nonsense - change the system if you're not happy.


You're not "given" a vote, you request it. I don't suggest you shouldn't be
able to take part - simply that you shouldn't.

Anyway, your argument is self-contradictory. On the one hand you say that
the uk. hierarchy is for potential users (such as myself) and then you say
that because I disagree with your position vis this particular group my
reasons for voting against are not valid. You can't have it both ways.


If you are a potential user, you are free to use it. Your voting reasons
can be invalud whether I agree with them or not.

Oh, and rsre is an excellent forum, if a little quiet during the summer
months (despite my efforts on the green stuff). Unlike some who have
suddenly taken an interest in this thread, I and most others who
contribute regularly to this forum actually practice the sport.


I see - and that is a pre-requisite for voting against the creation of
another forum?
--
John Briggs

RFD: create unmoderated newsgroup uk.rec.skiing
 

PG wrote:
"John Briggs" wrote in message
...
PG wrote:
"John Briggs" wrote in message
...
Paul Rooney wrote:
On Sat, 25 Oct 2003 17:20:27 +0100, "John Briggs"
wrote:



Strictly speaking, those who are not interested in such a group and
would not take part in it, should not vote.

Strictly speaking, that is false.

Only if those voting are "stakeholders" (to use an ugly modern
expression) in the uk.* hierarchy. Otherwise, the point stands - those
whose only interest in the uk.* hierarchy is opposing this particular
group for reasons unconnected with the uk.* hierarchy should not be
taking part in the vote.

That just doesn't make sense. How do you intend policing this
interesting system? The whole point is that the Internet knows no
national boundaries. If the vote is open to all, then all are entitled
to vote as they see fit.


Who said anything about policing? Just because a system is open to
abuse, that doesn't compel you to abuse it.


So now I'm abusing *the system*?!! LOL. Please explain which part of the
system it is that I am abusing? Is it using my right to vote freely
despite my views differing from your own?


You can vote freely against any groups you like - but does that make it
right?
--
John Briggs

RFD: create unmoderated newsgroup uk.rec.skiing
 

On Sat, 25 Oct 2003 17:28:01 +0100, Richard Ashton
wrote:

In uk.net.news.config on Sat, 25 Oct 2003 17:01:50 +0100, BrritSki
wrote:

}Tony Evans wrote:
}
} vote no every time it's the case and see if that has any effect.
}
}Good idea. That's what I plan to do. Bring it on.

This just means that I shall vote yes, even though I have no particular
interest, just so that your wrecking tactics don't work.

So will many others, so bring it on. You will lose that gambit.

Both sides can play at that game. I have no more interest than you do,
but I will be voting no.

--
Don Aitken

Mail to the addresses given in the headers is no longer being
read. To mail me, substitute "clara.co.uk" for "freeuk.com".

RFD: create unmoderated newsgroup uk.rec.skiing
 

On Sat, 25 Oct 2003 18:13:23 +0100, "John Briggs"
wrote:

Paul Rooney wrote:
On Sat, 25 Oct 2003 17:20:27 +0100, "John Briggs"
wrote:



Strictly speaking, those who are not interested in such a group and would
not take part in it, should not vote.

Strictly speaking, that is false.

Only if those voting are "stakeholders" (to use an ugly modern expression)
in the uk.* hierarchy. Otherwise, the point stands - those whose only
interest in the uk.* hierarchy is opposing this particular group for reasons
unconnected with the uk.* hierarchy should not be taking part in the vote.

Serious question: where does this "should" come from?

--
Don Aitken

Mail to the addresses given in the headers is no longer being
read. To mail me, substitute "clara.co.uk" for "freeuk.com".

RFD: create unmoderated newsgroup uk.rec.skiing
 

"John Briggs" wrote in message
...
PG wrote:
"John Briggs" wrote in message
...
PG wrote:
"John Briggs" wrote in message
...
David Off wrote:
John Briggs wrote:

Strictly speaking, those who are not interested in such a group and
would not take part in it, should not vote.

So only yes voters should take part in the vote... now I know where
Saddam Hussein's electorial commission have found work!

Well, certainly, if you have no interest in the uk.* hierarchy you
should not be voting "no".

Why's that? If someone is interested in preserving rsre from what he
may
believe could result in unnecessary duplication and consequent
dilution
of posters between groups, he is quite entitled to vote, imo.


The uk.* hierarchy is for existing and potential users of that
hierarchy.
"Preserving" one's own preferred group is not a valid reason for
interfering in someone else's hierarchy. Has it it occurred to you
that
something which needs "preserving" in this way, may not be worth
preserving?

If I am given a vote, then I'm entitled to use it. Your position is
absurd
to my mind. My reasons for voting no go against the grain as far as you
are concerned, and you respond by suggesting that potential no-voters
shouldn't be able participate because they are "abusing the system"?
Nonsense - change the system if you're not happy.


You're not "given" a vote, you request it. I don't suggest you shouldn't
be
able to take part - simply that you shouldn't.

I am a potential user, and you say the uk. hierarchy is for potential users.
I am entitled to a vote, on request. Are you seriously suggested that all
those potential voters who agree with you should, and those who don't,
shouldn't?


Anyway, your argument is self-contradictory. On the one hand you say
that
the uk. hierarchy is for potential users (such as myself) and then you
say
that because I disagree with your position vis this particular group my
reasons for voting against are not valid. You can't have it both ways.


If you are a potential user, you are free to use it. Your voting reasons
can be invalud whether I agree with them or not.

You have yet to explain why my reasons are invalid. I have a reasonably
in-depth knowledge of the workings of rsre, the regular contributors, the
traffic. Do you? It is my considered opinion that the potential dilution
could be bad for both groups, which will likely be covering identical
ground. I and others have explained why. That is perfectly valid
argumentation.


Oh, and rsre is an excellent forum, if a little quiet during the summer
months (despite my efforts on the green stuff). Unlike some who have
suddenly taken an interest in this thread, I and most others who
contribute regularly to this forum actually practice the sport.


I see - and that is a pre-requisite for voting against the creation of
another forum?

Before voicing opinions at length, a little knowledge about the subject does
help, yes. Particularly as one of the main arguments against is duplication,
with two ngs potentially covering identical ground.

Pete