"John Briggs" wrote in message
...
PG 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?
--

And you can vote in favour of any groups you like (even if you don't
have
a knowledge of the specialist subject). But does that make it right?


No - and I would only do so if there were wreckers trying to prevent the
creation of such groups.
--

In your opinion. On the whole ngs are accessible to all, irrespective of
residence. And a minority, seasonal sport has little need of two forums
covering virtually identical ground, in the opinion of others, with
insufficient posters to go round.

The answer is to allow all concerned to vote freely and not try to limit tha
t right by suggesting that those who don't agree with you are "wreckers",
"abusing the system".

Pete