On Mon, 27 Oct 2003 12:54:27 +0000, Paul Giverin
wrote:

In message , Ace
writes
On Mon, 27 Oct 2003 11:45:21 +0000, Paul Giverin
wrote:

What's it got to do with me? Its got everything to do with me. Surely I
don't have to spell it out again?

You do. I still completely fail to understand why the existence, or
otherwise, of a uk.* skiing ng to which you have no intention of
contributing, should affect you in any way whatsoever.

I've explained it several times now so I'm not going to waste my time
repeating myself.

Or can't. All the arguments you've put forward are side-issues. This
one, simple question is the only one that matters, AFAICT.

Usenet is not supposed to be competitive.

Then why try and veto a uk.* group because a skiing group exists in
rec.*?

No-ones trying to veto it. We're simply pointing out that amongst
skiing Usenet users there already exists a forum which completely
overlaps with, and therefore renders futile and unneccessary, the
creation of the proposed group. Therefore we'd vote against its
formation.

So you are voting against freedom of choice? Why vote against it? No one
is taking away your existing group. What do you have to fear?

Why do you think I'm frightened of something? I just think the
creation of a uk. skiing group is unnecessary and futile, is all. So,
as an interested party, i.e. a regular usenet poster on skiing topics,
I'd vote against its creation.

You should really look up the words 'veto' and 'vote'. They may use
the same letters but have quite different meanings.

Not in this context.

You haven't looked them up then? Or are you trying to tell me that a
single "no" vote will in fact stop a new group being created?

--
Ace (bruce dot rogers at roche dot com)
Ski Club of Great Britain - http://www.skiclub.co.uk
All opinions expressed are personal and in no way represent those of the Ski Club.