On Mon, 27 Oct 2003 11:45:21 +0000, Paul Giverin
wrote:

In message , Ace
writes
On Mon, 27 Oct 2003 10:43:52 +0000, Paul Giverin
wrote:


There is nothing bizarre about it. Alex Heney said he would vote no to
protect his Usenet experience. I am doing the same. My Usenet experience
relies heavily on the uk.* hierarchies.

Sorry, in what way exactly would the continued non-existence of a
group you've no intention of posting to affect your 'Usenet
experience'?

Its not the "non-existence" of a group which would affect me but the
practice of vetoing a new group just because it may affect a group in
another hierarchy.


In other words, you lied.

It will not affect your usenet experience at all.

You may not know it but a similar argument was used earlier this year to
prevent the formation of uk.sport.motorsport.formula1

Posters from a formula 1 newsgroup in another hierarchy tried to stop
its creation because they felt that their group was *the* place for
formula 1 discussion. The group was created and is a great success.



Which means what, exactly?

If it was created, then there were sufficiently more people who wanted
it than there were voting against it. In which case, I would expect it
to be a success.


I don't normally vote on newsgroup creations which don't interest me in
some way but when I see people declare their intentions to vote "no"
just to protect a group in another hierarchy then I will use my vote to
try and counter what I see as the right of uk.* to function in the way
its members wish.


But that is not what you are doing here.

Most of us who have been arguing against it (although not all) are
"members" of uk.*, assuming by that you mean they subscribe to groups
in that hierarchy, and post to them.

What I won't accept is people trying so stop new groups being created in
the uk.* hierarchy just because they see the group as threat to a group
in another hierarchy.

Why the **** not? What's it got to do with you?

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?


Well you haven't given us anything other than "sour grapes" so far.

You have not given a reasonable explanation of why you think it is OK
to vote at all regarding a group which you will not subscribe to, and
which will not affect any of your other groups.

BTW, although I will probably vote against, I *will* subscribe if the
group is created. One of the reasons I am against it is that I don't
particularly want to add another group to my skiing lists.


Its a bit like Tesco being allowed to prevent
Sainsburys from building new supermarkets. Surely you can see how
ridiculous that would be?

_Would_ be, but unfortunately the analogy doesn't even pass the first
hurdle, as you're talking of commercial enterprises for whom
competition is the life-blood.

Makes no difference to the analogy.


Of course it does.


Usenet is not supposed to be competitive.

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

Because we don't want that competition, which *would* occur. Not
deliberately, in the sense of each group trying to take custom from
the other, but inevitably in that some people would only subscribe to
one or the other.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
If Murphy's Law can go wrong, it will.

To reply by email, my address is aDOTjDOTheneyATbtinternetDOTcom