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.

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.

You're implying that you'd like to have uk.* groups for absolutely
everything possible, whether anyone wants to post about them or not.
Surely you can see how ridiculous that would be?

I am not implying that at all. I am saying that if there is a demand for
new newsgroup it should be allowed, subject to the group creation rules
we have in uk.*

What you're actually saying is that you'd vote for a new group whether
there's a demand or not. It may not be your intention, but this "I'll
vote yes just for the sake of it" is saying exactly that.

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.

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?

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.

Usenet is not supposed to be competitive.

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

--
Paul Giverin

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