On Mon, 27 Oct 2003 10:43:52 +0000, Paul Giverin
wrote:

In message , Ace
writes
On Mon, 27 Oct 2003 08:29:26 +0000, Paul Giverin
wrote:

In message , Alex Heney
writes

I think you misread me above. I agree with everything you wrote, and
while I'm open to argument, at the moment I would be voting against
the group, because I think it would be likely to have a negative
impact on my usenet experience.

In which case I will vote "yes" in order to avoid a negative impact on
my Usenet experience i.e. upholding the uk.* hierarchy (which I use
extensively) against those who wish to veto uk groups in order to
protect groups in other hierarchies.

What a completely bizarre train of logic. No-one's trying to 'veto'
anything. We're just pointing out that there's absolutely no
requirement for the proposed new group.

There is nothing bizarre about it. Alex Heney said he would vote no to
protect his Usenet experience. I am doing the same.

No you aren't. That is an absolutely ridiculous statement to make.
Unless you personally intend to use the group, then not adding it will
make NO difference to your usenet experience.

My Usenet experience
relies heavily on the uk.* hierarchies.


So what?

that does not mean your usenet experience relies heavily on groups you
do not read.

If you would read it, then not having it will obviously impact on your
experience. But trying to argue that it would do so just because you
read other uk.* groups is just nonsensical.



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.*


And NOBODY has suggested otherwise. Voting against, for WHATEVER
reason, is perfectly within the group creation rules.


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.

In other words, you think the uk.* hierarchy should just be able to
ride roughshod over the whole of usenet.

You don't have any choice about accepting it. Because the rules allow
it (as they should).

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

Not in the least. It has certainly happened, and I would expect it to
happen again.

It is quite common when planning applications are put in, to object on
the grounds that there are already sufficient similar facilities
available locally, so more are not needed.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
I can't use Windows. The cat ate my mouse.

To reply by email, my address is aDOTjDOTheneyATbtinternetDOTcom