On Mon, 27 Oct 2003 09:18:38 +0000, Dave J wrote:

In inside of
uk.net.news.config, 'Don Aitken' wrote:

Both sides can play at that game. I have no more interest than you do,
but I will be voting no.

Your pettiness enures that I vote yes..

Exactly how is it "pettiness" if I vote no for an inadmissible reason
to cancel out the effect of {R} doing the same, but not "pettiness"
for him to do so in the first place?

Because, in general terms, the only sensible reason to vote 'no' is
because you feel the group will damage the uk.* hierarchy. Otherwise
it is sufficient that there is the right minumum number of potential
users.


No, that is *not* the only sensible reason to vote no. It is one
reason, but another, equally valid reason is if you feel it will
damage another group or hierarchy.

uk.* does not operate in isolation, it is a part of usenet as a whole.


{R}'s reason for voting was to counter a 'don't split my group' type
complaint, a variety of complaint that I find ludicrous because time
will settle any such problem.


huh?

Of course time will settle any such problem. But if it is "settled"
with the result of no viable group, as is entirely possible, then we
all lose.

You don't decide to just let something go because you will find out
the answer for certain given time.

In these days of crossposting there will be enough traffic 'between'
the two groups for the users to establish for themselves which is the
most appropriate.

There may be. But there may not be. And that is what worries people.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Those who can, do. Those who can't, supervise!

To reply by email, my address is aDOTjDOTheneyATbtinternetDOTcom