"John Briggs" wrote in message
...
PG wrote:
"John Briggs" wrote in message
...
PG wrote:
"John Briggs" wrote in message
...
David Off wrote:
John Briggs wrote:

Strictly speaking, those who are not interested in such a group and
would not take part in it, should not vote.

So only yes voters should take part in the vote... now I know where
Saddam Hussein's electorial commission have found work!

Well, certainly, if you have no interest in the uk.* hierarchy you
should not be voting "no".

Why's that? If someone is interested in preserving rsre from what he
may
believe could result in unnecessary duplication and consequent
dilution
of posters between groups, he is quite entitled to vote, imo.


The uk.* hierarchy is for existing and potential users of that
hierarchy.
"Preserving" one's own preferred group is not a valid reason for
interfering in someone else's hierarchy. Has it it occurred to you
that
something which needs "preserving" in this way, may not be worth
preserving?

If I am given a vote, then I'm entitled to use it. Your position is
absurd
to my mind. My reasons for voting no go against the grain as far as you
are concerned, and you respond by suggesting that potential no-voters
shouldn't be able participate because they are "abusing the system"?
Nonsense - change the system if you're not happy.


You're not "given" a vote, you request it. I don't suggest you shouldn't
be
able to take part - simply that you shouldn't.

I am a potential user, and you say the uk. hierarchy is for potential users.
I am entitled to a vote, on request. Are you seriously suggested that all
those potential voters who agree with you should, and those who don't,
shouldn't?


Anyway, your argument is self-contradictory. On the one hand you say
that
the uk. hierarchy is for potential users (such as myself) and then you
say
that because I disagree with your position vis this particular group my
reasons for voting against are not valid. You can't have it both ways.


If you are a potential user, you are free to use it. Your voting reasons
can be invalud whether I agree with them or not.

You have yet to explain why my reasons are invalid. I have a reasonably
in-depth knowledge of the workings of rsre, the regular contributors, the
traffic. Do you? It is my considered opinion that the potential dilution
could be bad for both groups, which will likely be covering identical
ground. I and others have explained why. That is perfectly valid
argumentation.


Oh, and rsre is an excellent forum, if a little quiet during the summer
months (despite my efforts on the green stuff). Unlike some who have
suddenly taken an interest in this thread, I and most others who
contribute regularly to this forum actually practice the sport.


I see - and that is a pre-requisite for voting against the creation of
another forum?

Before voicing opinions at length, a little knowledge about the subject does
help, yes. Particularly as one of the main arguments against is duplication,
with two ngs potentially covering identical ground.

Pete