Don Aitken wrote:
On Sat, 25 Oct 2003 16:19:56 +0100, "John Briggs"
wrote:

Dr Zoidberg wrote:
Ian Spare wrote:
On Sat, 25 Oct 2003 14:11:30 +0100, Paul Giverin
wrote:

In message , Ian Spare
writes
If you had any interest at all you'd be familiar enough with RSRE to
know that there's only one or two non-English posting per year since
the groups foundation. Since you clearly don't read it then it
rather begs the question how you've reached the conclusion the UK
needs its own group.

I don't think it begs the question at all. The uk.* hierarchy is
independent of any other Usenet hierarchy.

What's the plan then, replicate every newsgroup in the rec hierarchy
to the UK?

Obviously not , but if sufficient people want a uk... group to cover a
particular subject and are prepared to say so then the idea shouldn't be
ruled out automatically just because a non uk group covers a similar
topic.

I would go further: if sufficient people want a uk.* group to cover a
particular subject and are prepared to say so, then the fact a non-uk.*
group covers a similar topic is of no relevance.

The fact that many of the prospective users of the group, all of whom
are entitled to vote, prefer to stay with the group they have got
rather than have two groups would, if true, have considerable
relevance.

The extreme assertions on both sides:

1. If a group exists in another hierarchy, uk.* should leave the
subject alone, and:
2. Nothing outside uk.* ever makes a difference to what happens inside
uk.*

are both absurd. This is a matter to be resolved by vote; that is what
votes are for. Those who believe that the proposal would have a
detrimental effect on a group they read are entitled to vote no. Those
who don't care about that are entitled to vote yes.

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