PG wrote:
"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?


Actually, I had no intention of taking part in a vote, but if you are
determined to vote against it, I would feel compelled to vote in favour.


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.


You don't seem to have thought this through. If your existing users are not
interested in using the new group, all they need to do is not vote. The new
group will fail to be created for lack of support. If it is created and
there are still insufficient new posters it will still fail. If it thrives,
that will be justification for its creation. If the new group thrives at
the expense of rsre, that will still justify its creation, but show that
rsre was already on the borderline. Both groups failing is an unlikely
scenario.


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.


That is valid for two groups in the same hierarchy, but not for groups in
different hierarchies.
--
John Briggs