On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 09:56:57 +0000, Paul Giverin
wrote:

In message , Alex Heney
writes
On Mon, 27 Oct 2003 16:33:04 +0000, Paul Giverin
wrote:

I've explained it several times now so I'm not going to waste my time
repeating myself.

Or can't.

I said won't.


So?

The evidence points to "can't". If you could give a reasoned
explanation, you probably would have done.

OK I'll give you the benefit of the doubt as you seem to be struggling
with the obvious.

You said that you would vote against this group in order to protect a
group in another hierarchy. If everyone adopted this practice, we could
have the situation where no new groups were created in the uk.*
hierarchy because users of other groups in other hierarchies were voting
to protect those groups.


In the unlikely event that were to happen, then it would be the right
thing to happen. That is what democracy is about.

Personally, I think that will only ever happen in cases such as this,
where the "other" group has MAJOR overlap in potential audience, AND
the "other" group does not have sufficient traffic to support two
viable groups.

I do not believe the existence of a group in another hierarchy is a
valid reason for preventing the creation of a new group in the uk.*
hierarchy and I will use my vote to counter any attempts to undermine
the uk.* hierarchy in this way.


Fair enough. I think you are wrong, but I doubt I will change your
mind on that.



Now if you still can't understand what I'm saying then that's tough
luck. I won't spell it out again and don't intend commenting any
further.

I have always understood what you are saying in this post. And it is
perfectly valid, although I think you are wrong.

But you claimed initially that you would be voting for it "in order to
prevent negative impact on your usenet experience".

You still have not explained why you feel it would have such an
impact.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
WARNING: my messages are offensive to morons!

To reply by email, my address is aDOTjDOTheneyATbtinternetDOTcom