A Snow and ski forum. SkiBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » SkiBanter forum » Skiing Newsgroups » European Ski Resorts
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

RFD: create unmoderated newsgroup uk.rec.skiing



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #61  
Old October 25th 03, 06:03 PM
John Briggs
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default RFD: create unmoderated newsgroup uk.rec.skiing

Don Aitken wrote:
On Sat, 25 Oct 2003 18:13:23 +0100, "John Briggs"
wrote:

Paul Rooney wrote:
On Sat, 25 Oct 2003 17:20:27 +0100, "John Briggs"
wrote:



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

Strictly speaking, that is false.


Only if those voting are "stakeholders" (to use an ugly modern
expression) in the uk.* hierarchy. Otherwise, the point stands - those
whose only interest in the uk.* hierarchy is opposing this particular
group for reasons unconnected with the uk.* hierarchy should not be
taking part in the vote.


Serious question: where does this "should" come from?


Ask yourself that.
--
John Briggs


Ads
  #62  
Old October 25th 03, 06:06 PM
PG
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default RFD: create unmoderated newsgroup uk.rec.skiing


"John Briggs" wrote in message
...
PG wrote:
"John Briggs" wrote in message
...
PG wrote:
"John Briggs" wrote in message
...
Paul Rooney wrote:
On Sat, 25 Oct 2003 17:20:27 +0100, "John Briggs"
wrote:



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

Strictly speaking, that is false.

Only if those voting are "stakeholders" (to use an ugly modern
expression) in the uk.* hierarchy. Otherwise, the point stands -

those
whose only interest in the uk.* hierarchy is opposing this particular
group for reasons unconnected with the uk.* hierarchy should not be
taking part in the vote.

That just doesn't make sense. How do you intend policing this
interesting system? The whole point is that the Internet knows no
national boundaries. If the vote is open to all, then all are entitled
to vote as they see fit.


Who said anything about policing? Just because a system is open to
abuse, that doesn't compel you to abuse it.


So now I'm abusing *the system*?!! LOL. Please explain which part of the
system it is that I am abusing? Is it using my right to vote freely
despite my views differing from your own?


You can vote freely against any groups you like - but does that make it
right?
--


And you can vote in favour of any groups you like (even if you don't have a
knowledge of the specialist subject). But does that make it right?

Pete


  #63  
Old October 25th 03, 06:21 PM
John Briggs
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default RFD: create unmoderated newsgroup uk.rec.skiing

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


  #64  
Old October 25th 03, 06:23 PM
John Briggs
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default RFD: create unmoderated newsgroup uk.rec.skiing

PG wrote:
"John Briggs" wrote in message
...
PG wrote:
"John Briggs" wrote in message
...
PG wrote:
"John Briggs" wrote in message
...
Paul Rooney wrote:
On Sat, 25 Oct 2003 17:20:27 +0100, "John Briggs"
wrote:



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

Strictly speaking, that is false.

Only if those voting are "stakeholders" (to use an ugly modern
expression) in the uk.* hierarchy. Otherwise, the point stands -
those whose only interest in the uk.* hierarchy is opposing this
particular group for reasons unconnected with the uk.* hierarchy
should not be taking part in the vote.

That just doesn't make sense. How do you intend policing this
interesting system? The whole point is that the Internet knows no
national boundaries. If the vote is open to all, then all are entitled
to vote as they see fit.


Who said anything about policing? Just because a system is open to
abuse, that doesn't compel you to abuse it.


So now I'm abusing *the system*?!! LOL. Please explain which part of the
system it is that I am abusing? Is it using my right to vote freely
despite my views differing from your own?


You can vote freely against any groups you like - but does that make it
right?
--


And you can vote in favour of any groups you like (even if you don't have
a knowledge of the specialist subject). But does that make it right?


No - and I would only do so if there were wreckers trying to prevent the
creation of such groups.
--
John Briggs


  #65  
Old October 25th 03, 06:48 PM
PG
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default RFD: create unmoderated newsgroup uk.rec.skiing


"John Briggs" wrote in message
...
PG 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.


And you call that sound argumentation?



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.


But possible. Which is at least one sound reason why I'm entitled to vote
against.



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.
--


Usenet knows no national boundaries. All this talk about hierarchies is
largely irrelevant.

Pete


  #66  
Old October 25th 03, 06:52 PM
pete devlin
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default RFD: create unmoderated newsgroup uk.rec.skiing

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

Blimey! This stuff gets people's backs up doesn't it? I don't think
there is any need for a new group but if they want it they can have it.
I think it will be sparsely populated but I'll look in on it anyway,
it's no great shake to add another group to the newsreader. Maybe we
should replace Usenet with web based forums complete with the full array
of emoticons, that would be progress eh?
--
Pete Devlin (To email - press reply, remove Garbage Sifter)
[{//////news03//////at\\\\\secondrow/////co\\\\\uk}]
Lossiemouth RUFC http://www.lossiemouth-rufc.co.uk
A hangover is the wrath of grapes.
  #67  
Old October 25th 03, 06:59 PM
PG
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default RFD: create unmoderated newsgroup uk.rec.skiing


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



Strictly speaking, those who are not interested in such a group

and
would not take part in it, should not vote.

Strictly speaking, that is false.

Only if those voting are "stakeholders" (to use an ugly modern
expression) in the uk.* hierarchy. Otherwise, the point stands -
those whose only interest in the uk.* hierarchy is opposing this
particular group for reasons unconnected with the uk.* hierarchy
should not be taking part in the vote.

That just doesn't make sense. How do you intend policing this
interesting system? The whole point is that the Internet knows no
national boundaries. If the vote is open to all, then all are

entitled
to vote as they see fit.


Who said anything about policing? Just because a system is open to
abuse, that doesn't compel you to abuse it.


So now I'm abusing *the system*?!! LOL. Please explain which part of

the
system it is that I am abusing? Is it using my right to vote freely
despite my views differing from your own?


You can vote freely against any groups you like - but does that make it
right?
--


And you can vote in favour of any groups you like (even if you don't

have
a knowledge of the specialist subject). But does that make it right?


No - and I would only do so if there were wreckers trying to prevent the
creation of such groups.
--


In your opinion. On the whole ngs are accessible to all, irrespective of
residence. And a minority, seasonal sport has little need of two forums
covering virtually identical ground, in the opinion of others, with
insufficient posters to go round.

The answer is to allow all concerned to vote freely and not try to limit tha
t right by suggesting that those who don't agree with you are "wreckers",
"abusing the system".

Pete


  #68  
Old October 25th 03, 07:00 PM
John Briggs
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default RFD: create unmoderated newsgroup uk.rec.skiing

pete devlin wrote:
In message , Don Aitken
writes
Both sides can play at that game. I have no more interest than you do,
but I will be voting no.

Blimey! This stuff gets people's backs up doesn't it? I don't think
there is any need for a new group but if they want it they can have it.
I think it will be sparsely populated but I'll look in on it anyway,
it's no great shake to add another group to the newsreader. Maybe we
should replace Usenet with web based forums complete with the full array
of emoticons, that would be progress eh?


Hey, don't go around talking sense - this is Usenet :-)
--
John Briggs


  #69  
Old October 25th 03, 08:56 PM
Dave J
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default RFD: create unmoderated newsgroup uk.rec.skiing

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


This just means that I shall vote yes, even though I have no particular
interest, just so that your wrecking tactics don't work.

So will many others, so bring it on. You will lose that gambit.

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..



--
Dave Johnson -
  #70  
Old October 25th 03, 09:28 PM
BrritSki
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default RFD: create unmoderated newsgroup uk.rec.skiing



John Briggs wrote:

Paul Rooney wrote:
On Sat, 25 Oct 2003 17:20:27 +0100, "John Briggs"
wrote:



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


Strictly speaking, that is false.


Only if those voting are "stakeholders" (to use an ugly modern expression)
in the uk.* hierarchy.


I live in the UK, so I guess I'm a stakeholder and will vote no.

I remember Chankel relating what a bunch of arses there were in unnc.
Didn't realise how right he was. I'm sure he's sitting on his cloud now
raising a glass on his birthday.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 05:10 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SkiBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.