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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#41
|
|||
|
|||
RFD: create unmoderated newsgroup uk.rec.skiing
Tony Evans wrote: vote no every time it's the case and see if that has any effect. Good idea. That's what I plan to do. Bring it on. |
Ads |
#42
|
|||
|
|||
RFD: create unmoderated newsgroup uk.rec.skiing
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. -- Don Aitken Mail to the addresses given in the headers is no longer being read. To mail me, substitute "clara.co.uk" for "freeuk.com". |
#43
|
|||
|
|||
RFD: create unmoderated newsgroup uk.rec.skiing
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 |
#44
|
|||
|
|||
RFD: create unmoderated newsgroup uk.rec.skiing
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! |
#45
|
|||
|
|||
RFD: create unmoderated newsgroup uk.rec.skiing
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. -- Paul My Lake District walking site (updated 29th September 2003): http://paulrooney.netfirms.com Please sponsor me for the London Marathon at: http://www.justgiving.com/london2004 |
#46
|
|||
|
|||
RFD: create unmoderated newsgroup uk.rec.skiing
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". -- John Briggs |
#47
|
|||
|
|||
RFD: create unmoderated newsgroup uk.rec.skiing
"David Mahon" wrote in message ... In article , 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. For all you know, my news server may only provide me with uk.* groups. Seeing as you have just posted to rsre, that seems rather improbable. No doubt your news server, along with the vast majority of those available to UK residents, allow access to rsre and other non-uk. forums. It's non of uk.*'s concern what is available outside of uk.* (although it may be of concern to individuals in choosing which way they will vote). No one has seriously suggested that it is. Practical objections have been put forward in the main, and which have been studiously ignored in most cases. Pete |
#48
|
|||
|
|||
RFD: create unmoderated newsgroup uk.rec.skiing
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. -- John Briggs |
#49
|
|||
|
|||
RFD: create unmoderated newsgroup uk.rec.skiing
"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. Pete |
#50
|
|||
|
|||
RFD: create unmoderated newsgroup uk.rec.skiing
David Mahon wrote:
Anyway, RSRE, by it's own charter's admission, is not an English language forum. Feel free to try and get that changed. Charters are usually not changed in the rec.* hierarchy. -- John Briggs |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|