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
  #131  
Old October 27th 03, 10:03 AM
Ace
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default RFD: create unmoderated newsgroup uk.rec.skiing

On Mon, 27 Oct 2003 09:18:38 +0000, Dave J wrote:

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


Exactly how is it "pettiness" if I vote no for an inadmissible reason
to cancel out the effect of {R} doing the same, but not "pettiness"
for him to do so in the first place?


Because, in general terms, the only sensible reason to vote 'no' is
because you feel the group will damage the uk.* hierarchy.


That's patently nonsense. There's a very good reason to vote 'no' if
you think it's going to affect you in any way. Which it must be quite
obvious to you is the case with most of the rsre posters joinging in
here. And why the RFD was x-posted there.

Surely, in general terms, the only sensible reason to vote 'yes' is if
you feel that you, personally, will benefit from the existence of the
new group. It seems to me that nearly all of the unnc posters in this
thread quite obviously don't fall into this category and so should be
banned from voting.

In these days of crossposting there will be enough traffic 'between'
the two groups for the users to establish for themselves which is the
most appropriate.


But what's the point in doing it in the first place? Do you seriously
believe there is some vast untapped posting pool who only ever look at
ngs on the uk.* heirarchy?

--
Ace (bruce dot rogers at roche dot com)
Ski Club of Great Britain - http://www.skiclub.co.uk
All opinions expressed are personal and in no way represent those of the Ski Club.
Ads
  #132  
Old October 27th 03, 10:05 AM
Ace
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default RFD: create unmoderated newsgroup uk.rec.skiing

On Mon, 27 Oct 2003 10:28:34 +0100, "PG"
wrote:


snip

It is in the
interests of those who regularly participate in the sport to promote
discussion, as long as the means to do so make sense, and I'm sure all the
potential no-voters from rsre have this and only this in mind. Most of us
don't care two hoots for hierarchy politics, and which letters of the
alphabet prefix their ng, as long as it works.


*ding*

Give the man a coconut.

--
Ace (bruce dot rogers at roche dot com)
Ski Club of Great Britain - http://www.skiclub.co.uk
All opinions expressed are personal and in no way represent those of the Ski Club.
  #133  
Old October 27th 03, 10:08 AM
Ace
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default RFD: create unmoderated newsgroup uk.rec.skiing

On Mon, 27 Oct 2003 08:29:26 +0000, Paul Giverin
wrote:

In message , Alex Heney
writes

I think you misread me above. I agree with everything you wrote, and
while I'm open to argument, at the moment I would be voting against
the group, because I think it would be likely to have a negative
impact on my usenet experience.


In which case I will vote "yes" in order to avoid a negative impact on
my Usenet experience i.e. upholding the uk.* hierarchy (which I use
extensively) against those who wish to veto uk groups in order to
protect groups in other hierarchies.


What a completely bizarre train of logic. No-one's trying to 'veto'
anything. We're just pointing out that there's absolutely no
requirement for the proposed new group.

You're implying that you'd like to have uk.* groups for absolutely
everything possible, whether anyone wants to post about them or not.
Surely you can see how ridiculous that would be?

--
Ace (bruce dot rogers at roche dot com)
Ski Club of Great Britain - http://www.skiclub.co.uk
All opinions expressed are personal and in no way represent those of the Ski Club.
  #134  
Old October 27th 03, 10:29 AM
PG
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default RFD: create unmoderated newsgroup uk.rec.skiing


"Ali Hopkins" wrote in message
...

"PG" wrote in message
...


snipped for bandwidth

I do not intend to enter debate concerning the background to my voting
intentions.


That's your prerogative, however my questions only stemmed from your
previous comment which implied you would vote in favour simply because of a
remark from an rsre poster. Personally I would consider voting on such a
basis to be utterly unjustified and a demonstration of contempt for the ski
discussion fraternity in particular, in which I sincerely doubt many of
those commenting from unnc will ever be participants, and for usenet as a
whole.

Pete


  #135  
Old October 27th 03, 10:43 AM
Paul Giverin
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default RFD: create unmoderated newsgroup uk.rec.skiing

In message , Ace
writes
On Mon, 27 Oct 2003 08:29:26 +0000, Paul Giverin
wrote:

In message , Alex Heney
writes

I think you misread me above. I agree with everything you wrote, and
while I'm open to argument, at the moment I would be voting against
the group, because I think it would be likely to have a negative
impact on my usenet experience.


In which case I will vote "yes" in order to avoid a negative impact on
my Usenet experience i.e. upholding the uk.* hierarchy (which I use
extensively) against those who wish to veto uk groups in order to
protect groups in other hierarchies.


What a completely bizarre train of logic. No-one's trying to 'veto'
anything. We're just pointing out that there's absolutely no
requirement for the proposed new group.

There is nothing bizarre about it. Alex Heney said he would vote no to
protect his Usenet experience. I am doing the same. My Usenet experience
relies heavily on the uk.* hierarchies.

You're implying that you'd like to have uk.* groups for absolutely
everything possible, whether anyone wants to post about them or not.
Surely you can see how ridiculous that would be?

I am not implying that at all. I am saying that if there is a demand for
new newsgroup it should be allowed, subject to the group creation rules
we have in uk.*

What I won't accept is people trying so stop new groups being created in
the uk.* hierarchy just because they see the group as threat to a group
in another hierarchy. Its a bit like Tesco being allowed to prevent
Sainsburys from building new supermarkets. Surely you can see how
ridiculous that would be?

--
Paul Giverin

British Jet Engine Website
http://www.britjet.co.uk
  #136  
Old October 27th 03, 11:16 AM
Ace
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default RFD: create unmoderated newsgroup uk.rec.skiing

On Mon, 27 Oct 2003 10:43:52 +0000, Paul Giverin
wrote:

In message , Ace
writes
On Mon, 27 Oct 2003 08:29:26 +0000, Paul Giverin
wrote:


In which case I will vote "yes" in order to avoid a negative impact on
my Usenet experience i.e. upholding the uk.* hierarchy (which I use
extensively) against those who wish to veto uk groups in order to
protect groups in other hierarchies.


What a completely bizarre train of logic.


There is nothing bizarre about it. Alex Heney said he would vote no to
protect his Usenet experience. I am doing the same. My Usenet experience
relies heavily on the uk.* hierarchies.


Sorry, in what way exactly would the continued non-existence of a
group you've no intention of posting to affect your 'Usenet
experience'?

You're implying that you'd like to have uk.* groups for absolutely
everything possible, whether anyone wants to post about them or not.
Surely you can see how ridiculous that would be?

I am not implying that at all. I am saying that if there is a demand for
new newsgroup it should be allowed, subject to the group creation rules
we have in uk.*


What you're actually saying is that you'd vote for a new group whether
there's a demand or not. It may not be your intention, but this "I'll
vote yes just for the sake of it" is saying exactly that.

What I won't accept is people trying so stop new groups being created in
the uk.* hierarchy just because they see the group as threat to a group
in another hierarchy.


Why the **** not? What's it got to do with you?

Its a bit like Tesco being allowed to prevent
Sainsburys from building new supermarkets. Surely you can see how
ridiculous that would be?


_Would_ be, but unfortunately the analogy doesn't even pass the first
hurdle, as you're talking of commercial enterprises for whom
competition is the life-blood.

Usenet is not supposed to be competitive.
--
Ace (bruce dot rogers at roche dot com)
Ski Club of Great Britain - http://www.skiclub.co.uk
All opinions expressed are personal and in no way represent those of the Ski Club.
  #137  
Old October 27th 03, 11:45 AM
Paul Giverin
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default RFD: create unmoderated newsgroup uk.rec.skiing

In message , Ace
writes
On Mon, 27 Oct 2003 10:43:52 +0000, Paul Giverin
wrote:


There is nothing bizarre about it. Alex Heney said he would vote no to
protect his Usenet experience. I am doing the same. My Usenet experience
relies heavily on the uk.* hierarchies.


Sorry, in what way exactly would the continued non-existence of a
group you've no intention of posting to affect your 'Usenet
experience'?

Its not the "non-existence" of a group which would affect me but the
practice of vetoing a new group just because it may affect a group in
another hierarchy.

You may not know it but a similar argument was used earlier this year to
prevent the formation of uk.sport.motorsport.formula1

Posters from a formula 1 newsgroup in another hierarchy tried to stop
its creation because they felt that their group was *the* place for
formula 1 discussion. The group was created and is a great success.

You're implying that you'd like to have uk.* groups for absolutely
everything possible, whether anyone wants to post about them or not.
Surely you can see how ridiculous that would be?

I am not implying that at all. I am saying that if there is a demand for
new newsgroup it should be allowed, subject to the group creation rules
we have in uk.*


What you're actually saying is that you'd vote for a new group whether
there's a demand or not. It may not be your intention, but this "I'll
vote yes just for the sake of it" is saying exactly that.

I don't normally vote on newsgroup creations which don't interest me in
some way but when I see people declare their intentions to vote "no"
just to protect a group in another hierarchy then I will use my vote to
try and counter what I see as the right of uk.* to function in the way
its members wish.

What I won't accept is people trying so stop new groups being created in
the uk.* hierarchy just because they see the group as threat to a group
in another hierarchy.


Why the **** not? What's it got to do with you?

What's it got to do with me? Its got everything to do with me. Surely I
don't have to spell it out again?

Its a bit like Tesco being allowed to prevent
Sainsburys from building new supermarkets. Surely you can see how
ridiculous that would be?


_Would_ be, but unfortunately the analogy doesn't even pass the first
hurdle, as you're talking of commercial enterprises for whom
competition is the life-blood.

Makes no difference to the analogy.

Usenet is not supposed to be competitive.


Then why try and veto a uk.* group because a skiing group exists in
rec.*?

--
Paul Giverin

British Jet Engine Website
http://www.britjet.co.uk
  #138  
Old October 27th 03, 12:01 PM
Ace
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default RFD: create unmoderated newsgroup uk.rec.skiing

On Mon, 27 Oct 2003 11:45:21 +0000, Paul Giverin
wrote:

In message , Ace
writes


Sorry, in what way exactly would the continued non-existence of a
group you've no intention of posting to affect your 'Usenet
experience'?

Its not the "non-existence" of a group which would affect me but the
practice of vetoing a new group just because it may affect a group in
another hierarchy.


One event does not a 'practice' make.

You may not know it but a similar argument was used earlier this year to
prevent the formation of uk.sport.motorsport.formula1


Like I'd care? Unlike yourself, it seems, most rsre posters are just
interested in exchanging views about snowsports. It's not exactly a
complicated argument to follow.


What you're actually saying is that you'd vote for a new group whether
there's a demand or not. It may not be your intention, but this "I'll
vote yes just for the sake of it" is saying exactly that.

I don't normally vote on newsgroup creations which don't interest me in
some way but when I see people declare their intentions to vote "no"
just to protect a group in another hierarchy then I will use my vote to
try and counter what I see as the right of uk.* to function in the way
its members wish.


Oh, "rights". You're on some sort of personal crusade to right
Usenet's wrongs, are you?

Why the **** not? What's it got to do with you?

What's it got to do with me? Its got everything to do with me. Surely I
don't have to spell it out again?


You do. I still completely fail to understand why the existence, or
otherwise, of a uk.* skiing ng to which you have no intention of
contributing, should affect you in any way whatsoever.

Usenet is not supposed to be competitive.


Then why try and veto a uk.* group because a skiing group exists in
rec.*?


No-ones trying to veto it. We're simply pointing out that amongst
skiing Usenet users there already exists a forum which completely
overlaps with, and therefore renders futile and unneccessary, the
creation of the proposed group. Therefore we'd vote against its
formation.

You should really look up the words 'veto' and 'vote'. They may use
the same letters but have quite different meanings.

--
Ace (bruce dot rogers at roche dot com)
Ski Club of Great Britain - http://www.skiclub.co.uk
All opinions expressed are personal and in no way represent those of the Ski Club.
  #139  
Old October 27th 03, 12:08 PM
PG
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default RFD: create unmoderated newsgroup uk.rec.skiing


"Paul Giverin" wrote in message
...
In message , Ace
writes
On Mon, 27 Oct 2003 10:43:52 +0000, Paul Giverin
wrote:

..../...

I don't normally vote on newsgroup creations which don't interest me in
some way but when I see people declare their intentions to vote "no"
just to protect a group in another hierarchy then I will use my vote to
try and counter what I see as the right of uk.* to function in the way
its members wish.


Well, then, you've completely got hold of the wrong end of the stick. No one
from rsre has even hinted at that reason. Suggest you re-evaluate the
arguments put forward. No one here gives a rat's behind what the prefix to
the ng in question is.

It strikes me that to date the arguments in favour are roughly 50/50 between
voting yes because of remarks from potential no voters, and creating a
duplicate of an existing group because for some obscure and as yet
unexplained reason proponents prefer the initials uk.

This debate isn't about to win any prizes for impartiality and respect for
the interests of usenet and its contributors.

Pete


  #140  
Old October 27th 03, 12:33 PM
BigAl
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default RFD: create unmoderated newsgroup uk.rec.skiing

"Ace" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 27 Oct 2003 10:28:34 +0100, "PG"
wrote:


snip

It is in the
interests of those who regularly participate in the sport to promote
discussion, as long as the means to do so make sense, and I'm sure all

the
potential no-voters from rsre have this and only this in mind. Most of us
don't care two hoots for hierarchy politics, and which letters of the
alphabet prefix their ng, as long as it works.


*ding*

Give the man a coconut.


If the rsre people stay where they are and don't move over, where's your
problem? Or are you rather more concerned that a considerable number *will*
move over? If so, then, presumably, they do so for a reason and rsre is not
for them and the new urs will be. The only negative thing that I can see is
that urs dies on its feet and, in due course (as has been said already) Dr
Death comes a'calling but that's always a truth regardless of whatever ng is
being created. The end result will be exactly what Usenet users, wherever
they are in the world, getting what they (the majority of course) want.

BigAl


 




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 10:17 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.