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
  #151  
Old October 27th 03, 06:28 PM
PG
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default RFD: create unmoderated newsgroup uk.rec.skiing


"Dick Gaughan" wrote in message
news
In on Mon, 27 Oct
2003 09:04:38 +0100, "PG" wrote:

You're welcome to your opinions. I'm entitled to mine. The original
proponent asked rsre for discussion on the subject, and by my analysis
virtually all rsre regulars have responded sensibly, with reasoned

argument.
Your idea of debate differs from mine - calling others "****wits" hardly
demonstrates respect, and in no way replaces argument.


I reserve my respect for people who have contributed something of
use, or people who are capable of thinking beyond "me, me, me,
right now". I also respect people who are capable of acknowledging
that their opinion is simply their opinion and not universal
truth. I also respect people who take the trouble to base their
opinion on an understanding of fact and who, upon entering into
territory of which they have no previous experience, make at least
the minimum effort to acquaint themselves with the background
reasons as to why the inhabitants of that territory do things in
the way they do before presumptuously berating them and making
idiots of themselves by publicly flaunting their ignorance.

Opinions are as much worth as a midge's effluence unless they are
based upon something resembling knowledge or upon at least a
willingness to consider that someone who disagrees might actually
be neither stupid nor willfully obstructive but might be doing so
for very sound reasons. Contempt prior to investigation is not the
exclusive preserve of Sun readers, unfortunately


I wholeheartily agree with you on every point you make above, and am
overjoyed that you must respect us all at rsre so greatly, given that we
clearly fit the bill on all counts (selflessness, objectivity, etc etc).

Pete
;o)


Ads
  #152  
Old October 27th 03, 06:33 PM
Ali Hopkins
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default RFD: create unmoderated newsgroup uk.rec.skiing


"PG" wrote in message
...

"Ali Hopkins" wrote in message
...

"PG" wrote in message
...

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.


You may continue to indulge in this tactic all you wish. I will not

rise
to
your bait.


No 'tactics' involved. Just honest interest, as the matter concerns me as

a
skiing forum (and not just rsre) contributor. It's a pity that you have
misinterpreted this, and used this reason to avoid responding.


You're at it again. It won't work.

It was a fair
enquiry, aimed at you and all those who have declared that they will vote

in
favour, to establish the pros and cons of both sides. That's what defines
debate - a frank exchange of reasoned argument.


Ali


  #153  
Old October 27th 03, 08:16 PM
Neil Ellwood
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default RFD: create unmoderated newsgroup uk.rec.skiing

On Mon, 27 Oct 2003 19:28:10 +0100, PG wrote:


I reserve my respect for people who have contributed something of
use, or people who are capable of thinking beyond "me, me, me,
right now". I also respect people who are capable of acknowledging
that their opinion is simply their opinion and not universal
truth. I also respect people who take the trouble to base their
opinion on an understanding of fact and who, upon entering into
territory of which they have no previous experience, make at least
the minimum effort to acquaint themselves with the background
reasons as to why the inhabitants of that territory do things in
the way they do before presumptuously berating them and making
idiots of themselves by publicly flaunting their ignorance.

Opinions are as much worth as a midge's effluence unless they are
based upon something resembling knowledge or upon at least a
willingness to consider that someone who disagrees might actually
be neither stupid nor willfully obstructive but might be doing so
for very sound reasons. Contempt prior to investigation is not the
exclusive preserve of Sun readers, unfortunately


I wholeheartily agree with you on every point you make above, and am
overjoyed that you must respect us all at rsre so greatly, given that we
clearly fit the bill on all counts (selflessness, objectivity, etc etc).

So you can't have posted here before.

--
Neil
My address is Spamless.
  #154  
Old October 27th 03, 08:32 PM
Neil Ellwood
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default RFD: create unmoderated newsgroup uk.rec.skiing

On Mon, 27 Oct 2003 17:44:23 +0100, Ace wrote:


Nope. You've banged on about the uk.* heirarchy as a whole, but
nowhere have you said why you feel the vote on a skiing newsgroup
would affect that, and thence yourself.

This is the UK hierarchy and that is what's relevant, if the people who
vote in this hierarchy vote for a skiing group then it will be formed.

Specifically, I mean, as in "what difference would it make to your use
of Usenet?"

What business is it of yours, everyone has their own uses.

The answer is, of course, that it would make not one iota of
difference to your use of usenet, and I submit therefore that you
really shouldn't be wasting your time arguing about it.

Your the one wasting time arguing about it.

OTOH, those of use who make regular use of the other skiing fora
_would_ be directly affected, so it seems only fair that if it's
anyone's opinion that's more important, it's them.

No. This is the UK forums and if any of the users of other forums want to
use the UK forums they are welcome and if they don't that is their
business.

--
Neil
My address is Spamless.
  #155  
Old October 27th 03, 11:29 PM
Sue
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default RFD: create unmoderated newsgroup uk.rec.skiing

In message , PG
writes

The worst result of an unnecessary 'Yes' vote is an empty group that
gets removed later. The worst result of a pointless 'No' vote is that
some people are denied the place of comunication that they desire. I
know which I prefer.


Worse still, the possibility the both suffer to the point of non-viability.
Which directly affects those that use or are likely to use these ngs, but is


It's difficult to imagine rsre dying out, so long as its core group (the
expats, basically) stays together. Since you aren't falling out with
each other, you've little to worry about.

(I've studied the workings of a variety of self-organised groups in an
effort to understand why my employers can't get anything done.
Successful SOGs always have a group as their centre of gravity, never an
individual. There are some special circs for Usenet which act against
newly-formed newsgroups, so the odds are that Ace is right, but it's
also true that the only way of finding out whether this one has a
snowflake's chance in a nightclub is to let them form it and see.)
--
Sue ];(
  #156  
Old October 27th 03, 11:44 PM
Sue
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default RFD: create unmoderated newsgroup uk.rec.skiing

In message , David
Off writes
Sue wrote:
If we had more posters we could try to keep the odd non-English
thread going, so new posters whose English is awful wouldn't feel
obliged to try to post in it.


lets face it, for better or for worse, Engish won. Now if only the
rest of Europe would get over it.

Boooring!
Besides, it doesn't work like that. English evolves like STDs, so if
the rest of Europe was using it they'd quickly form a couple of dozen
mutually-incomprehensible dialects.
--
Sue ];(

B*gger Micro$oft, lets all learn Welsh!
  #157  
Old October 27th 03, 11:54 PM
Sue
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default RFD: create unmoderated newsgroup uk.rec.skiing

In message , Paul Harper
writes

Close, the BSSF is now "Snowsport GB " according to their site.


uk.rec.snowsport. Much better.

Whether it's snowsports or winter sports depends if you want to include
ice skating and ice-hockey. Those are UK-based sports which haven't
much in common with the snow ones: surely they ought to have a couple of
groups of their own, willy-nilly?
--
Sue ];(
  #158  
Old October 27th 03, 11:57 PM
Sue
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default RFD: create unmoderated newsgroup uk.rec.skiing

In message , David Mahon
writes

First of all, my preferred newsserver did, once upon a time, only take
uk.* groups. This has now changed but I still prefer to stick with uk.*
for historical reasons.

Selective newsservers are a widespread problem - we usually recommend
the Berlin server as a cure.
I use Old Unreliable because I like to have something to complain about!

Secondly, most alt/big8 groups have many threads which are of no
interest as they are not relevant to me in the UK. This doesn't go
particularly for skiing or for RSRE, but goes for usenet groups in
general.


Naturally that varies with the subject matter. It isn't true of skiing,
where experience has shown that irrelevance goes by destination - I
don't want to read about North American resorts, though I take RSA for
the trollin^H^H^H technique threads. I wish the Leftpondians would use
r.s.r.n-a as its creators intended!

Finally, the traffic is often higher than in a regional hierarchy. I
don't like to wade through 200 posts a day looking for a few that
interest me. I tend to miss them. OK, so the ratio of signal to noise
may be the same, but with only 20 posts a day I can afford to read them
all.


You'll have gathered that traffic isn't heavy here; it's not a problem
for me if people crosspost an extra group in, but it is a problem if
they're using OE and post the same enquiry separately to two or three
groups [1].
OE is regrettably common among legitimate users of sport groups, because
the Internet is often not a major part of their lives (well, would you
rather be posting on Usenet or doing outdoor sports in beautiful
surroundings?)

Also (sorry if I've missed this somewhere else in the thread) would
you be using the proposed group yourself?


I had intended to.

Thank you.
BTW, why are there uk.local.essx (with traffic) and uk.local.essex (no
traffic) - is 'essx' a concession to AOL?

[1] I got mixed up and sent a rude response to RSAM. It took them about
a fortnight to even reject it!
--
Sue ];(
  #159  
Old October 28th 03, 12:44 AM
Alex Heney
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default RFD: create unmoderated newsgroup uk.rec.skiing

On Mon, 27 Oct 2003 00:57:18 +0000, Colin Irvine
wrote:

On Sun, 26 Oct 2003 23:59:15 +0000 (UTC), Alex Heney
wrote:

Stop trying to make the world behave the
way you want it to.


No.

That is what a discussion, possibly followed by voting, process are
for.

Try and change my view, by all means, using reasoned argument. But
please don't tell me not to participate in this discussion/vote. Which
is what that last sentence of yours boils down to.


OK. My argument is this.

Someone is wanting to set up a new newsgroup. You don't like the idea.
Fine. But - for you to feel that way is one thing, while for you to
actively try and stop them is another - and, IMHO, is pursuing your own
interests too far [1].


I'm sorry, but I disagree. The whole point of having a voting process
is so that a qualified majority decision can be made about whether to
start the group or not.

the point of the discussion process is for people to try and change
the minds of those who disagree with them, or themselves possibly be
persuaded by other arguments.


I'm not saying Usenet must always be allowed to run its own course in
every direction. What I do say is that regulation should be kept to a
minimum, and I think that precludes regulating the number of groups for
reasons other than the practicality of administering them.


I'm afraid I disagree again. Regulating the number of groups should
be done by more or less the process we have, namely by voting on
whether groups should be created or not.

there are many possible reasons why a particular proposed group may
not be a good idea, and people should be given the chance to express
that, and to vote accordingly.


[1] Although you'll no doubt claim that you're acting for the good of
all rather than simply to suit yourself.


Not really. I am acting mostly from the selfish point of view that I
am concerned the new group could reduce the traffic levels in the
existing one I read, without taking sufficient to replace it.

It would also mean I would really need to take another group to keep
getting the same information as now, but almost certainly without
gaining anything.

Both of these, if they come to pass *will* affect all who currently
subscribe to RSRE, but I will admit to my potential vote being mostly
on selfish grounds.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Warning: Politicians can be hazardous to your wealth.

To reply by email, my address is aDOTjDOTheneyATbtinternetDOTcom
  #160  
Old October 28th 03, 12:54 AM
Alex Heney
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 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.


No you aren't. That is an absolutely ridiculous statement to make.
Unless you personally intend to use the group, then not adding it will
make NO difference to your usenet experience.

My Usenet experience
relies heavily on the uk.* hierarchies.


So what?

that does not mean your usenet experience relies heavily on groups you
do not read.

If you would read it, then not having it will obviously impact on your
experience. But trying to argue that it would do so just because you
read other uk.* groups is just nonsensical.



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.*


And NOBODY has suggested otherwise. Voting against, for WHATEVER
reason, is perfectly within the group creation rules.


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.


In other words, you think the uk.* hierarchy should just be able to
ride roughshod over the whole of usenet.

You don't have any choice about accepting it. Because the rules allow
it (as they should).

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


Not in the least. It has certainly happened, and I would expect it to
happen again.

It is quite common when planning applications are put in, to object on
the grounds that there are already sufficient similar facilities
available locally, so more are not needed.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
I can't use Windows. The cat ate my mouse.

To reply by email, my address is aDOTjDOTheneyATbtinternetDOTcom
 




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 03:29 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.