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 |
#61
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 | |
|
|