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 |
#111
|
|||
|
|||
RFD: create unmoderated newsgroup uk.rec.skiing
In on Sun, 26 Oct
2003 08:15:09 +0100, "PG" wrote: and I won't quote Dick Gaughan - we don't use such language on rsre, although it might be standard procedures back with some of the uk hierarchy debaters. I presume that by "such language" you are refering to my use of the word which has, for rather a long time, had the very precise and universal meaning on Usenet of "completely clue-resistant entity". Like S****horpe or Penistone, it merely contains certain letters of the alphabet in a particular sequence which happens coincidentally, when taken in isolation from the other letters, to be identical to an existing, shorter word frequently used as an expletive. Unless you're AOL, in which case all three are obscenities. I'd offer to lend you a JCB but you're doing fine enough with that shovel without any help. -- DG |
Ads |
#112
|
|||
|
|||
RFD: create unmoderated newsgroup uk.rec.skiing
Paul Giverin wrote:
To say that the creation of a new uk.* group would cause an administrative overhead is just nonsense. This is one of the few hierarchies which removes under-used groups. My point exactly, you will create a newsgroup that you will subsequently have to go about removing due to lack of traffic, as you have obviously done already judging by your comment. I rest my case yeronner. |
#113
|
|||
|
|||
RFD: create unmoderated newsgroup uk.rec.skiing
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. |
#114
|
|||
|
|||
RFD: create unmoderated newsgroup uk.rec.skiing
In message , David
Off writes Paul Giverin wrote: To say that the creation of a new uk.* group would cause an administrative overhead is just nonsense. This is one of the few hierarchies which removes under-used groups. My point exactly, you will create a newsgroup that you will subsequently have to go about removing due to lack of traffic, as you have obviously done already judging by your comment. Don't be so presumptuous. I rest my case yeronner. And not a very good one at that. -- Paul Giverin British Jet Engine Website http://www.britjet.co.uk |
#115
|
|||
|
|||
RFD: create unmoderated newsgroup uk.rec.skiing
"Ali Hopkins" wrote in message ... "Neil Ellwood" wrote in message Her, actually. g However, as to the rest of your post, you have summed up very accurately why I do not propose to debate my reasons; and yes, I do take PG's post personally, and do not care for its pejorative and aggressive interrogation. Neither one nor the other, just interested, as following a poster's comment about uncc you replied: "That remark ensures a few yes votes. Including mine." Pete |
#116
|
|||
|
|||
RFD: create unmoderated newsgroup uk.rec.skiing
On Sun, 26 Oct 2003 11:39:02 +0000, Colin Irvine
wrote: On Sat, 25 Oct 2003 23:58:15 +0000 (UTC), Alex Heney wrote: snip There is enough traffic for one group. It is doubtful whether there will be enough traffic to keep two groups active, and it is possible that spreading it across two groups will lead to both becoming unused. Can I just say that I think that is absolute crap. What if there is only enough traffic for one group? We'll all want to post somewhere - sooner or later it'll sort itself out. I'm not convinced. I do think the most likely outcome is that there will be effectively no change. That the proposed new group just won't get enough traffic to be viable because most of the people currently using RSRE will stay there. But "most likely" does not mean that it is by any means sure, and that is what worries me. I cannot see any benefit to the new group, but can see a possible (not probable) downside. 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. -- Alex Heney, Global Villager Building Contractors, not to be confused with homemakers To reply by email, my address is aDOTjDOTheneyATbtinternetDOTcom |
#117
|
|||
|
|||
RFD: create unmoderated newsgroup uk.rec.skiing
On Sun, 26 Oct 2003 12:39:29 +0100, David Off
wrote: Alex Heney wrote: They should *IF* they think it will have a detrimental effect, either on usenet as a whole (unlikely in this case), or on other specific groups they read (likely in this case). It isn't just a question of whether they intend reading the group, but whether it will affect their usenet experience. snip My experience in this area with r.s.a.m and fr.r.n-g is that there is not sufficient demand from snowsport enthusiasts for such a group and so far the majority of proponents will be people who have declared that they will not use the group. If you want to convince people to vote yes, post some good arguments and counter those already put up. 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. -- Alex Heney, Global Villager Find your aim in life, before you run out of ammunition To reply by email, my address is aDOTjDOTheneyATbtinternetDOTcom |
#118
|
|||
|
|||
RFD: create unmoderated newsgroup uk.rec.skiing
On Sun, 26 Oct 2003 11:57:18 +0000, Richard Ashton
wrote: In uk.net.news.config on Sat, 25 Oct 2003 23:58:47 +0000 (UTC), Alex Heney wrote: }In general, the *only* reasons which are considered *valid* for voting }against new newsgroups is the effect they will have on the rest of }usenet. Utter bull****, considered by whom? Considered by those responsible for administering usenet. You *should* not vote against a group unless you think it will affect one or more existing groups you are interested in in a negative manner, or you believe the overall effect on usenet as a whole would be negative. But like I said, this is only what is generally considered acceptable. There is absolutely nothing which can be done to enforce that, so people actually vote against groups for all sorts of reasons. Conversely, you *should* only vote in favour if the proposed group is one you intend using. If the proponent cannot get enough yes votes from potential users, then there won't be enough users for the group to be viable. But again, people vote yes for all sorts of reasons. Valid under whose "rules"? No *rules*, but the *guidelines* set up for creating new groups. Where is the rest of usenet, and does it include alt, and Usenet II? I have never heard of Usenet II, so I have no idea whether it would be expected to include that. But of course it include alt.*. It includes whatever you, as the voter, consider to be a part of usenet. -- Alex Heney, Global Villager If money could talk, it would say goodbye. To reply by email, my address is aDOTjDOTheneyATbtinternetDOTcom |
#119
|
|||
|
|||
RFD: create unmoderated newsgroup uk.rec.skiing
Richard Ashton wrote:
In uk.net.news.config on Sat, 25 Oct 2003 17:01:50 +0100, BrritSki wrote: }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. 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. It coule, of course, be a cunning double bluff to try to generate yes votes. On the other hand, it could be a triple bluff.... -- =/\= Lt. Cmdr. Jim =/\= It's only Usenent, everyone dies. New to Usenet and have questions? Ask away at uk.net.beginners |
#120
|
|||
|
|||
RFD: create unmoderated newsgroup uk.rec.skiing
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 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. [1] Although you'll no doubt claim that you're acting for the good of all rather than simply to suit yourself. -- Colin Irvine A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text. Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing? A: Top-posting. Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail? |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|