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
  #111  
Old October 26th 03, 07:05 PM
Dick Gaughan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old October 26th 03, 08:23 PM
David Off
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old October 26th 03, 08:24 PM
David Off
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old October 26th 03, 08:35 PM
Paul Giverin
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old October 26th 03, 10:21 PM
PG
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old October 26th 03, 10:59 PM
Alex Heney
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old October 26th 03, 11:04 PM
Alex Heney
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old October 26th 03, 11:09 PM
Alex Heney
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old October 26th 03, 11:14 PM
Lt. Cmdr. Jim
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old October 26th 03, 11:57 PM
Colin Irvine
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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

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 12:04 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2018 SkiBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.