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
  #171  
Old October 28th 03, 10:09 AM
Ace
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default RFD: create unmoderated newsgroup uk.rec.skiing

On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 09:38:37 +0000, Geoff Berrow
wrote:

I noticed that Message-ID:
from Alex Heney contained the following:

No, that is *not* the only sensible reason to vote no. It is one
reason, but another, equally valid reason is if you feel it will
damage another group or hierarchy.


Depends what you mean by valid. I doubt the committee would find it
well founded.


Who is this 'committee' and why should we give a toss what they think?
Surely they're as bound by their own voting rules as anybody else?

--
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
  #172  
Old October 28th 03, 10:17 AM
Ace
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default RFD: create unmoderated newsgroup uk.rec.skiing

On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 09:56:57 +0000, Paul Giverin
wrote:

In message , Alex Heney
writes
On Mon, 27 Oct 2003 16:33:04 +0000, Paul Giverin
wrote:

I've explained it several times now so I'm not going to waste my time
repeating myself.

Or can't.

I said won't.


So?

The evidence points to "can't". If you could give a reasoned
explanation, you probably would have done.

OK I'll give you the benefit of the doubt as you seem to be struggling
with the obvious.

You said that you would vote against this group in order to protect a
group in another hierarchy. If everyone adopted this practice, we could
have the situation where no new groups were created in the uk.*
hierarchy because users of other groups in other hierarchies were voting
to protect those groups.


So you're simply saying, if I may paraphrase, "The existence or
otherwise of the proposed group will not actually affect me personally
in any way whatsoever, but if its formation is rejected, for reasons
not entirely clear to me, it may establish a precedent which might,
one day, affect me directly" ?

In other words, as An answer to my question "How will the existence or
otherwise of this group affect you personally" can only be taken as
"It won't".

I do not believe the existence of a group in another hierarchy is a
valid reason for preventing the creation of a new group in the uk.*
hierarchy and I will use my vote to counter any attempts to undermine
the uk.* hierarchy in this way.


And I do not believe anyone who has no interest in contributing to a
proposed group[1] has any business even talking about it, let alone
voting one way or the other as a matter of principle.

Now if you still can't understand what I'm saying then that's tough
luck. I won't spell it out again and don't intend commenting any
further.


What you're saying is crystal clear. It'l be nice not to have to see
it any more.


[1] Notwithstanding those whose role it is to take steps to create and
disseminate it, of course.

--
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.
  #173  
Old October 28th 03, 10:49 AM
Geoff Berrow
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default RFD: create unmoderated newsgroup uk.rec.skiing

I noticed that Message-ID:
from Ace contained the following:

Depends what you mean by valid. I doubt the committee would find it
well founded.


Who is this 'committee' and why should we give a toss what they think?
Surely they're as bound by their own voting rules as anybody else?


UK Usenet Committee.

Admittedly it would only be an issue if the proponent were to ask for a
fast track. And that doesn't seem likely.

--
Geoff Berrow
It's only Usenet, no one dies.
My opinions, not the committee's, mine.
Simple RFDs http://www.ckdog.co.uk/rfdmaker/
  #174  
Old October 28th 03, 12:03 PM
Dave J
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default RFD: create unmoderated newsgroup uk.rec.skiing

In inside of
uk.net.news.config, 'Alex Heney' wrote:


The worst result of an unnecessary 'Yes' vote is an empty group that
gets removed later.


That is simply not true.

The worst results is that we finish up with no viable groups, where we
currently have one.


Only if the two groups exist in totally different worlds, so that no
poster in the one mentions (or crossposts to) the other.



--
Dave Johnson -
  #175  
Old October 28th 03, 07:10 PM
kat
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default RFD: create unmoderated newsgroup uk.rec.skiing

Sue said





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



No, it's to prevent it popping up when spammers - and others - search
for groups with "sex" in the name. :-)


--
kat
^..^




  #176  
Old October 28th 03, 07:13 PM
Adam D. Barratt
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default RFD: create unmoderated newsgroup uk.rec.skiing

In uk.net.news.config, in , Sue
wrote:
[...]
BTW, why are there uk.local.essx (with traffic) and uk.local.essex (no
traffic) - is 'essx' a concession to AOL?


uk.local.essx was created to replace u.l.essex in June 2001, as the
original group suffered from large amounts of spam due to the word `sex'
appearing in its name.

Nothing to do with AOL, more the group's users preferring to be able to
find real posts in amongst all the tripe.

Adam
--
It may be possible to get this condition from within Perl if a signal
handler runs at just the wrong moment. Another point for Chip... :-)
-- Larry Wall in
  #177  
Old October 28th 03, 11:24 PM
Alex Heney
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default RFD: create unmoderated newsgroup uk.rec.skiing

On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 09:56:57 +0000, Paul Giverin
wrote:

In message , Alex Heney
writes
On Mon, 27 Oct 2003 16:33:04 +0000, Paul Giverin
wrote:

I've explained it several times now so I'm not going to waste my time
repeating myself.

Or can't.

I said won't.


So?

The evidence points to "can't". If you could give a reasoned
explanation, you probably would have done.

OK I'll give you the benefit of the doubt as you seem to be struggling
with the obvious.

You said that you would vote against this group in order to protect a
group in another hierarchy. If everyone adopted this practice, we could
have the situation where no new groups were created in the uk.*
hierarchy because users of other groups in other hierarchies were voting
to protect those groups.


In the unlikely event that were to happen, then it would be the right
thing to happen. That is what democracy is about.

Personally, I think that will only ever happen in cases such as this,
where the "other" group has MAJOR overlap in potential audience, AND
the "other" group does not have sufficient traffic to support two
viable groups.

I do not believe the existence of a group in another hierarchy is a
valid reason for preventing the creation of a new group in the uk.*
hierarchy and I will use my vote to counter any attempts to undermine
the uk.* hierarchy in this way.


Fair enough. I think you are wrong, but I doubt I will change your
mind on that.



Now if you still can't understand what I'm saying then that's tough
luck. I won't spell it out again and don't intend commenting any
further.


I have always understood what you are saying in this post. And it is
perfectly valid, although I think you are wrong.

But you claimed initially that you would be voting for it "in order to
prevent negative impact on your usenet experience".

You still have not explained why you feel it would have such an
impact.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
WARNING: my messages are offensive to morons!

To reply by email, my address is aDOTjDOTheneyATbtinternetDOTcom
  #178  
Old October 29th 03, 01:32 PM
BrritSki
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default RFD: create unmoderated newsgroup uk.rec.skiing

Charles Lindsey wrote:

In Paul Rooney writes:

On Mon, 27 Oct 2003 13:54:56 GMT, "Charles Lindsey"
wrote:



People who are not interested in skiing should not vote

snip


Is that a moral 'should' or a legal one? Or some other sort?
People's motives for voting are none of your business.


It is a moral one. All I am saying is that this issue should be decided by
the skiers, and not by all the regulars on UNNC who have different axes to
grind.

And preferably by the UK skiers (I note that most of the people arguing on
staying with the existing group appear to be UK-resident).


Nice to hear a voice of reason on unnc.

(X-posted to rsre so they can see it too).

  #179  
Old October 31st 03, 05:40 PM
Sue
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default RFD: create unmoderated newsgroup uk.rec.skiing

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


No, it's to prevent it popping up when spammers - and others - search
for groups with "sex" in the name. :-)


Thanks
--
Sue ])
  #180  
Old October 31st 03, 07:26 PM
funkraum
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default RFD: create unmoderated newsgroup uk.rec.skiing

Ian Spare wrote:


Because we like things to be discussed openly and the proponent
(sensibly) included "your" (note the inverted commas) group in the
crosspost.

It was kinda sneaky to snip all other x-posted groups from the
follow-up, though...


That is the standard practice with the uk.* hierarchy. The announcement
of the RFD is made in the moderated uk.net.news.announce newsgroup[1] and


For anyone that's not popped over to the uk group let me give you
flavor :-) It's like RSA on a bad day, the thread about this new group
has descended into some off-topic name calling which looks more like
IRC then anything else.

[...]

New groups are normally created to bleed off excess traffic from the
original, such as rec.aviation.military spawning
rec.aviation.military.naval.

rec.skiiing.resoirts.europe is not choked with traffic and handles
Atlantic seaboard traffic up to the point where the signal mingles
with de.rec.alpinismus broadcasting out of München.

Creating a new group will not generate any more traffic and the group
will die, so go ahead.



 




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 02:41 AM.


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