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 |
#161
|
|||
|
|||
RFD: create unmoderated newsgroup uk.rec.skiing
On Mon, 27 Oct 2003 11:45:21 +0000, Paul Giverin
wrote: In message , Ace writes On Mon, 27 Oct 2003 10:43:52 +0000, Paul Giverin wrote: There is nothing bizarre about it. Alex Heney said he would vote no to protect his Usenet experience. I am doing the same. My Usenet experience relies heavily on the uk.* hierarchies. Sorry, in what way exactly would the continued non-existence of a group you've no intention of posting to affect your 'Usenet experience'? Its not the "non-existence" of a group which would affect me but the practice of vetoing a new group just because it may affect a group in another hierarchy. In other words, you lied. It will not affect your usenet experience at all. You may not know it but a similar argument was used earlier this year to prevent the formation of uk.sport.motorsport.formula1 Posters from a formula 1 newsgroup in another hierarchy tried to stop its creation because they felt that their group was *the* place for formula 1 discussion. The group was created and is a great success. Which means what, exactly? If it was created, then there were sufficiently more people who wanted it than there were voting against it. In which case, I would expect it to be a success. I don't normally vote on newsgroup creations which don't interest me in some way but when I see people declare their intentions to vote "no" just to protect a group in another hierarchy then I will use my vote to try and counter what I see as the right of uk.* to function in the way its members wish. But that is not what you are doing here. Most of us who have been arguing against it (although not all) are "members" of uk.*, assuming by that you mean they subscribe to groups in that hierarchy, and post to them. 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. Why the **** not? What's it got to do with you? What's it got to do with me? Its got everything to do with me. Surely I don't have to spell it out again? Well you haven't given us anything other than "sour grapes" so far. You have not given a reasonable explanation of why you think it is OK to vote at all regarding a group which you will not subscribe to, and which will not affect any of your other groups. BTW, although I will probably vote against, I *will* subscribe if the group is created. One of the reasons I am against it is that I don't particularly want to add another group to my skiing lists. Its a bit like Tesco being allowed to prevent Sainsburys from building new supermarkets. Surely you can see how ridiculous that would be? _Would_ be, but unfortunately the analogy doesn't even pass the first hurdle, as you're talking of commercial enterprises for whom competition is the life-blood. Makes no difference to the analogy. Of course it does. Usenet is not supposed to be competitive. Then why try and veto a uk.* group because a skiing group exists in rec.*? Because we don't want that competition, which *would* occur. Not deliberately, in the sense of each group trying to take custom from the other, but inevitably in that some people would only subscribe to one or the other. -- Alex Heney, Global Villager If Murphy's Law can go wrong, it will. To reply by email, my address is aDOTjDOTheneyATbtinternetDOTcom |
Ads |
#162
|
|||
|
|||
RFD: create unmoderated newsgroup uk.rec.skiing
On Mon, 27 Oct 2003 12:54:27 +0000, Paul Giverin
wrote: Oh, "rights". You're on some sort of personal crusade to right Usenet's wrongs, are you? Oh but that's what you seem to be doing. In what way, exactly? You appear to be having considerable difficulty with the concepts of majority decisions, and voting. Why the **** not? What's it got to do with you? What's it got to do with me? Its got everything to do with me. Surely I don't have to spell it out again? You do. I still completely fail to understand why the existence, or otherwise, of a uk.* skiing ng to which you have no intention of contributing, should affect you in any way whatsoever. I've explained it several times now so I'm not going to waste my time repeating myself. We don't want a repetition. We would like to hear an explanation which makes some sort of sense, if you have one. Usenet is not supposed to be competitive. Then why try and veto a uk.* group because a skiing group exists in rec.*? No-ones trying to veto it. We're simply pointing out that amongst skiing Usenet users there already exists a forum which completely overlaps with, and therefore renders futile and unneccessary, the creation of the proposed group. Therefore we'd vote against its formation. So you are voting against freedom of choice? Why vote against it? No one is taking away your existing group. What do you have to fear? What we fear is that this will have the *effect* of taking away the existing group. It is not the most active group on usenet, but is sufficiently active at present. Even a small reduction in posters could take it down to a level where the rest would not find it worthwhile. You should really look up the words 'veto' and 'vote'. They may use the same letters but have quite different meanings. Not in this context. Absolutely 100% in this context. Voting against something is NOT vetoing it. It is taking up your right to have a say in the decision. If sufficient people agree, then the decision will go against. Otherwise, it will go for, in which case, your vote was hardly a veto, was it? -- Alex Heney, Global Villager Nitrate: Lower than the day rate. To reply by email, my address is aDOTjDOTheneyATbtinternetDOTcom |
#163
|
|||
|
|||
RFD: create unmoderated newsgroup uk.rec.skiing
On Mon, 27 Oct 2003 16:33:04 +0000, Paul Giverin
wrote: In message , Ace writes On Mon, 27 Oct 2003 12:54:27 +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. -- Alex Heney, Global Villager Murphy was an optimist. To reply by email, my address is aDOTjDOTheneyATbtinternetDOTcom |
#164
|
|||
|
|||
RFD: create unmoderated newsgroup uk.rec.skiing
On Mon, 27 Oct 2003 20:32:13 +0000 (UTC), "Neil Ellwood"
wrote: 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. Of course. What does that have to do with the point? 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. At the start of this sub-thread, Paul said he would be voting for it "in order to avoid a negative impact on my Usenet experience" Both Ace and myself have been trying to find out how he thinks failure to create the group would have such an impact. 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. Of course. Why the "No" at the start of that? -- Alex Heney, Global Villager Suicide Hotline...please hold. To reply by email, my address is aDOTjDOTheneyATbtinternetDOTcom |
#165
|
|||
|
|||
RFD: create unmoderated newsgroup uk.rec.skiing
On Mon, 27 Oct 2003 09:18:38 +0000, Dave J wrote:
In inside of uk.net.news.config, 'Don Aitken' wrote: 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.. Exactly how is it "pettiness" if I vote no for an inadmissible reason to cancel out the effect of {R} doing the same, but not "pettiness" for him to do so in the first place? Because, in general terms, the only sensible reason to vote 'no' is because you feel the group will damage the uk.* hierarchy. Otherwise it is sufficient that there is the right minumum number of potential users. 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. uk.* does not operate in isolation, it is a part of usenet as a whole. {R}'s reason for voting was to counter a 'don't split my group' type complaint, a variety of complaint that I find ludicrous because time will settle any such problem. huh? Of course time will settle any such problem. But if it is "settled" with the result of no viable group, as is entirely possible, then we all lose. You don't decide to just let something go because you will find out the answer for certain given time. In these days of crossposting there will be enough traffic 'between' the two groups for the users to establish for themselves which is the most appropriate. There may be. But there may not be. And that is what worries people. -- Alex Heney, Global Villager Those who can, do. Those who can't, supervise! To reply by email, my address is aDOTjDOTheneyATbtinternetDOTcom |
#166
|
|||
|
|||
RFD: create unmoderated newsgroup uk.rec.skiing
On Mon, 27 Oct 2003 09:22:40 +0000, Dave J wrote:
In inside of uk.net.news.config, 'Don Aitken' wrote: On Sat, 25 Oct 2003 22:45:34 +0100, "Ali Hopkins" wrote: "BrritSki" wrote in message ... I remember Chankel relating what a bunch of arses there were in unnc. That remark ensures a few yes votes. Including mine. And people are criticising me for saying I'll vote no? Voting Yes on an uncontroversial group like this is much less obnoxious than voting No. You can't have less than "not at all". 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. 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. Is there really any evidence that there are a significant number of people who would subscribe to the new group, but are not already subscribed to rsre. I must admit, I will be surprised if this actually gets enough votes from people who would use it, even if you ignore the "no" votes. -- Alex Heney, Global Villager Why did Kamakazie pilots wear helmets??? To reply by email, my address is aDOTjDOTheneyATbtinternetDOTcom |
#167
|
|||
|
|||
RFD: create unmoderated newsgroup uk.rec.skiing
In on Mon, 27 Oct
2003 19:28:10 +0100, "PG" wrote: 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). Fascinating. Take two aspirin and lie down in a darkened room for several weeks. That'll be 80 guineas. Next patient, please. -- DG |
#168
|
|||
|
|||
RFD: create unmoderated newsgroup uk.rec.skiing
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. -- Geoff Berrow It's only Usenet, no one dies. My opinions, not the committee's, mine. Simple RFDs http://www.ckdog.co.uk/rfdmaker/ |
#169
|
|||
|
|||
RFD: create unmoderated newsgroup uk.rec.skiing
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. 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. 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. -- Paul Giverin British Jet Engine Website http://www.britjet.co.uk |
#170
|
|||
|
|||
RFD: create unmoderated newsgroup uk.rec.skiing
"Paul Giverin" wrote in message
... 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. Great, please give it a rest. -- Simon Brown, Postfach 159, CH-7031 Laax www.hb9drv.ch |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|