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
  #81  
Old October 25th 03, 11:59 PM
Alex Heney
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default RFD: create unmoderated newsgroup uk.rec.skiing

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.


That is quite simply untrue.

All those who may be affected by the creation of the group should be
taking part.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Man has his will. Woman has her won't!

To reply by email, my address is aDOTjDOTheneyATbtinternetDOTcom
Ads
  #82  
Old October 25th 03, 11:59 PM
Alex Heney
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default RFD: create unmoderated newsgroup uk.rec.skiing

On Sat, 25 Oct 2003 19:23:06 +0100, "John Briggs"
wrote:

PG wrote:

snip


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.


Even if those "wreckers" have perfectly valid, reasoned arguments?

And the only argument you can put up is that they shouldn't be voting
because they would not post in the group?

By that logic, nobody should ever vote against any group.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
I'm not rude, I'm "attitudinally challenged".

To reply by email, my address is aDOTjDOTheneyATbtinternetDOTcom
  #83  
Old October 26th 03, 12:00 AM
Alex Heney
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default RFD: create unmoderated newsgroup uk.rec.skiing

On Sat, 25 Oct 2003 18:57:14 +0100, 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?


John Brigg's mind.

There is no "should". Anybody who feels the group may affect them is
fully entitled to vote according to how they think it will affect
them.

Anybody else, although it is a little pointless, can also vote, in
whatever manner they feel fit.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
On a radiator repair shop: Best place to take a leak.

To reply by email, my address is aDOTjDOTheneyATbtinternetDOTcom
  #84  
Old October 26th 03, 05:22 AM
PG
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default RFD: create unmoderated newsgroup uk.rec.skiing


"David Off" wrote in message
...
John Briggs wrote:
PG wrote:

The uk.* hierarchy is for existing and potential users of that

hierarchy.

I use uk.rec.cycling, so I obviously have an interest in voting yes or
no either way.


Looks like that attempt at humour to lighten things up a little fell on deaf
ears )
Pete


  #85  
Old October 26th 03, 06:15 AM
PG
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default RFD: create unmoderated newsgroup uk.rec.skiing


"Ali Hopkins" wrote in message
...

"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.


More sound and reasoned argument for the setting up of a ng from the
allegedly knowledgeable at unnc. Par for the course, for this thread. Is
anyone over at unnc genuinely interested in whether this new group would
actually have any relevance, or worse, a detrimental effect on discussion,
for skiers? From the postings so far, I have my doubts. Anyone who has
offered negative views, also requested by the proposer, has variously been
dismissed as *wreckers*, *abusers of the system*, 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.

Pete


  #86  
Old October 26th 03, 07:32 AM
PG
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default RFD: create unmoderated newsgroup uk.rec.skiing


"Alex Heney" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 25 Oct 2003 18:57:14 +0100, Don Aitken
wrote:

On Sat, 25 Oct 2003 18:13:23 +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?


John Brigg's mind.

There is no "should". Anybody who feels the group may affect them is
fully entitled to vote according to how they think it will affect
them.

Anybody else, although it is a little pointless, can also vote, in
whatever manner they feel fit.


The problem is that the latter would apply to most of those at unnc. I have
no bone to pick with those who do a valuable job in promoting usenet via the
different hierarchies, and I have seen proposals for new uk. groups in
fields I contribute to, where I have had not the slightest objection. But in
this case the idea doesn't stand up. Stop quoting the charter for rsre, in
reality it is:

- an English-language forum.
- targeting skiers who ski in Europe: [rsa, rsrm (not a success), rsrna,
rss cover non-UK based Anglophones]
- giving advice on European ski destinations (most enquiries), but also
freely given on equipment, technique and any other snowsport-related topic.

Despite this broad base, it is a minority, seasonal sport in the UK, and the
traffic reflects this. The bottom line is that the target audience for the
proposed group is identical, the potential discussion topics identical. The
vast majority of UK servers give access to rsre. A large majority of
participants in rsre are UK-based or UK ex-pats.

As David Off mentioned, in France, with many times the potential readership,
fr.rec.sport.neige-glace broke away from fr.rec.montagne. A year or so on,
often a fortnight will go by without a single post. And this in
circumstances where in theory there was room for a new group, the main
French forum (all mountain activities) being far more broad-based (with a
large majority of non-ski related topics).

Except for Don Aitken ...(skiing ancestors perhaps, Don ;o) so far most
comments from unnc in this thread reflect badly on the would-be
administrators concerned. Protecting and promoting a hierarchy, voting in
favour simply because some on rsre have suggested they would vote against,
seems to be the priority. Apparently we skiers, who by the way are keen to
promote as much discussion about our sport as possible, are to be dismissed
as "abusers of the system", "wreckers", not forgetting "f***wits".

It would be interesting to check just how many potential yes votes this
thread has produced from people who participate in the sport and do their
bit to keep discussion going in rsre. A quick look........... 0.

Pete


  #87  
Old October 26th 03, 08:18 AM
Ali Hopkins
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default RFD: create unmoderated newsgroup uk.rec.skiing


"Don Aitken" wrote in message
...
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?


I'm not. It's your choice how to vote, just as it's mine.

Ali


  #88  
Old October 26th 03, 08:19 AM
Ali Hopkins
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default RFD: create unmoderated newsgroup uk.rec.skiing


"PG" wrote in message
...

"Ali Hopkins" wrote in message
...

"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.


More sound and reasoned argument for the setting up of a ng from the
allegedly knowledgeable at unnc.


If you'd avoid the ad hominem posts, you might get a better reaction.

Ali


  #89  
Old October 26th 03, 08:21 AM
PG
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default RFD: create unmoderated newsgroup uk.rec.skiing


"Ali Hopkins" 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.


More sound and reasoned argument for the setting up of a ng from the
allegedly knowledgeable at unnc.


If you'd avoid the ad hominem posts, you might get a better reaction.


Given that unnc members have contributed the vast majority so far, that's
pretty rich.
Pete


  #90  
Old October 26th 03, 08:32 AM
PG
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default RFD: create unmoderated newsgroup uk.rec.skiing


"Ali Hopkins" wrote in message
...

"PG" wrote in message
...

More sound and reasoned argument for the setting up of a ng from the
allegedly knowledgeable at unnc.

If you'd avoid the ad hominem posts, you might get a better reaction.


Given that unnc members have contributed the vast majority so far,

that's
pretty rich.


I have attacked no-one. Nor do I intend to start. I have stated my voting
intention.


Nor did I suggest you had.

I would be interested to know just what motive you have for voting in
favour, other than doing so because of a comment from a rsre contributor
about uncc members, given that we effectively have:

Identical target source of membership for both English-language groups,
Identical aims (in practice),
Identical potential discussion topics.

Do you ski? Have you ever contributed to a skiing forum? Have you analysed
the rsre archives to check the likes of the above information? Have you
checked the traffic levels for rsre, during and inter-season? Or are you
simply voting because, as you say, someone's "remark ensures a few yes
votes. Including mine."

If so, don't take this personally, but that's pretty flimsy argumentation.

Pete


Pete


 




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 05:40 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.