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 |
#151
|
|||
|
|||
RFD: create unmoderated newsgroup uk.rec.skiing
"Dick Gaughan" wrote in message news In on Mon, 27 Oct 2003 09:04:38 +0100, "PG" wrote: You're welcome to your opinions. I'm entitled to mine. The original proponent asked rsre for discussion on the subject, and by my analysis virtually all rsre regulars have responded sensibly, with reasoned argument. Your idea of debate differs from mine - calling others "****wits" hardly demonstrates respect, and in no way replaces argument. I reserve my respect for people who have contributed something of use, or people who are capable of thinking beyond "me, me, me, right now". I also respect people who are capable of acknowledging that their opinion is simply their opinion and not universal truth. I also respect people who take the trouble to base their opinion on an understanding of fact and who, upon entering into territory of which they have no previous experience, make at least the minimum effort to acquaint themselves with the background reasons as to why the inhabitants of that territory do things in the way they do before presumptuously berating them and making idiots of themselves by publicly flaunting their ignorance. 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). Pete ;o) |
Ads |
#152
|
|||
|
|||
RFD: create unmoderated newsgroup uk.rec.skiing
"PG" wrote in message ... "Ali Hopkins" wrote in message ... "PG" wrote in message ... I do not intend to enter debate concerning the background to my voting intentions. That's your prerogative, however my questions only stemmed from your previous comment which implied you would vote in favour simply because of a remark from an rsre poster. Personally I would consider voting on such a basis to be utterly unjustified and a demonstration of contempt for the ski discussion fraternity in particular, in which I sincerely doubt many of those commenting from unnc will ever be participants, and for usenet as a whole. You may continue to indulge in this tactic all you wish. I will not rise to your bait. No 'tactics' involved. Just honest interest, as the matter concerns me as a skiing forum (and not just rsre) contributor. It's a pity that you have misinterpreted this, and used this reason to avoid responding. You're at it again. It won't work. It was a fair enquiry, aimed at you and all those who have declared that they will vote in favour, to establish the pros and cons of both sides. That's what defines debate - a frank exchange of reasoned argument. Ali |
#153
|
|||
|
|||
RFD: create unmoderated newsgroup uk.rec.skiing
On Mon, 27 Oct 2003 19:28:10 +0100, PG wrote:
I reserve my respect for people who have contributed something of use, or people who are capable of thinking beyond "me, me, me, right now". I also respect people who are capable of acknowledging that their opinion is simply their opinion and not universal truth. I also respect people who take the trouble to base their opinion on an understanding of fact and who, upon entering into territory of which they have no previous experience, make at least the minimum effort to acquaint themselves with the background reasons as to why the inhabitants of that territory do things in the way they do before presumptuously berating them and making idiots of themselves by publicly flaunting their ignorance. 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). So you can't have posted here before. -- Neil My address is Spamless. |
#154
|
|||
|
|||
RFD: create unmoderated newsgroup uk.rec.skiing
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. 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. 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. -- Neil My address is Spamless. |
#155
|
|||
|
|||
RFD: create unmoderated newsgroup uk.rec.skiing
In message , PG
writes The worst result of an unnecessary 'Yes' vote is an empty group that gets removed later. 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. Worse still, the possibility the both suffer to the point of non-viability. Which directly affects those that use or are likely to use these ngs, but is It's difficult to imagine rsre dying out, so long as its core group (the expats, basically) stays together. Since you aren't falling out with each other, you've little to worry about. (I've studied the workings of a variety of self-organised groups in an effort to understand why my employers can't get anything done. Successful SOGs always have a group as their centre of gravity, never an individual. There are some special circs for Usenet which act against newly-formed newsgroups, so the odds are that Ace is right, but it's also true that the only way of finding out whether this one has a snowflake's chance in a nightclub is to let them form it and see.) -- Sue ];( |
#156
|
|||
|
|||
RFD: create unmoderated newsgroup uk.rec.skiing
In message , David
Off writes 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. Boooring! Besides, it doesn't work like that. English evolves like STDs, so if the rest of Europe was using it they'd quickly form a couple of dozen mutually-incomprehensible dialects. -- Sue ];( B*gger Micro$oft, lets all learn Welsh! |
#157
|
|||
|
|||
RFD: create unmoderated newsgroup uk.rec.skiing
In message , Paul Harper
writes Close, the BSSF is now "Snowsport GB " according to their site. uk.rec.snowsport. Much better. Whether it's snowsports or winter sports depends if you want to include ice skating and ice-hockey. Those are UK-based sports which haven't much in common with the snow ones: surely they ought to have a couple of groups of their own, willy-nilly? -- Sue ];( |
#158
|
|||
|
|||
RFD: create unmoderated newsgroup uk.rec.skiing
In message , David Mahon
writes First of all, my preferred newsserver did, once upon a time, only take uk.* groups. This has now changed but I still prefer to stick with uk.* for historical reasons. Selective newsservers are a widespread problem - we usually recommend the Berlin server as a cure. I use Old Unreliable because I like to have something to complain about! Secondly, most alt/big8 groups have many threads which are of no interest as they are not relevant to me in the UK. This doesn't go particularly for skiing or for RSRE, but goes for usenet groups in general. Naturally that varies with the subject matter. It isn't true of skiing, where experience has shown that irrelevance goes by destination - I don't want to read about North American resorts, though I take RSA for the trollin^H^H^H technique threads. I wish the Leftpondians would use r.s.r.n-a as its creators intended! Finally, the traffic is often higher than in a regional hierarchy. I don't like to wade through 200 posts a day looking for a few that interest me. I tend to miss them. OK, so the ratio of signal to noise may be the same, but with only 20 posts a day I can afford to read them all. You'll have gathered that traffic isn't heavy here; it's not a problem for me if people crosspost an extra group in, but it is a problem if they're using OE and post the same enquiry separately to two or three groups [1]. OE is regrettably common among legitimate users of sport groups, because the Internet is often not a major part of their lives (well, would you rather be posting on Usenet or doing outdoor sports in beautiful surroundings?) Also (sorry if I've missed this somewhere else in the thread) would you be using the proposed group yourself? I had intended to. Thank you. BTW, why are there uk.local.essx (with traffic) and uk.local.essex (no traffic) - is 'essx' a concession to AOL? [1] I got mixed up and sent a rude response to RSAM. It took them about a fortnight to even reject it! -- Sue ];( |
#159
|
|||
|
|||
RFD: create unmoderated newsgroup uk.rec.skiing
On Mon, 27 Oct 2003 00:57:18 +0000, Colin Irvine
wrote: 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 sorry, but I disagree. The whole point of having a voting process is so that a qualified majority decision can be made about whether to start the group or not. the point of the discussion process is for people to try and change the minds of those who disagree with them, or themselves possibly be persuaded by other arguments. 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. I'm afraid I disagree again. Regulating the number of groups should be done by more or less the process we have, namely by voting on whether groups should be created or not. there are many possible reasons why a particular proposed group may not be a good idea, and people should be given the chance to express that, and to vote accordingly. [1] Although you'll no doubt claim that you're acting for the good of all rather than simply to suit yourself. Not really. I am acting mostly from the selfish point of view that I am concerned the new group could reduce the traffic levels in the existing one I read, without taking sufficient to replace it. It would also mean I would really need to take another group to keep getting the same information as now, but almost certainly without gaining anything. Both of these, if they come to pass *will* affect all who currently subscribe to RSRE, but I will admit to my potential vote being mostly on selfish grounds. -- Alex Heney, Global Villager Warning: Politicians can be hazardous to your wealth. To reply by email, my address is aDOTjDOTheneyATbtinternetDOTcom |
#160
|
|||
|
|||
RFD: create unmoderated newsgroup uk.rec.skiing
On Mon, 27 Oct 2003 10:43:52 +0000, Paul Giverin
wrote: In message , Ace writes On Mon, 27 Oct 2003 08:29:26 +0000, Paul Giverin wrote: In message , Alex Heney writes 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. In which case I will vote "yes" in order to avoid a negative impact on my Usenet experience i.e. upholding the uk.* hierarchy (which I use extensively) against those who wish to veto uk groups in order to protect groups in other hierarchies. What a completely bizarre train of logic. No-one's trying to 'veto' anything. We're just pointing out that there's absolutely no requirement for the proposed new group. There is nothing bizarre about it. Alex Heney said he would vote no to protect his Usenet experience. I am doing the same. No you aren't. That is an absolutely ridiculous statement to make. Unless you personally intend to use the group, then not adding it will make NO difference to your usenet experience. My Usenet experience relies heavily on the uk.* hierarchies. So what? that does not mean your usenet experience relies heavily on groups you do not read. If you would read it, then not having it will obviously impact on your experience. But trying to argue that it would do so just because you read other uk.* groups is just nonsensical. You're implying that you'd like to have uk.* groups for absolutely everything possible, whether anyone wants to post about them or not. Surely you can see how ridiculous that would be? I am not implying that at all. I am saying that if there is a demand for new newsgroup it should be allowed, subject to the group creation rules we have in uk.* And NOBODY has suggested otherwise. Voting against, for WHATEVER reason, is perfectly within the group creation rules. 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. In other words, you think the uk.* hierarchy should just be able to ride roughshod over the whole of usenet. You don't have any choice about accepting it. Because the rules allow it (as they should). Its a bit like Tesco being allowed to prevent Sainsburys from building new supermarkets. Surely you can see how ridiculous that would be? Not in the least. It has certainly happened, and I would expect it to happen again. It is quite common when planning applications are put in, to object on the grounds that there are already sufficient similar facilities available locally, so more are not needed. -- Alex Heney, Global Villager I can't use Windows. The cat ate my mouse. To reply by email, my address is aDOTjDOTheneyATbtinternetDOTcom |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|