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 |
#141
|
|||
|
|||
RFD: create unmoderated newsgroup uk.rec.skiing
"BigAl" wrote in message ... "Ace" wrote in message ... On Mon, 27 Oct 2003 10:28:34 +0100, "PG" wrote: snip It is in the interests of those who regularly participate in the sport to promote discussion, as long as the means to do so make sense, and I'm sure all the potential no-voters from rsre have this and only this in mind. Most of us don't care two hoots for hierarchy politics, and which letters of the alphabet prefix their ng, as long as it works. *ding* Give the man a coconut. If the rsre people stay where they are and don't move over, where's your problem? Or are you rather more concerned that a considerable number *will* move over? If so, then, presumably, they do so for a reason and rsre is not for them and the new urs will be. The only negative thing that I can see is that urs dies on its feet and, in due course (as has been said already) Dr Death comes a'calling but that's always a truth regardless of whatever ng is being created. The end result will be exactly what Usenet users, wherever they are in the world, getting what they (the majority of course) want. Dilution threatens both groups in this case (minority, seasonal sport, limited UK interest), as has been pointed out on numerous occasions. The more likely scenario is the demise of urs, but that is not a satisfactory justification for administrators, who so far have expressed little interest whatsoever in the sport itself, playing experimental games while the actual users are directly affected. I've yet to see a single reason put forward by the proponent or other supporters from unnc that is practical rather than 'philosophical', and not blatant promotion of the uk. hierarchy for reasons which make no sense whatsoever to we Brits and other Anglophones who just want to get on with discussing skiing in Europe. Pete |
Ads |
#142
|
|||
|
|||
RFD: create unmoderated newsgroup uk.rec.skiing
In message , Ace
writes On Mon, 27 Oct 2003 11:45:21 +0000, Paul Giverin wrote: 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. 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. 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. 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? 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. -- Paul Giverin British Jet Engine Website http://www.britjet.co.uk |
#143
|
|||
|
|||
RFD: create unmoderated newsgroup uk.rec.skiing
"PG" wrote in message
... "BigAl" wrote in message ... snippity-dooh-dah If the rsre people stay where they are and don't move over, where's your problem? Or are you rather more concerned that a considerable number *will* move over? If so, then, presumably, they do so for a reason and rsre is not for them and the new urs will be. The only negative thing that I can see is that urs dies on its feet and, in due course (as has been said already) Dr Death comes a'calling but that's always a truth regardless of whatever ng is being created. The end result will be exactly what Usenet users, wherever they are in the world, getting what they (the majority of course) want. Dilution threatens both groups in this case (minority, seasonal sport, limited UK interest), as has been pointed out on numerous occasions. The more likely scenario is the demise of urs, but that is not a satisfactory justification for administrators, who so far have expressed little interest whatsoever in the sport itself, playing experimental games while the actual users are directly affected. Please try answering the question instead of repeating the above mantra. "If the rsre people stay where they are and don't move over, where's your problem? Or are you rather more concerned that a considerable number *will* move over? If so, then, presumably, they do so for a reason and rsre is not for them and the new urs will be." BigAl |
#144
|
|||
|
|||
RFD: create unmoderated newsgroup uk.rec.skiing
On Mon, 27 Oct 2003 12:33:48 -0000, "BigAl"
wrote: If the rsre people stay where they are and don't move over, where's your problem? Not sure we've got a 'problem'. This is an RFD, after all, and we're discussing the fact that regular Usenet posters interested in skiing already have a perfectly good ng, TYVM. Or are you rather more concerned that a considerable number *will* move over? No. If I have concerns, it's more about the x-posting that will inevitably go on. And as one of the 'regular, informative posters' on here[1] I'd prefer not to have to scour two separate ngs when the existing one covers all the ground required. FWIW I would in many ways prefer a uk. group, but atm it's a question of: rsre - it ain't broke, why fix it? [1] I'd like to think, anyway. -- 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. |
#145
|
|||
|
|||
RFD: create unmoderated newsgroup uk.rec.skiing
On Mon, 27 Oct 2003 12:54:27 +0000, Paul Giverin
wrote: In message , Ace writes On Mon, 27 Oct 2003 11:45:21 +0000, Paul Giverin wrote: 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. Or can't. All the arguments you've put forward are side-issues. This one, simple question is the only one that matters, AFAICT. 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? Why do you think I'm frightened of something? I just think the creation of a uk. skiing group is unnecessary and futile, is all. So, as an interested party, i.e. a regular usenet poster on skiing topics, I'd vote against its creation. 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. You haven't looked them up then? Or are you trying to tell me that a single "no" vote will in fact stop a new group being created? -- 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. |
#146
|
|||
|
|||
RFD: create unmoderated newsgroup uk.rec.skiing
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. All the arguments you've put forward are side-issues. In your opinion. This one, simple question is the only one that matters, AFAICT. And I've answered it. You have chosen not to accept that. -- Paul Giverin British Jet Engine Website http://www.britjet.co.uk |
#147
|
|||
|
|||
RFD: create unmoderated newsgroup uk.rec.skiing
On Mon, 27 Oct 2003 16:33:04 +0000, Paul Giverin
wrote: In message , Ace writes This one, simple question is the only one that matters, AFAICT. And I've answered it. 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. Specifically, I mean, as in "what difference would it make to your use of Usenet?" 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. 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. -- Ace in Alsace - 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. |
#148
|
|||
|
|||
RFD: create unmoderated newsgroup uk.rec.skiing
"PG" wrote in message ... "Ali Hopkins" wrote in message ... "PG" wrote in message ... snipped for bandwidth 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. Ali |
#149
|
|||
|
|||
RFD: create unmoderated newsgroup uk.rec.skiing
"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. 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. Pete Pte |
#150
|
|||
|
|||
RFD: create unmoderated newsgroup uk.rec.skiing
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 -- DG |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|