Steve Firth wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Assuming that is true, what power do they have to dictate content here,
on UK.d-i-y ?

If it isn't moderated, anything goes, as it always has, on usenet.

If they want to start up uk.cyclists-are-saints and moderate it, all
well and good. Who gives a ****?

If your interest in UK Usenet goes no further than "I post to one
newsgroup and I don't give a **** about the rest" then your comment is
understandable. You appear to have misunderstood, entirely, the point
being made.

It's not about which individual groups get created or not, it's not
about the existence of the newsgroups that do exist. It's about the
management and governance of the entire UK Usenet hierarchy.


But what can they DO as 'managers of the hierarchy'

Its very hard to remove a group. Sure they can add more, but I simply
wont read them.

Your point of view is like that of people who say "The laws we have
today are good enough, why should I bother to vote? All the MPs can do
is create new laws and that won't be a problem for me."


There are no usenet laws that are enforceable.

the management consists solely in approving group creation, or not and
laying down guidelines, which, by and large, are totally ignored.

The only other structures are to use moderated newsgroups. I joined one
briefly about ten years back. Total waste of time. Run by a small group
as a private place for self masturbatory chitchat.


Instead of answering my question, you have attacked me.

Now try answering the question, why should I care, what can they do?