On Oct 18, 1:15*am, (Steve Firth) wrote:
Quelle surprise. The trouble-making ******* who post to
uk.rec.psycholing are trying to whitewash the committee vote this year.
If you give a damn abut uk usenet it's a good idea to keep an eye on
uk.net.news.announce, and uk.net.news.management.

If anyone can be arsed to overcome the attempted take over nominations
are still open for those who want to stand.

If you think that having a bunch of lycra loons running uk usenet would
be a good thing, think again. These people could start a flamewar in a
convent. Even if they were the only people there.

why dont you tell people how you think this is relevant here


NT

NT wrote:

why dont you tell people how you think this is relevant here

Because uk.d-i-y is part of UK Usenet and falls within the management of
the UK Usenet committee. You might not be interested in how UK Usenet is
administered or by whom, but others are. The hierarchyof newsgroups has
been well managed up to the present day by the UK Usenet Committee, and
it represents the users' interests to ISPs and to organisations such as
the Free University of Berlin, Google and even Altopia. The Committee
and Control handle such issues as the creation of new newsgroups, the
political management and interaction with the organisations that provide
the infrastructure that supports UK newsgroups.

The current move by the URC members is an attempted coup to take control
of the committee it's a carefully orchestrated last minute seizure. They
have about 150-180 sheep who will vote them in not because they are good
for the hierarchy as a whole but because they are cyclists. Their
credentials for running UK Usenet well are suspect. They attempted
recently to create a moderated newsgroup, going their own way picking
fights with the UK Usenet Committee over each issue, and made a meal of
the job.

If those are the people you want to be represented by, then it's your
choice and you can vote for them. However it's generally better to make
yourself informed about who wants to represent your interests and to
make a decision by voting or by appointing alternative candidates. That
choice should be made by as much of UK Usenet as possible, not by a
self-appointed clique.

Steve Firth wrote:
NT wrote:

why dont you tell people how you think this is relevant here

Because uk.d-i-y is part of UK Usenet and falls within the management of
the UK Usenet committee. You might not be interested in how UK Usenet is
administered or by whom, but others are. The hierarchyof newsgroups has
been well managed up to the present day by the UK Usenet Committee, and
it represents the users' interests to ISPs and to organisations such as
the Free University of Berlin, Google and even Altopia. The Committee
and Control handle such issues as the creation of new newsgroups, the
political management and interaction with the organisations that provide
the infrastructure that supports UK newsgroups.

The current move by the URC members is an attempted coup to take control
of the committee it's a carefully orchestrated last minute seizure. They
have about 150-180 sheep who will vote them in not because they are good
for the hierarchy as a whole but because they are cyclists. Their
credentials for running UK Usenet well are suspect. They attempted
recently to create a moderated newsgroup, going their own way picking
fights with the UK Usenet Committee over each issue, and made a meal of
the job.

If those are the people you want to be represented by, then it's your
choice and you can vote for them. However it's generally better to make
yourself informed about who wants to represent your interests and to
make a decision by voting or by appointing alternative candidates. That
choice should be made by as much of UK Usenet as possible, not by a
self-appointed clique.

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 ****?

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.

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."

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?

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
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.


Steve does not like people who do not agree with him.

In real life he is just a slap head with a bad comb over that owns companies
that sell or do **** all.

Adam

The Natural Philosopher writes:

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'

Amongst other things, they can post control messages which practically
all of the existing public news servers in the world automatically
read and act upon (only for groups within the uk.* hierarchy).

Its very hard to remove a group.

I do not believe that to be true. Removing a group simply involves
sending a control message to a particular newsgroup in a prescribed
format. If the message is cryptographically signed with the key owned
by the UK usenet committee and relates to the uk.* heirarchy, then it
will almost certainly be honoured.

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

None of that is built into the machinery, though. It has merely been
the custom and practice of the management to date to be reasonably
`hands off' (or at least appear to be so), to the extent that most
users of uk.* groups believe either that no-one is doing it or that
they cannot do much harm. It is unclear whether the new candidates
intend to maintain this tradition.

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

I've had a go at answering the latter question, but won't even attempt
the former. `It's only usenet---nobody dies'. The tragedy of the
commons apply, etc.

--
Mark

On Sun, 18 Oct 2009 11:02:08 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

For once Steve is making a valid point, albeit not very well. The UK
Usenet committee has successfully overseen group creation in the
UK.hierarchy for a long time. Three or four individuals, one of whom
was previously removed from the votetakers group because he only
wanted to accept votes from technically acceptable people, another
previously failed candidate and two no one has ever heard of and who
have previously shown no interest in the uk.hierarchy have, mainly as
result of getting annoyed about a group they wanted getting created,
decided to wreck the system. (That wasn't a misprint - they really
are annoyed they got what they wanted, or more particularly that it
didn't happen the instant they wanted it, so want to put a spanner in
the works and take over the wreck.)

The common factor is they are all combat cyclists, three use a server,
chiark, run by one of them and all appear to be like minded "mates".
They have put themselves forward as candidates for the uk.Usenet
committee and will no doubt whip in herds of cyclists with no idea of
what is involved to support them.

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

One of the reasons the uk.hierarchy works quite well is that there is
a modicum of control on group formation and removal. The process is
fairly simple and open. If it becomes controlled by a bunch of rabid
technofreaks with their nadgers squeezed by lycra and rather odd ideas
about who should and who should not be allowed access to Usenet that
situation may not last. It may not be the end of Usenet as we know it
but it certainly won't improve matters.

If they want to start up uk.cyclists-are-saints and moderate it, all
well and good.

They already have, and were helped in doing so. Why they are so
annoyed and throwing their toys out of the cot is a bit of a puzzle.
(They don't consider all cyclists to be saints by the way, apparently
those who wear helmets or obey traffic signs are not real cyclists)

Who gives a ****?

Hopefully, anyone with any interest in Usenet. Elections for the
committee are shortly due to start. I suggest it is worth putting in
a small effort to vote in them. The announcements will be made in
uk.net.news.announce. Discussion will take place in
uk.net.news.management and uk.net.news.config.

"Peter Parry" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 18 Oct 2009 11:02:08 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

For once Steve is making a valid point, albeit not very well. The UK
Usenet committee has successfully overseen group creation in the
UK.hierarchy for a long time. Three or four individuals, one of whom
was previously removed from the votetakers group because he only
wanted to accept votes from technically acceptable people, another
previously failed candidate and two no one has ever heard of and who
have previously shown no interest in the uk.hierarchy have, mainly as
result of getting annoyed about a group they wanted getting created,
decided to wreck the system. (That wasn't a misprint - they really
are annoyed they got what they wanted, or more particularly that it
didn't happen the instant they wanted it, so want to put a spanner in
the works and take over the wreck.)

Wreck the system implies malicious intent. Do you really believe that?

The common factor is they are all combat cyclists, three use a server,
chiark, run by one of them and all appear to be like minded "mates".
They have put themselves forward as candidates for the uk.Usenet
committee and will no doubt whip in herds of cyclists with no idea of
what is involved to support them.

I doubt that very much.

If you could avoid treating cyclists as some alien species, that would be
appreciated. Even Steve Firth is a cyclist, though he denies it.

On Sun, 18 Oct 2009 13:39:10 +0100, Clive George wrote:

"Peter Parry" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 18 Oct 2009 11:02:08 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

For once Steve is making a valid point, albeit not very well. The UK
Usenet committee has successfully overseen group creation in the
UK.hierarchy for a long time. Three or four individuals, one of whom
was previously removed from the votetakers group because he only
wanted to accept votes from technically acceptable people, another
previously failed candidate and two no one has ever heard of and who
have previously shown no interest in the uk.hierarchy have, mainly as
result of getting annoyed about a group they wanted getting created,
decided to wreck the system. (That wasn't a misprint - they really
are annoyed they got what they wanted, or more particularly that it
didn't happen the instant they wanted it, so want to put a spanner in
the works and take over the wreck.)

Wreck the system implies malicious intent. Do you really believe that?

The discussions which have taken place recently in unnm with protagonists
from urc does nothing to dissuade me from that view point.

The common factor is they are all combat cyclists, three use a server,
chiark, run by one of them and all appear to be like minded "mates".
They have put themselves forward as candidates for the uk.Usenet
committee and will no doubt whip in herds of cyclists with no idea of
what is involved to support them.

I doubt that very much.

If you could avoid treating cyclists as some alien species, that would be
appreciated. Even Steve Firth is a cyclist, though he denies it.

It has nothing to do with cyclists per se. It has everything to do with
some extreme polarised views within that community.

--
The Wanderer

The future isn't what it used to be.

Clive George wrote:

"Peter Parry" wrote in message
...
[snip]

(That wasn't a misprint - they really are annoyed they got what they
wanted, or more particularly that it didn't happen the instant they
wanted it, so want to put a spanner in the works and take over the
wreck.)

Wreck the system implies malicious intent. Do you really believe that?

Yes, they are complete and utter nutters.

The common factor is they are all combat cyclists, three use a server,
chiark, run by one of them and all appear to be like minded "mates".
They have put themselves forward as candidates for the uk.Usenet
committee and will no doubt whip in herds of cyclists with no idea of
what is involved to support them.

I doubt that very much.

********, it's exactly what the "powerful triumvirate" are hoping will
happen. They no doubt are counting on around 170 votes from the same
people who voted for urcm.

If you could avoid treating cyclists as some alien species, that would be
appreciated.

If cyclists stopped acting like an aliean species, I'm sure they would
stop beign treated like one.


Even Steve Firth is a cyclist, though he denies it.

No, according to the three people in question, I'm not a cyclist. I'm a
PoB, which is the term of insult they apply to those who aren't
cycling-obsessed. I've never denied owning a bicycle and using it. If I
were in denial then you wouldn't know I owned a bike because I wouldn't
have mentioned the fact that I own one and use it to get to the shops or
potter around the country lanes.

If you're going to accuse people of hysterical reaction and
illogicality, you'd do well to carefully review your own posts.

On Sun, 18 Oct 2009 13:39:10 +0100, "Clive George"
wrote:

"Peter Parry" wrote

Wreck the system implies malicious intent. Do you really believe that?

I believe they are far more concerned about a petty vendetta than
anything else. They will either lose interest in a week or so or
continue their abrasive and abusive approach. Either will be to the
detriment of the uk hierarchy.

The common factor is they are all combat cyclists, three use a server,
chiark, run by one of them and all appear to be like minded "mates".
They have put themselves forward as candidates for the uk.Usenet
committee and will no doubt whip in herds of cyclists with no idea of
what is involved to support them.

I doubt that very much

I doubt if many others will find their efforts particularly
attractive.

If you could avoid treating cyclists as some alien species, that would be
appreciated. Even Steve Firth is a cyclist, though he denies it.

Cyclist do appear to be a sensitive bunch. I'm not treating cyclists
in general as anything. I am treating these particular individuals,
who happen to have a common interest in combative cycling rather than
Usenet, as nitwits on the basis purely of their behaviour in the past
months.

Peter Parry wrote:

For once Steve is making a valid point, albeit not very well.

What do you mean "for once" or do you mean that for once I'm not doing
doing it as well as I usually do?

Anyway I'm always grateful for anyone who thinks they can communicate
the issues better than I can to add their 0.83p worth to get the issues
over to the people who should show some interest in matters. Clive is
proving that for some people sticking together as a clique is more
important than any genuine concern for the good administration of uk
usenet.

"Steve Firth" wrote in message
. ..
Peter Parry wrote:

For once Steve is making a valid point, albeit not very well.

What do you mean "for once" or do you mean that for once I'm not doing
doing it as well as I usually do?

Anyway I'm always grateful for anyone who thinks they can communicate
the issues better than I can to add their 0.83p worth to get the issues
over to the people who should show some interest in matters. Clive is
proving that for some people sticking together as a clique is more
important than any genuine concern for the good administration of uk
usenet.

Um, I'm not a member of any clique. Y'know how the idiots in eg
uk.rec.driving accuse you and anybody else who temporarily agrees with you
of being in cahoots? That's what you're doing here.

"Steve Firth" wrote in message
. ..
Peter Parry wrote:

For once Steve is making a valid point, albeit not very well.

What do you mean "for once" or do you mean that for once I'm not doing
doing it as well as I usually do?

snip

I know what your response would be to any similarly posted question,
something along the lines of -
"You moron, are you incapable of understanding the written word, come back
when you're educated"

Right?
I think so.
No wonder you get the **** taken.

(Steve Firth) gurgled happily, sounding much like
they were saying:

They attempted recently to create a moderated newsgroup

The vote for which was passed, by a huge margin - 128 votes to 24.

going their own way picking fights with the UK Usenet Committee over
each issue, and made a meal of the job.

Mmm. Strikes me that it was the "antis" who made a big deal of it.

Who - really - cares if there's a moderated cycling group or not?

Why WOULD you want to prevent it?

Don't like the idea? It's simple - don't post to it or read it. Nobody's
taking the unmoderated group away - and let's face it, the unmoderated
cycling group is a mess of trolls, almost as bad as uk.legal - whilst
uk.legal.moderated is a fairly sane and intelligent group.

On 18 Oct 2009 10:20:07 GMT, Adrian wrote:

(Steve Firth) gurgled happily, sounding much like
they were saying:

They attempted recently to create a moderated newsgroup

The vote for which was passed, by a huge margin - 128 votes to 24.

going their own way picking fights with the UK Usenet Committee over
each issue, and made a meal of the job.

Mmm. Strikes me that it was the "antis" who made a big deal of it.

Who - really - cares if there's a moderated cycling group or not?

Why WOULD you want to prevent it?

Don't like the idea? It's simple - don't post to it or read it. Nobody's
taking the unmoderated group away - and let's face it, the unmoderated
cycling group is a mess of trolls, almost as bad as uk.legal - whilst
uk.legal.moderated is a fairly sane and intelligent group.

Too true! Took that group for a while then dumped it. The forums (yACF,
CTC) are much better.
news.software.readers is another crappy group for trolls etc. but at least
can give useful replies to on-topic questions.
--
Peter.
The head of a pin will hold more angels if
it's been flattened with an angel-grinder.

Adrian wrote:


Who - really - cares if there's a moderated cycling group or not?

I don't.

Why WOULD you want to prevent it?

I don't.

What I want to prevent is the UK Usenet Committee being stuffed with
members who have no interest in UK Usenet other than disrupting the
Committee in revenge for having had the newsgroup they wanted created.

That's not a series of typos. The Cyclists got the group they wanted. It
has been created and is being used. In the process the three standing
for election proved themselves to be combative, block headed, unwilling
to compromise and determined to have their own way no matter what or how
difficult they make life for others.

These aren't exactly great qualities for members of the Committee.

(Steve Firth) gurgled happily, sounding much like
they were saying:

Who - really - cares if there's a moderated cycling group or not?

I don't.

Why WOULD you want to prevent it?

I don't.

You're on record as having voted against it...

(Oh, and I'm making no comment whatsoever on the make-up of the committee
or the qualities of any of the nominees, btw.)

Adrian wrote:

(Steve Firth) gurgled happily, sounding much like
they were saying:

Who - really - cares if there's a moderated cycling group or not?

I don't.

Why WOULD you want to prevent it?

I don't.

You're on record as having voted against it...

Indeed, I wasn't voting against the creation of the group though. The
comments I made to the vote taker made that clear. I was voting against
the creation of the group with with the charter as created by the
proponent which ignored the sensible and helpful comment made to him
during the debate preceding the vote.


(Oh, and I'm making no comment whatsoever on the make-up of the committee
or the qualities of any of the nominees, btw.)

I wasn't asking you to.

"Steve Firth" wrote in message
...

The current move by the URC members is an attempted coup to take control
of the committee it's a carefully orchestrated last minute seizure. They
have about 150-180 sheep who will vote them in not because they are good
for the hierarchy as a whole but because they are cyclists.

I'd never normally have you down as a paranoid nutter, but you are being one
here. None of the above is true.

On Oct 18, 10:38*am, (Steve Firth) wrote:
NT wrote:

why dont you tell people how you think this is relevant here

Because uk.d-i-y is part of UK Usenet and falls within the management of
the UK Usenet committee.

You still havent told us what management youre talking about. Regular
users of uk.d-i-y generally don't see any management occurring.

You might not be interested in how UK Usenet is
administered or by whom, but others are.

Lets stick with facts, not veer off into imagination

The hierarchyof newsgroups has
been well managed up to the present day by the UK Usenet Committee, and
it represents the users' interests to ISPs and to organisations such as
the Free University of Berlin, Google and even Altopia.

If it represents our interests, in what way? How does it do so if they
have had more or less no communication with us?

The Committee
and Control handle such issues as the creation of new newsgroups, the
political management and interaction with the organisations that provide
the infrastructure that supports UK newsgroups.

Why would their output affect the actions of the owners of the servers
involved?

The current move by the URC members is an attempted coup to take control
of the committee it's a carefully orchestrated last minute seizure. They
have about 150-180 sheep who will vote them in not because they are good
for the hierarchy as a whole but because they are cyclists. Their
credentials for running UK Usenet well are suspect.

In what way do they or could they run or affect this newsgroup?

They attempted
recently to create a moderated newsgroup, going their own way picking
fights with the UK Usenet Committee over each issue, and made a meal of
the job.

If those are the people you want to be represented by, then it's your
choice and you can vote for them. However it's generally better to make
yourself informed about who wants to represent your interests and to
make a decision by voting or by appointing alternative candidates.

facts versus imagination again


That
choice should be made by as much of UK Usenet as possible, not by a
self-appointed clique.


and in another reply to someone else:
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.


Steve, I understand youre trying to make a point regading future
control of uk.d-i-y that you consider important, but you've still not
told people here what effect these people do and might have on uk.d-i-
y, hence why no-one is yet convinced.


NT

On Sun, 18 Oct 2009 04:40:29 -0700 (PDT), NT
wrote:

If it represents our interests, in what way? How does it do so if they
have had more or less no communication with us?

"Interests" in the general sense. The impact upon established groups
is zero unless they wish to do something like introduce moderation.
Their involvement is mostly in formation of new groups and deletion of
unused ones.

In what way do they or could they run or affect this newsgroup?

Directly, not at all. Indirectly they will probably create much
annoyance (it seems to be their specialist subject) and accelerate the
demise of uk newsgroups in general.

Steve, I understand youre trying to make a point regading future
control of uk.d-i-y that you consider important, but you've still not
told people here what effect these people do and might have on uk.d-i-
y, hence why no-one is yet convinced.

In the narrow sense of uk-d-i-y none at all is the answer. However, I
suggest any Usenet user should look a bit beyond their own group and
at least put some effort into voting for the members of the group
responsible for new group creation.

Peter Parry wrote:
On Sun, 18 Oct 2009 04:40:29 -0700 (PDT), NT
wrote:

If it represents our interests, in what way? How does it do so if they
have had more or less no communication with us?

"Interests" in the general sense. The impact upon established groups
is zero unless they wish to do something like introduce moderation.
Their involvement is mostly in formation of new groups and deletion of
unused ones.

In what way do they or could they run or affect this newsgroup?

Directly, not at all. Indirectly they will probably create much
annoyance (it seems to be their specialist subject) and accelerate the
demise of uk newsgroups in general.

Steve, I understand youre trying to make a point regading future
control of uk.d-i-y that you consider important, but you've still not
told people here what effect these people do and might have on uk.d-i-
y, hence why no-one is yet convinced.

In the narrow sense of uk-d-i-y none at all is the answer. However, I
suggest any Usenet user should look a bit beyond their own group and
at least put some effort into voting for the members of the group
responsible for new group creation.

Why? I safely ignore almost all of the uk.* hierarchy, because -, are
narrow parochial bunches of nutters spam and general flapdoodle.

If the inmates have taken over the asylum, I personally don't really care.

I'm only visitung to discuss DIY.

NT wrote:

Steve, I understand youre trying to make a point regading future
control of uk.d-i-y that you consider important, but you've still not
told people here what effect these people do and might have on uk.d-i-
y, hence why no-one is yet convinced.

I thought I'd explained it carefully, you just seem to be looking to
pick an argument. It's not about the direct control of uk.d-i-y, it's
about the control of UK Usenet as a whole and uk.d-i-y is part of that.
I realise that as a member of the meow group of twits you don't actually
care much for newsgroups or how they are run, but some people do. I'm
really not addressing you personally since you align yourself with a
group that wants to wreck individuals' quiet enjoyment of Usenet.

Steve Firth wrote:
NT wrote:

Steve, I understand youre trying to make a point regading future
control of uk.d-i-y that you consider important, but you've still not
told people here what effect these people do and might have on uk.d-i-
y, hence why no-one is yet convinced.

I thought I'd explained it carefully, you just seem to be looking to
pick an argument. It's not about the direct control of uk.d-i-y, it's
about the control of UK Usenet as a whole and uk.d-i-y is part of that.
I realise that as a member of the meow group of twits you don't actually
care much for newsgroups or how they are run, but some people do. I'm
really not addressing you personally since you align yourself with a
group that wants to wreck individuals' quiet enjoyment of Usenet.

So Steve, just what does 'control of UK usenet mean?

nothing.

At the worst a bunch of silly low traffic parochial incestious groups
that no one will read gets created.

So, start your own hierachy. BritainAgainstCyclists.misc etc etc.

On Oct 18, 1:34*pm, (Steve Firth) wrote:
NT wrote:

Steve, I understand youre trying to make a point regading future
control of uk.d-i-y that you consider important, but you've still not
told people here what effect these people do and might have on uk.d-i-
y, hence why no-one is yet convinced.

I thought I'd explained it carefully,

clearly not, as several people told you. Others since have


you just seem to be looking to
pick an argument. It's not about the direct control of uk.d-i-y, it's
about the control of UK Usenet as a whole and uk.d-i-y is part of that.
I realise that as a member of the meow group of twits you don't actually
care much for newsgroups or how they are run, but some people do. I'm
really not addressing you personally since you align yourself with a
group that wants to wreck individuals' quiet enjoyment of Usenet.

such responses are one reason why youre regarded as a nut.


NT