| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
 |
|
Menu
| Woodworking (rec.woodworking) Discussion forum covering all aspects of working with wood. All levels of expertise are encouraged to particiapte. |
| Reply |
|
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
|
| Woodworking (rec.woodworking) Discussion forum covering all aspects of working with wood. All levels of expertise are encouraged to particiapte. |
| Reply |
|
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#41
|
|||
|
|||
On 12 Sep 2004 03:08:07 GMT, Woodchuck Bill wrote:
Mark & Juanita wrote in : It's been a while, what is the criteria for moving from the request for comment to call for vote? Also, what is the required number of votes for new group creation to pass? The proponent may call the vote any time after the minimum 21-day discussion period. If there are technical problems with the proposal, one or more RFDs might be submitted by the proponent before he/she requests the CFV (Call For Votes). However, this is entirely up to the proponent. If the proponent answers most of the questions in the RFD, he/she is not required to change anything. It does increase the chance of passing the group if at least a second RFD is done, though it is not required. RFDs after the first one have a minimum 10-day discussion period. .... snip Thanks, as I said, it's been a number of years since I've had any exposure to the process at all. |
|
#42
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article ,
Woodchuck Bill wrote: Mark & Juanita wrote in : It's been a while, what is the criteria for moving from the request for comment to call for vote? Also, what is the required number of votes for new group creation to pass? The proponent may call the vote any time after the minimum 21-day discussion period. If there are technical problems with the proposal, one or more RFDs might be submitted by the proponent before he/she requests the CFV (Call For Votes). However, this is entirely up to the proponent. If the proponent answers most of the questions in the RFD, he/she is not required to change anything. It does increase the chance of passing the group if at least a second RFD is done, though it is not required. RFDs after the first one have a minimum 10-day discussion period. The voting period lasts 21 days. In order for a group to pass, two things must happen: 1. The "yes" votes must outnumber the "no" votes by at least 100. 2. There must be at least 2 "yes" votes for every "no" vote NOT QUITE CORRECT -- the 'yes' votes must be at least 2/3 of the _total_ votes cast. Allowed votes are 'yes', 'no', and 'abstain'. e.g.: 200 'yes' votes, 10 'no' votes, and 100 'abstain' votes, and the proposal _fails_. |
|
#43
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#44
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article ,
Mark L. wrote: Dave Balderstone wrote: The RFD has nothing to do with converting this group to a moderated one. It's to discuss creating a new, moderated newsgroup. If it moves past the RFD to a CFV, and the vote passes, then there will be rec.woodworking and rec.woodworking.moderated as separate and distinct newsgroups. So who votes? Answer: Anybody that wants to. The straw poll is really nothing more than a 'popularity contest'. It is simply an attempt to judge _if_ there is enough 'popular support' for the idea to justify the effort and the expenditure of resources on the part of those who run news-servers. If you think the group would serve a useful purpose, you're encouraged to vote 'yes'. If you feel the proposal is 'flawed' -- subject matter restrictions, location in the hierarchy issues, disapprove of the proposed moderators, questionable moderator credentials, lack of procedure for removing/replacing an objectionable moderator, lack of provision for replacing an _inactive_ moderator, etc., etc. then by all means, vote 'no'. If you don't see any 'fatal flaws' in the proposal, but _do_ regard the proposed new newsgroup as simply a 'waste of space', cast an 'abstain' vote. |
|
#45
|
|||
|
|||
|
"mp" wrote in message ... This off-topic thread wouldn't exist on a moderated newsgroup. Any thread that pertains to this particular newsgroup as a whole is on topic. What I meant to say is that this thread would be off topic in the proposed moderated group. Understood, but it might be on topic there since it does deal with the creation of a new group on the same topic. Bob |
|
#46
|
|||
|
|||
|
Mark & Juanita wrote:
Interesting, looking at the pictures, looks like someone and his secretary proposing this. For somebody who says that they are against "drivel" they don't seem to have a problem with hijacking my browser to a different site when I load their page. Dave in Fairfax -- Dave Leader reply-to doesn't work use: daveldr at att dot net American Association of Woodturners http://www.woodturner.org Capital Area Woodturners http://www.capwoodturners.org/ |
|
#47
|
|||
|
|||
|
dave in Fairfax wrote in
: For somebody who says that they are against "drivel" they don't seem to have a problem with hijacking my browser to a different site when I load their page. I think that is a pop-up by the free hosting provider. There is nothing in the HTML source to indicate that Vito or Susan are responsible for the pop- up. They would be better off looking for a web host with no forced advertising. -- Bill |
|
#48
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article , Woodchuck Bill
wrote: I think that is a pop-up by the free hosting provider. Must be, as I didn't see it when checking out their site. My browser blocks popups. djb |
|
#49
|
|||
|
|||
|
Dave Balderstone wrote in
tone.ca: In article , Woodchuck Bill wrote: I think that is a pop-up by the free hosting provider. Must be, as I didn't see it when checking out their site. My browser blocks popups. djb Dave, please don't misread my position. Speaking as both a part-time wrecker and a news.groups regular, I'm trying to stay as objective as possible until I see a final proposal. Since I would never read a moderated group, I am certain that there will not be a "yes" vote with my name on it for the soft wreck. Depending on how the proponent handles the second RFD (if he does the right thing) will be tie-breaker as to whether I vote "abstain" or "no". There could be one benefit of passing this group..the prudes and nannies would have another woodworking group to use. Remember BAD's attempted (but unsuccessful) little smear campaign against Charlie for using a "bad word"? That was pathetic. It might be better to isolate sensitive little girls like that from the men. Who knows! Like someone around here says..It will all be over someday! -- Bill |
|
#50
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article , Woodchuck Bill
wrote: Dave, please don't misread my position. Speaking as both a part-time wrecker and a news.groups regular, I'm trying to stay as objective as possible until I see a final proposal. Since I would never read a moderated group, I am certain that there will not be a "yes" vote with my name on it for the soft wreck. Depending on how the proponent handles the second RFD (if he does the right thing) will be tie-breaker as to whether I vote "abstain" or "no". I don't think I'm misreading you, and I recognize and appreciate your efforts to stay objective. I'm looking forward to a second RFD also. There could be one benefit of passing this group..the prudes and nannies would have another woodworking group to use. Remember BAD's attempted (but unsuccessful) little smear campaign against Charlie for using a "bad word"? That was pathetic. It might be better to isolate sensitive little girls like that from the men. Who knows! Like someone around here says..It will all be over someday! I started out adamantly opposed to the creation of a moderated woodwrecking group, but after all the discussion over the past 5 days, have softened somewhat. Like you, I can't see voting "yes". If the proponents of the new group address the concerns I have regarding moderation, however, I'm thinking they can avoid a "no" vote with my name on it. I'm still undecided as to whether I'd vote "abstain" or not, although it remains a strong possibility. Also like you, I can see a side benefit to the creation of the moderated group in that a reply of "If you don't like it here, go to rec.woodworking.moderated" would be an effective way to get rid of the whiners. The only problem with the proposal at this point, objectively, is the reliability of the moderators. I don't believe they will be able to effectively address that (my opinion only) and as a result believe the proposal will fail. But if it fails, it should fail on merit and nothing else. No matter what happens, rec.woodworking will not be affected by this proposal. |
|
#51
|
|||
|
|||
|
Dave Balderstone wrote in
tone.ca: But if it fails, it should fail on merit and nothing else. No matter what happens, rec.woodworking will not be affected by this proposal. Agreed. Long live the wreck! -- Bill |
|
#52
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Sun, 12 Sep 2004 00:30:00 GMT, "Mortimer Schnerd, RN"
calmly ranted: Dave Balderstone wrote: If it moves past the RFD to a CFV, and the vote passes, then there will be rec.woodworking and rec.woodworking.moderated as separate and distinct newsgroups. Has a single person here said they would migrate ? Who _cares_? If some people don't like the Wreck and want a different group, let them create it. Why is everyone so against this new group, anyway? If they don't like it, they won't even freakin' BE there. It's not like it would be taking anything away from the Wreck, and anyone could visit both forums if they chose to do so. What's the problem? Whadda buncha maroons. ------------------------------------------------------- Have you read the new book "What Would Machiavelli Do?" ---------------------------- http://diversify.com Dynamic, Interactive Websites! -------------------------------------------------------- |
|
#53
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article , Larry Jaques
wrote: Who _cares_? If some people don't like the Wreck and want a different group, let them create it. Why is everyone so against this new group, anyway? If they don't like it, they won't even freakin' BE there. It's not like it would be taking anything away from the Wreck, and anyone could visit both forums if they chose to do so. What's the problem? Perzactly. Let the proposal pass or fail on its merits. It ain't gonna change anything here on the wreck except perhaps reduce the number of complaints. djb |
|
#54
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Sun, 12 Sep 2004 19:36:48 -0700, Larry Jaques
wrote: Who _cares_? If some people don't like the Wreck and want a different group, let them create it. Why is everyone so against this new group, anyway? If they don't like it, they won't even freakin' BE there. It's not like it would be taking anything away from the Wreck, and anyone could visit both forums if they chose to do so. What's the problem? Whadda buncha maroons. ------------------------------------------------------- Have you read the new book "What Would Machiavelli Do?" ---------------------------- http://diversify.com Dynamic, Interactive Websites! -------------------------------------------------------- Agreed. I was strongly considering an "abstain" but after reading Robert Bonomi's addendum/correction to the explanation of what is required to pass the proposal, I'll abstain from abstaining and just ignore the entire thing. No need for my "abstention" to require two additional "Yes" votes to pass something I don't care about, either way, anyway. If they, whoever "they" might be, want to create another group, separate and independent of the Wreck, who am I, as a completely disinterested party, to say "No". From that point of view,seems like 'twould be best for me to just ignore the whole shenanigan. Unless of course, I've missed some ramification of the process and need to be educated on the same. But, on the other hand, a "Yes" might help those with chronic underwear waditis find some relief. Has anyone made a study of what percentage of OT posts/threads are posts/threads whining about OT posts/threads? Tom Veatch Wichita, KS USA |
|
#55
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Larry Jaques" wrote in message ... On Sun, 12 Sep 2004 00:30:00 GMT, "Mortimer Schnerd, RN" calmly ranted: Dave Balderstone wrote: If it moves past the RFD to a CFV, and the vote passes, then there will be rec.woodworking and rec.woodworking.moderated as separate and distinct newsgroups. Has a single person here said they would migrate ? Who _cares_? If some people don't like the Wreck and want a different group, let them create it. Why is everyone so against this new group, anyway? If they don't like it, they won't even freakin' BE there. It's not like it would be taking anything away from the Wreck, and anyone could visit both forums if they chose to do so. What's the problem? Whadda buncha maroons. Hey, I'm baby blue. But thanks for the thoughts anyway, Lar. You're dead on with the "who cares"--another ww'ing group is no different than a sewing newsgroup to wreckers. If they're interested they'll check it out, if not, so what? Bob |
|
#56
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article ,
B a r r y wrote: On Sun, 12 Sep 2004 20:33:14 +0000, (Robert Bonomi) wrote: NOT QUITE CORRECT -- the 'yes' votes must be at least 2/3 of the _total_ votes cast. Allowed votes are 'yes', 'no', and 'abstain'. e.g.: 200 'yes' votes, 10 'no' votes, and 100 'abstain' votes, and the proposal _fails_. Robert, If the moderated 'wreck succeeds, the unmoderated version remains, correct? Correct. If so, those of us who could care less about a moderated version need not follow the goings on? I'm trying to properly understand this. There is the question of if you think it might bleed off some of the good discussion in the unmoderated group, and whether or not that might be a 'bad thing'. |
|
#57
|
|||
|
|||
|
What I meant to say is that this thread would be off topic in the
proposed moderated group. Understood, but it might be on topic there since it does deal with the creation of a new group on the same topic. I guess that would depend on the open-mindedness of the secret, un-named moderators. |
|
#58
|
|||
|
|||
|
just an observation from there site, they give no qualifications or
experience in woodworking, no pictures of projects they've made, or how long they have been doing it etc. also nether of them really strike me as wood workers, I could be wrong but the pics are of two people sitting in front of computers, one in a wheelchair, don't get me wrong people with disabilities are capable woodworkers, the greatest bird house I have ever seen was made by a man in his 70's the was completely blind, so far nothing about them makes me believe there woodworkers, but if they want to be net nanny's and have the own little group good for them! it's what America is all about! Woodchuck Bill wrote: "Greg Millen" wrote in : Do you guys remember a troll threatening to do exactly this, not so long ago? It's not worth a response really, if it had been someone who was serious about it, they'd be answering some of the comments.. The proponent has been actively participating in the news.groups discussion about the proposal..at least recently. He seems to be pretty serious. After all, he did created a website for the proposed newsgroup. He posted it this morning.. http://softwreck.piranho.com |
|
#59
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article rs.com,
Robert Bonomi wrote: In article , Woodchuck Bill wrote: Mark & Juanita wrote in m: It's been a while, what is the criteria for moving from the request for comment to call for vote? Also, what is the required number of votes for new group creation to pass? The proponent may call the vote any time after the minimum 21-day discussion period. If there are technical problems with the proposal, one or more RFDs might be submitted by the proponent before he/she requests the CFV (Call For Votes). However, this is entirely up to the proponent. If the proponent answers most of the questions in the RFD, he/she is not required to change anything. It does increase the chance of passing the group if at least a second RFD is done, though it is not required. RFDs after the first one have a minimum 10-day discussion period. The voting period lasts 21 days. In order for a group to pass, two things must happen: 1. The "yes" votes must outnumber the "no" votes by at least 100. 2. There must be at least 2 "yes" votes for every "no" vote NOT QUITE CORRECT -- the 'yes' votes must be at least 2/3 of the _total_ votes cast. Allowed votes are 'yes', 'no', and 'abstain'. e.g.: 200 'yes' votes, 10 'no' votes, and 100 'abstain' votes, and the proposal _fails_. *sigh* Procedures have _changed_ since I was last involved in a newgroup proposal. Bill had it right. I'm wrong. Current rule _is_ 2 yes votes for every no vote. 'abstain' votes do _not_ figure into it. The *only* current use for an 'abstain' vote is to 'cancel out' your prior 'yes' or 'no', when you do _not_ want to cast the vote for the 'other side' of the proposition. There is currently utterly _no_ point in casting an -initial- 'abstain' vote. The only use for 'abstain' is if you change your mind _during_ the voting period -- from a vote on either side of the issue to 'no opinion'/'un-decided'. |
|
#60
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Mortimer Schnerd, RN" wrote in
om: Dave Balderstone wrote: It doesn't matter if anyone who frequents this newsgroup supports the proposed new group or not. I understand that. There are hundreds of newsgroups out there with similar sounding names but no posters. They sit empty, devoid of any content other than that of spammers who shotgun the system. That is of concern to those who administer the newsgroups. To that end, it does matter if anyone supports the proposed newsgroup to the extent that the administrators won't create it if it appears likely to become another empty group. John |
|
#61
|
|||
|
|||
|
Woodchuck Bill wrote in
: However, it is still possible to change a moderated group to an unmoderated group, through the same RFD/CFV process as in creating a new group. Note that this is truer in theory than it is in practice. The result of trying this would be to have the group appear as moderated in some places and unmoderated in others (and, most likely, posts made on servers that think the group is moderated would totally disappear). John |
|
#62
|
|||
|
|||
|
Phil Hansen wrote in
: In article , says... Thanks for the explanaition. If creating a new group requires all these steps why are there so many wank.wank.bigger******.he.is.a.****** groups? Those are mostly in alt.* At one time, most servers would automatically create new groups in alt for anyone, which of course led the socially deprived to abuse the process eventually. Now you won't find a properly administered server configured that way. John |
|
#63
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Mon, 13 Sep 2004 14:08:23 GMT, "Bob Schmall"
calmly ranted: "Larry Jaques" wrote in message .. . On Sun, 12 Sep 2004 00:30:00 GMT, "Mortimer Schnerd, RN" calmly ranted: Dave Balderstone wrote: If it moves past the RFD to a CFV, and the vote passes, then there will be rec.woodworking and rec.woodworking.moderated as separate and distinct newsgroups. Has a single person here said they would migrate ? Who _cares_? If some people don't like the Wreck and want a different group, let them create it. Why is everyone so against this new group, anyway? If they don't like it, they won't even freakin' BE there. It's not like it would be taking anything away from the Wreck, and anyone could visit both forums if they chose to do so. What's the problem? Whadda buncha maroons. Hey, I'm baby blue. I TOLD you not to hold your breath for that bow saur of mine. Breathe, will ya? But thanks for the thoughts anyway, Lar. You're dead on with the "who cares"--another ww'ing group is no different than a sewing newsgroup to wreckers. If they're interested they'll check it out, if not, so what? I'm still amazed at the arrogant replies to this guy's RFD. After reading some of them, you'd think he had just broken into their house, stolen their car, raped their daughter, and molested their goat or something. Amazing. ------------------------------------------------------- Have you read the new book "What Would Machiavelli Do?" ---------------------------- http://diversify.com Dynamic, Interactive Websites! -------------------------------------------------------- |
|
#64
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Mon, 13 Sep 2004 16:50:32 -0700, Larry Jaques
wrote: I'm still amazed at the arrogant replies to this guy's RFD. After reading some of them, you'd think he had just broken into their house, stolen their car, raped their daughter, and molested their goat or something. Amazing. Your personal amazement aside; is it not interesting that he walked into our house and described it as disorderly and in need of reconfiguration? Is it not interesting that his RFD was posted so as to have responses sent only to the hierarchy, without reference to the Wreck? Is it not interesting that he and his co-moderator are, in essence, unknown to the Wreck? And you would speak of arrogance regarding the response? I say there is no arrogance, on the responding side. I say that the response has been moderate in the extreme. Is it not interesting that he would like to take the appellation, "Wreck" and use it for his own purposes - as though the group had enough substance to appropriate the neologism but had not the merit to continue on its own? "Soft Wreck", give me a ****ing break! If the purported man has the stones to set up his own newsgroup, according to the strictures described - let him do so - I don't mind parallel universes. But, why didn't he choose to call it, "rec.woodworking.moderated", or, and what could have more easily been accomplished, "alt.woodworking.moderated". Why the in your face attempt to co-opt the sobriquet of a newsgroup that has existed, in an increasingly healthy state (according to the participation reports) for an exquisitely long time? At this point in the discussion I usually ask if anyone has been keeping tabs on Dave Eisan. It's a complex, labor intensive troll. And if it isn't - it should be. Regards, Tom. Thomas J.Watson - Cabinetmaker (ret.) tjwatson1ATcomcastDOTnet (real email) http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1 |
|
#66
|
|||
|
|||
|
Tom Watson wrote in
: Is it not interesting that his RFD was posted so as to have responses sent only to the hierarchy, without reference to the Wreck? That was not the proponent's choice. That is the standard format. RFDs are posted to all groups in the distribution list, but the follow-ups are REQUIRED to be set to news.groups only. -- Bill |
|
#67
|
|||
|
|||
|
On 14 Sep 2004 00:31:35 GMT, Woodchuck Bill
wrote: Tom Watson wrote in : Is it not interesting that his RFD was posted so as to have responses sent only to the hierarchy, without reference to the Wreck? That was not the proponent's choice. That is the standard format. RFDs are posted to all groups in the distribution list, but the follow-ups are REQUIRED to be set to news.groups only. When the Rationale is such as to constitute an attack on the general conditions of an existing entity, it would seem simple courtesy, in my view, to post, in parallel, a message that allows personal response. I've little interest in the technical considerations surrounding the establishment of a newsgroup - I am stupefied by the fact that this person, who has so little history with the Wreck, would seek to appropriate its norm de guerre. If what we are is so much anathema to him, why not differentiate his proposed group via nomenclature, rather than seek to borrow that which is not his, by either participation or consanguinity. Regards, Tom. Thomas J.Watson - Cabinetmaker (ret.) tjwatson1ATcomcastDOTnet (real email) http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1 |
|
#68
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#69
|
|||
|
|||
|
Tom Watson wrote in
: I've little interest in the technical considerations surrounding the establishment of a newsgroup - I am stupefied by the fact that this person, who has so little history with the Wreck, would seek to appropriate its norm de guerre. He actually had no choice other than to obey the norm. Proponents submit RFDs by e-mail to the NAN moderator. It is the NAN moderator who posts the RFD, and sets the follow-ups to news.groups. That's another reason why the proponent's name on the RFD's from header says "Vito Kuhn", but his direct posts to the newsgroup say "VK". Like I said, Tom, I haven't made up my mind on this proposal. I know for sure that I will not be voting "yes", because I have no desire to read any moderated group..especially a moderated woodworking group, when we already have a great WW group right here. -- Bill |
|
#70
|
|||
|
|||
|
A little bit off topic but did you just buy a new thesaurus there Tom....?
;^) John Emmons "Tom Watson" wrote in message ... On 14 Sep 2004 00:31:35 GMT, Woodchuck Bill wrote: Tom Watson wrote in : Is it not interesting that his RFD was posted so as to have responses sent only to the hierarchy, without reference to the Wreck? That was not the proponent's choice. That is the standard format. RFDs are posted to all groups in the distribution list, but the follow-ups are REQUIRED to be set to news.groups only. When the Rationale is such as to constitute an attack on the general conditions of an existing entity, it would seem simple courtesy, in my view, to post, in parallel, a message that allows personal response. I've little interest in the technical considerations surrounding the establishment of a newsgroup - I am stupefied by the fact that this person, who has so little history with the Wreck, would seek to appropriate its norm de guerre. If what we are is so much anathema to him, why not differentiate his proposed group via nomenclature, rather than seek to borrow that which is not his, by either participation or consanguinity. Regards, Tom. Thomas J.Watson - Cabinetmaker (ret.) tjwatson1ATcomcastDOTnet (real email) http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1 |
|
#71
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Tue, 14 Sep 2004 01:02:05 GMT, "John Emmons"
wrote: A little bit off topic but did you just buy a new thesaurus there Tom....? ;^) I thought that a "thesaurus' was an extinct species. But then, I thought that "effete" was a franco-pedestrial reference. Regards, Tom. Thomas J.Watson - Cabinetmaker (ret.) tjwatson1ATcomcastDOTnet (real email) http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1 |
|
#72
|
|||
|
|||
|
Tom Watson wrote in
: If what we are is so much anathema to him, why not differentiate his proposed group via nomenclature, rather than seek to borrow that which is not his, by either participation or consanguinity. Tom, my vocabulary is currently not up to par with yours, buddy, but I think I get your point. ;-) -- Bill |
|
#73
|
|||
|
|||
|
On 14 Sep 2004 01:01:58 GMT, Woodchuck Bill
wrote: Tom Watson wrote in : I've little interest in the technical considerations surrounding the establishment of a newsgroup - I am stupefied by the fact that this person, who has so little history with the Wreck, would seek to appropriate its norm de guerre. He actually had no choice other than to obey the norm. Proponents submit RFDs by e-mail to the NAN moderator. It is the NAN moderator who posts the RFD, and sets the follow-ups to news.groups. That's another reason why the proponent's name on the RFD's from header says "Vito Kuhn", but his direct posts to the newsgroup say "VK". Like I said, Tom, I haven't made up my mind on this proposal. I know for sure that I will not be voting "yes", because I have no desire to read any moderated group..especially a moderated woodworking group, when we already have a great WW group right here. It misses the point. Outside of all reference to the vagaries of the system - there is the simple human duty to address the accused directly. Regards, Tom. Thomas J.Watson - Cabinetmaker (ret.) tjwatson1ATcomcastDOTnet (real email) http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1 |
|
#74
|
|||
|
|||
|
On 14 Sep 2004 01:11:31 GMT, Woodchuck Bill
wrote: Tom Watson wrote in : If what we are is so much anathema to him, why not differentiate his proposed group via nomenclature, rather than seek to borrow that which is not his, by either participation or consanguinity. Tom, my vocabulary is currently not up to par with yours, buddy, but I think I get your point. ;-) If he don't like us - why try to take our name? Regards, Tom. Thomas J.Watson - Cabinetmaker (ret.) tjwatson1ATcomcastDOTnet (real email) http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1 |
|
#75
|
|||
|
|||
|
Larry Kraus wrote in
: I also kill any thread that lasts more than 10-12 posts since it will be hopelessly OT by that point. You waited until this thread had 75 posts before you replied. ;-) -- Bill |
|
#76
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article , Larry Kraus
wrote: I'd like to give a moderated woodworking group a try. Nobody is suggesting that his group be abolished, only that another option be made available. Then you should make sure you read the RFP on news.groups and decide whether this specific proposal fits your ideas of what that group should be. I still have several problems with the proposal that have not been addressed byt the proponent/proposed moderator. Until those are answered satisfactorily on *news.groups* I don't see the proposal even going to a vote, never mind passing. If it does go to a vote without answers, I will vote no. If the answers are given, I may or may not vote. |
|
#77
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Mon, 13 Sep 2004 20:14:56 -0400, Tom Watson
calmly ranted: On Mon, 13 Sep 2004 16:50:32 -0700, Larry Jaques wrote: I'm still amazed at the arrogant replies to this guy's RFD. After reading some of them, you'd think he had just broken into their house, stolen their car, raped their daughter, and molested their goat or something. Amazing. Your personal amazement aside; is it not interesting that he walked into our house and described it as disorderly and in need of reconfiguration? Um, don't you even slightly disagree? Besides, he's opening a new halfway house elsewhere and his posting was mandatory here as a reference. Is it not interesting that his RFD was posted so as to have responses sent only to the hierarchy, without reference to the Wreck? Did he set it up wrong? I'm not familiar with the workings. I thought he had throrougly researched it and did things accordingly. Admittedly, I haven't tracked this thing very well at all. It isn't important to me, KWIM,V? Is it not interesting that he and his co-moderator are, in essence, unknown to the Wreck? She's unknown, he's been posting for quite a few months now. Checking on the poster was the first thing I did. And you would speak of arrogance regarding the response? I say there is no arrogance, on the responding side. There's a bit on both side, wot? I say that the response has been moderate in the extreme. You're just too touchy. And having read the Usenet for so long and worked up a nice, thick hide like the rest of us, I find that interesting. Is it not interesting that he would like to take the appellation, "Wreck" and use it for his own purposes - as though the group had enough substance to appropriate the neologism but had not the merit to continue on its own? Granted, 'twas gutsy. "Soft Wreck", give me a ****ing break! Like, gag me with a spoon. If the purported man has the stones to set up his own newsgroup, according to the strictures described - let him do so - I don't mind parallel universes. Ditto. But, why didn't he choose to call it, "rec.woodworking.moderated", or, and what could have more easily been accomplished, "alt.woodworking.moderated". He may know better. Why do people buy similar web domain names? They want the fame of the prior entity without any of the cost. Why the in your face attempt to co-opt the sobriquet of a newsgroup that has existed, in an increasingly healthy state (according to the participation reports) for an exquisitely long time? Increasingly healthy state? You've GOT to be kidding. You were here for most of this year. Tell me it was healthy. Hell, I see less than -half- the posts any more with all the filters I've had to engage to retain(?) my sanity. At this point in the discussion I usually ask if anyone has been keeping tabs on Dave Eisan. No, I think he does panes, not tabs. / 60's humor It's a complex, labor intensive troll. And if it isn't - it should be. ? - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - WARNING! WARNING! Dangerous Mailbox Approaching. Evade! Evade! ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- http://www.diversify.com Your Wild & Woody Website Wonk |
|
#78
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Mon, 13 Sep 2004 21:13:25 -0400, Tom Watson
calmly ranted: On 14 Sep 2004 01:11:31 GMT, Woodchuck Bill wrote: Tom Watson wrote in m: If what we are is so much anathema to him, why not differentiate his proposed group via nomenclature, rather than seek to borrow that which is not his, by either participation or consanguinity. He wants the good stuff without the OT. Is that so strange? Tom, my vocabulary is currently not up to par with yours, buddy, but I think I get your point. ;-) If he don't like us - why try to take our name? You mean it won't be here after he copies it? Oh, woe is us! sniffle, sob, HONK - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - WARNING! WARNING! Dangerous Mailbox Approaching. Evade! Evade! ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- http://www.diversify.com Your Wild & Woody Website Wonk |
|
#80
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article ,
Tom Watson wrote: On Mon, 13 Sep 2004 16:50:32 -0700, Larry Jaques wrote: I'm still amazed at the arrogant replies to this guy's RFD. After reading some of them, you'd think he had just broken into their house, stolen their car, raped their daughter, and molested their goat or something. Amazing. Your personal amazement aside; is it not interesting that he walked into our house and described it as disorderly and in need of reconfiguration? Given the lack of participation _here_, by the proposed moderators, yup. "verrrry interesting", as Arte Johnson used to say. Is it not interesting that his RFD was posted so as to have responses sent only to the hierarchy, without reference to the Wreck? Nope, _not_at_all_. That *is* the *official* way to do it. REQUIRED, in fact. |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| Psychopathology and The Wreck | Woodworking | |||
Linear Mode
