"Art Finkelstein" wrote in message
...
"Vito Kuhn" wrote in
:

rec.woodworking.moderated Woodworking discussion group for all
ages. (Moderated)

This is a formal Request For Discussion (RFD) for the creation of
a world-wide moderated Usenet newsgroup rec.woodworking.moderated.
This is not a Call for Votes (CFV); you cannot vote at this time.
Procedural details are below.

RATIONALE: rec.woodworking.moderated

This group is proposed as a moderated global forum for the discussion
of woodworking topics. The group is a moderated subgroup of
rec.woodworking (The Wreck, as it is commonly referred to by
subscribers), which is averaging more than 10,000 posts per month
in 2004.

Reasons for creating a moderated version of rec.woodworking:

1-To ensure that woodworking remains the only topic of discussion

2-To help divide the traffic of busy newsgroup that is very difficult
to keep up with

3-To provide a family-safe environment to discuss woodworking topics,
free of foul language and pornography links

4-To offer woodworkers a higher signal to noise ratio than
rec.woodworking provides

There are too many political debates, flaming wars, personal life
story exchanges, personal insults, for-sale signs, Ebay links, and
endless other forms of non-woodworking posts in rec.woodworking by
many people's standards. This new moderated group will give
woodworkers the option of subscribing to a group that is free of those
problems.

If you love The Wreck, but are tired of all the drivel, The Soft
Wreck will soon be here!

Has anyone seen this yet? I just checked the UVV site, and it is a REAL
proposal.

See: http://www.uvv.org/cgi-bin/daily_status

I'm an occasional reader here, but I'm not sure if I'd be interested in
reading a mod version of this NG.

This is probably the most orderly NG I visit.

Yeah. A totally sterile with out compassion and with out personality news
group.
Naw, I'll pass.

If the man wants to start his own group, that's cool. It will have no effect
on what goes on in this group.

Bob

"Art Finkelstein" wrote in message
...
"Vito Kuhn" wrote in
:

rec.woodworking.moderated Woodworking discussion group for all
ages. (Moderated)

This is a formal Request For Discussion (RFD) for the creation of
a world-wide moderated Usenet newsgroup rec.woodworking.moderated.
This is not a Call for Votes (CFV); you cannot vote at this time.
Procedural details are below.

RATIONALE: rec.woodworking.moderated

This group is proposed as a moderated global forum for the discussion
of woodworking topics. The group is a moderated subgroup of
rec.woodworking (The Wreck, as it is commonly referred to by
subscribers), which is averaging more than 10,000 posts per month
in 2004.

Reasons for creating a moderated version of rec.woodworking:

1-To ensure that woodworking remains the only topic of discussion

2-To help divide the traffic of busy newsgroup that is very difficult
to keep up with

3-To provide a family-safe environment to discuss woodworking topics,
free of foul language and pornography links

4-To offer woodworkers a higher signal to noise ratio than
rec.woodworking provides

There are too many political debates, flaming wars, personal life
story exchanges, personal insults, for-sale signs, Ebay links, and
endless other forms of non-woodworking posts in rec.woodworking by
many people's standards. This new moderated group will give
woodworkers the option of subscribing to a group that is free of those
problems.

If you love The Wreck, but are tired of all the drivel, The Soft
Wreck will soon be here!

Has anyone seen this yet? I just checked the UVV site, and it is a REAL
proposal.

See: http://www.uvv.org/cgi-bin/daily_status

I'm an occasional reader here, but I'm not sure if I'd be interested in
reading a mod version of this NG.

Bob Schmall states:

If the man wants to start his own group, that's cool. It will have no effect
on what goes on in this group.

That's true, but why does he use this group as his 'founding'
excuse/alibi/rationale?

You'd think that if things here bothered him as much as his proposal says, he'd
have popped up somewhere complaining about them. The only reference I could
find was his application for a new group.

Sort of like the '60s, "What If They Gave A War And Nobody Came?"


Charlie Self
"Men stumble over the truth from time to time, but most pick themselves up and
hurry off as if nothing happened." Sir Winston Churchill

"Charlie Self" wrote in message
...
Bob Schmall states:

If the man wants to start his own group, that's cool. It will have no
effect
on what goes on in this group.

That's true, but why does he use this group as his 'founding'
excuse/alibi/rationale?

Who cares?

Sort of like the '60s, "What If They Gave A War And Nobody Came?"


Charlie Self
"Men stumble over the truth from time to time, but most pick themselves up
and
hurry off as if nothing happened." Sir Winston Churchill

Bob
Alfred North Whitehead: There are no whole truths; all truths are half
truths. It is trying to treat them as whole truths that plays the devil.

"Charlie Self" wrote in message
...

Sort of like the '60s, "What If They Gave A War And Nobody Came?"


Well, not quite nobody. This could be a place where he and Cody Hart will
have their own world free of slanderous remarks

On Sun, 12 Sep 2004 03:07:52 GMT, "Frank Ketchum"
wrote:


"Charlie Self" wrote in message
...

Sort of like the '60s, "What If They Gave A War And Nobody Came?"


Well, not quite nobody. This could be a place where he and Cody Hart will
have their own world free of slanderous remarks

Maybe Cody Hart is one of the proposed moderators...in drag?

- -
LRod

Master Woodbutcher and seasoned termite

Shamelessly whoring my website since 1999

http://www.woodbutcher.net

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..

--
Greg


"LRod" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 12 Sep 2004 03:07:52 GMT, "Frank Ketchum"
wrote:


"Charlie Self" wrote in message
...

Sort of like the '60s, "What If They Gave A War And Nobody Came?"


Well, not quite nobody. This could be a place where he and Cody Hart will
have their own world free of slanderous remarks

Maybe Cody Hart is one of the proposed moderators...in drag?

- -
LRod

Master Woodbutcher and seasoned termite

Shamelessly whoring my website since 1999

http://www.woodbutcher.net

In article , Art Finkelstein
wrote:

Has anyone seen this yet? I just checked the UVV site, and it is a REAL
proposal.

See: http://www.uvv.org/cgi-bin/daily_status

I'm an occasional reader here, but I'm not sure if I'd be interested in
reading a mod version of this NG.

Right now it's just at the discussion stage. If it actually moves to
the CFV (Call For Votes) stage I'll be surprised.

But it will have little effect on this news group, regardless of the
outcome.

djb

I'm an occasional reader here, but I'm not sure if I'd be interested in
reading a mod version of this NG.

This off-topic thread wouldn't exist on a moderated newsgroup.

"mp" wrote in message
...
I'm an occasional reader here, but I'm not sure if I'd be interested in
reading a mod version of this NG.

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.

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.

"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

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.

Me personally, I don't want the Wreck taken over by a net nanny. If I
want to post something OT, I'll put it in the header. Even OT
discussions are (sometimes) of value. Porn links, flame wars and
political discussions are easily ignored.

Art Finkelstein wrote:
Bandwidth reducing snippage

If you love The Wreck, but are tired of all the drivel, The Soft
Wreck will soon be here!


Has anyone seen this yet? I just checked the UVV site, and it is a REAL
proposal.

See: http://www.uvv.org/cgi-bin/daily_status

I'm an occasional reader here, but I'm not sure if I'd be interested in
reading a mod version of this NG.

In article , Mark L.
wrote:

Me personally, I don't want the Wreck taken over by a net nanny. If I
want to post something OT, I'll put it in the header. Even OT
discussions are (sometimes) of value. Porn links, flame wars and
political discussions are easily ignored.

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.

djb

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 ?



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN


http://www.mortimerschnerd.com

Mortimer Schnerd asks:

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 ?


Why would they? Go to a moderated NG, but one moderated by two people no one
has ever heard of, with rationales that may or may not suit. I think not. Even
the people who don't like much of what goes on here, from OT to porn, are
willing to learn to filter one and live with the other.

Charlie Self
"Men stumble over the truth from time to time, but most pick themselves up and
hurry off as if nothing happened." Sir Winston Churchill

In article , Mortimer
Schnerd, RN wrote:

Has a single person here said they would migrate ?

That's not relevant to the *process* of creating a new newsgroup in the
"big 8" hierarchy (which includes rec.*)

It doesn't matter if anyone who frequents this newsgroup supports the
proposed new group or not.

On Sat, 11 Sep 2004 20:29:50 -0600, Dave Balderstone
wrote:

In article , Mortimer
Schnerd, RN wrote:

Has a single person here said they would migrate ?

That's not relevant to the *process* of creating a new newsgroup in the
"big 8" hierarchy (which includes rec.*)


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?


It doesn't matter if anyone who frequents this newsgroup supports the
proposed new group or not.

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.

I doubt the new one is going to be successful. Generally speaking, there would
have to be a need for the change, and nobody here has seen one. Is there a
group of folks out there so horrified by our present group that they refuse to
participate with us and would only go to a moderated newsgroup?



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN


http://www.mortimerschnerd.com

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!
--------------------------------------------------------

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

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

"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

My misunderstanding, I thought someone was trying to change us to a
moderated group..... Thanks anyway, I like it here. Mark L.

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.

djb

In article , Mark L.
wrote:

I thought someone was trying to change us to a
moderated group...

Changing an unmoderated group to a moderated group is, as far I
understand the process, very difficult, if not impossible.

Dave Balderstone wrote in
tone.ca:

In article , Mark L.
wrote:

I thought someone was trying to change us to a
moderated group...

Changing an unmoderated group to a moderated group is, as far I
understand the process, very difficult, if not impossible.

There is currently a moratorium in place that prevents the NAN team from
accepting proposals to change groups from unmoderated to moderated status.
This is a temporary ban that was put into place in order to discourange
newsgroup hijacking attempts by self-appointed moderators.

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.


--
Bill

So who votes?

Dave Balderstone wrote:
In article , Mark L.
wrote:


Me personally, I don't want the Wreck taken over by a net nanny. If I
want to post something OT, I'll put it in the header. Even OT
discussions are (sometimes) of value. Porn links, flame wars and
political discussions are easily ignored.


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.

djb

"Mark L." wrote in
:

So who votes?

Generally, those interested in reading the group should vote "yes". If you
are not planning to use the group, the right thing is to either not vote,
or to write "abstain" on the ballot. If you want a moderated woodworking
group, but feel that the proponent has not fixed any major technical
problems in the proposal, you should vote "no". You shouldn't vote "no" if
you simply have no interest in a moderated woodworking group. It is
complicated, but any news.groups regular will tell you the same thing. The
CFV is an interest poll..to see if there are enough interested parties to
justify creating the new group.

At the end of the CFV, the names/handles of all voters, with e-mail
addresses (munged) and whether they voted "yes", "no", or "abstain" will be
published and posted to all newsgroups on the distribution list. The
results will be posted right here in the wreck.

--
Bill

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?
--

Phillip Hansen
Skil-Phil Solutions

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.

Art ~

I'm with you 100%. I would like to point out that rec.crafts.woodturning
is unmoderated and just about all the posts relate to the use of the
lathe, with very few of the inane topics that appear in this ng.

Perhaps it is because woodturning is more of an art than "flat
woodworking" and a somewhat higher class of people are attracted to it.

Peace ~ Sir Edgar
=F8=F8=F8=F8=F8=F8=F8=F8=F8=F8=F8=F8=F8=F8=F8=F8=F 8=F8=F8=F8=F8=F8=F8=F8=F8=
=F8=F8=F8=F8=F8=F8=F8=F8=F8=F8=F8=F8=F8

In article , Sir Edgar wrote:
Art ~

I'm with you 100%. I would like to point out that rec.crafts.woodturning
is unmoderated and just about all the posts relate to the use of the
lathe, with very few of the inane topics that appear in this ng.

Perhaps it is because woodturning is more of an art than "flat
woodworking" and a somewhat higher class of people are attracted to it.

Nah. They're just trying to recapture their early childhood experiences
with the teacher's pencil sharpener. Oooooow! Neat... the wood just
turns into shavings..

"Sir Edgar" wrote in message
Perhaps it is because woodturning is more of an art than "flat
woodworking" and a somewhat higher class of people are attracted to it.

Peace ~ Sir Edgar
øøøøøøøøøøøøøøøøøøøøøøøøøøøøøøøøøøøøøø

Those of us that don't do turning are therefore low class? Hey Edgar, drop
the Sir. You are too full of yourself.

A pretty high attitude from a webtv user....

Edwin Pawlowski wrote:
"Sir Edgar" wrote in message
Perhaps it is because woodturning is more of an art than "flat
woodworking" and a somewhat higher class of people are attracted to it.

Peace ~ Sir Edgar
øøøøøøøøøøøøøøøøøøøøøøøøøøøøøøøøøøøøøø

Those of us that don't do turning are therefore low class? Hey Edgar, drop
the Sir. You are too full of yourself.

"Sir Edgar" wrote in message
...
Art ~

I'm with you 100%. I would like to point out that rec.crafts.woodturning
is unmoderated and just about all the posts relate to the use of the
lathe, with very few of the inane topics that appear in this ng.

Perhaps it is because woodturning is more of an art than "flat
woodworking" and a somewhat higher class of people are attracted to it.

Peace ~ Sir Edgar

Mister Ed:
Or perhaps the turning group is so small that it attracts a less than
critical mass of opinions.
You've drifted into rec.woodworking with these simplistic opinions before.
Has anyone kept you from expressing them? No? That's our strength here- a
free exchange of ideas.

Bob

øøøøøøøøøøøøøøøøøøøøøøøøøøøøøøøøøøøøøø

On Sun, 12 Sep 2004 15:57:08 GMT, "Bob Schmall"
wrote:

You've drifted into rec.woodworking with these simplistic opinions before.
Has anyone kept you from expressing them? No? That's our strength here- a
free exchange of ideas.

Absolutely true. However, the weakness is the added content of "I
wanna start doing stuff with wood. Should I buy a table saw or a
hammer?", and a clear predominance of *way* off-topic garbage
discussions, all of which require an IQ somewhere around 30 [being
generous] and zero wood skills.

Bill.

"Bob Schmall" wrote in message

"Sir Edgar" wrote in message


Perhaps it is because woodturning is more of an art than "flat
woodworking" and a somewhat higher class of people are attracted to it.

Peace ~ Sir Edgar

Mister Ed:
Or perhaps the turning group is so small that it attracts a less than
critical mass of opinions.

That is exacty right. It has nothing to do with turners being of a higher
class and flat workers being of a lower class.


You've drifted into rec.woodworking with these simplistic opinions before.
Has anyone kept you from expressing them? No? That's our strength here- a
free exchange of ideas.

Bob

I agree, but I've never considered anyone here to be lower or higher class
than anyone else. That, Mr. Bob, would be an insult to everyone here. Is
turning an art? Probably, but it does not mean the artist is lower or
higher class than anyone that is not.
Ed

"Edwin Pawlowski" wrote in message
. ..

"Bob Schmall" wrote in message

"Sir Edgar" wrote in message


Perhaps it is because woodturning is more of an art than "flat
woodworking" and a somewhat higher class of people are attracted to it.

Peace ~ Sir Edgar

Mister Ed:
Or perhaps the turning group is so small that it attracts a less than
critical mass of opinions.

That is exacty right. It has nothing to do with turners being of a higher
class and flat workers being of a lower class.


You've drifted into rec.woodworking with these simplistic opinions
before. Has anyone kept you from expressing them? No? That's our strength
here- a free exchange of ideas.

Bob

I agree, but I've never considered anyone here to be lower or higher class
than anyone else. That, Mr. Bob, would be an insult to everyone here. Is
turning an art? Probably, but it does not mean the artist is lower or
higher class than anyone that is not.
Ed

Ed:
The "Mr. Ed" was a reference to the OP, not to you.
As for artistic sensibilities, I'll nominate Tom Watson and Mike Hide
against anyone the turners care to offer.

Bob.