On 4 Oct 2004 22:28:03 GMT, Woodchuck Bill wrote:
Larry Jaques wrote in
news
I'm amazed at the answers
some of these folks are giving in an attempt to justify their
closed-mindedness.

I fully agree. I've read some serious rationalizations here by a few.

Care to say which points you feel fit that category? I'd still like
to hear from the proponents. Where are they?

On 5 Oct 2004 01:19:30 GMT, Woodchuck Bill wrote:
Prometheus wrote in
:

Because the "market" will cause dozens of crossposts a day, and both
groups will have to be gone through to follow a single thread of
interest.

Crossposting to the wreck is explicitly banned by the charter of the
soft wreck, IIRC.

Yes, and it's unmoderated. There's no way to enforce it, just like
there's no way to enforce the "no bad language" rules.

I find it interseting that the examples they gave of "bad language"
in the Wreck were mostly a result of our troll infestation. I
can't help but think that the trolls might be _attracted to_ their
unmoderated nicy-nice group rather than honor their request
to stay away. The people who cause trouble like that look for
easy targets, and respect isn't something they have.

Dave Hinz wrote in news:2sfu52F1k4203U1@uni-
berlin.de:

On 4 Oct 2004 22:28:03 GMT, Woodchuck Bill wrote:
Larry Jaques wrote in
news
I'm amazed at the answers
some of these folks are giving in an attempt to justify their
closed-mindedness.

I fully agree. I've read some serious rationalizations here by a few.

Care to say which points you feel fit that category?

Nothing I remember well enough to quote off the top of my head. I'm not
going to pluck the spool. I suppose I can understand why some people would
be uncomfortable with the proposal, so I'm not going to make a big deal out
of it.

I'd still like
to hear from the proponents. Where are they?

They posted a bit to the thread in news.groups, but I haven't seen them
post here. I suppose it has something to do with Vito being so sensitive.
;-)


--
Bill

On 5 Oct 2004 16:13:24 GMT, Woodchuck Bill wrote:
Dave Hinz wrote in news:2sfu52F1k4203U1@uni-
berlin.de:

I'd still like
to hear from the proponents. Where are they?

They posted a bit to the thread in news.groups, but I haven't seen them
post here. I suppose it has something to do with Vito being so sensitive.

I think that if Vito expects people to support his viewpoint, Vito owes
them his presence and some participation, explaining to them why they
should support him.

Dave Hinz wrote in news:2sfvpaF1k4203U8@uni-
berlin.de:

I think that if Vito expects people to support his viewpoint, Vito owes
them his presence and some participation, explaining to them why they
should support him.


Do you think the proposal is doomed to failure?

--
Bill

On 5 Oct 2004 16:34:48 GMT, Woodchuck Bill wrote:
Dave Hinz wrote in news:2sfvpaF1k4203U8@uni-
berlin.de:

I think that if Vito expects people to support his viewpoint, Vito owes
them his presence and some participation, explaining to them why they
should support him.

Do you think the proposal is doomed to failure?

No, the proposal may pass. But if Vito's lack of concern in explaining
his proposal is any indication, the _group_ is doomed to failure.
He doesn't even care enough to come here and talk about why it's
a good idea, but we're expected to think he'll be more active
after he gets his group?

Dave Hinz wrote in news:2sg4i8F1j9t3fU1@uni-
berlin.de:

No, the proposal may pass. But if Vito's lack of concern in explaining
his proposal is any indication, the _group_ is doomed to failure.
He doesn't even care enough to come here and talk about why it's
a good idea, but we're expected to think he'll be more active
after he gets his group?

You may have a point, but there is no requirement for him to post anything
to the new group if it passes. A "yes" vote usually means "I will read the
group", but it does not always mean "I will post to the group". Lurkers are
allowed to vote, and they are also allowed to be proponents.

If they stayed with a moderated proposal, that would have been a totally
different story.

Also keep in mind that there were two other woodworking/turning groups in
the distribution list besides the wreck, and there will probably be voters
from those groups too. Who knows what the outcome will be. I've seen some
lousy proposals unexpectedly pass.

--
Bill

Howdy!

In article .ca,
Dave Balderstone wrote:
[snip]

The point of the RFD anc CFV process is for the proponent(s) of the new
group to lobby for support and build a consensus that the new group is
needed and will add something of value to usenet on its creation.

The proponents of this CFV have done the opposite, and now appear to be
actively avoiding any discussion.

"appear"? They have failed to respond to politely phrased questions not
set in an otherwise insulting context. Ok, maybe they are passively avoiding...

As a result, creating the new group is unlikely to add any value.

Worse, creating that new group would create confusion as to which of the two
groups one should place a particular post in. This is directly contrary to the
reason for standing up a new big-eight group.

[snip]

That's why I voted no.

"What he said."

yours,
Michael
--
Michael and MJ Houghton | Herveus d'Ormonde and Megan O'Donnelly
| White Wolf and the Phoenix
Bowie, MD, USA | Tablet and Inkle bands, and other stuff
| http://www.radix.net/~herveus/wwap/