| 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 |
|
#2
|
|||
|
|||
"Larry Jaques" wrote in message If you don't care one way or the other, won't go visit, don't agree with their reasons, don't agree with their morals, don't want the limitations, etc, just don't vote. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Live and let live. I'll vote for that. If they can have newsgroups such as rec.fart I'm not going to stand in the way of one that may be of value to someone. |
|
#3
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Thu, 30 Sep 2004 09:26:51 -0700, Larry Jaques
wrote: On Thu, 30 Sep 2004 04:39:54 +0000, (Bill Aten) calmly ranted: FIRST CALL FOR VOTES (of 2) unmoderated group rec.woodworking.all-ages Newsgroups line: rec.woodworking.all-ages Woodworking for all ages. A suggestion to the Wreckers: If you like the idea, vote "Yes." If you want them out of our hair, vote "Yes". If you don't care one way or the other, won't go visit, don't agree with their reasons, don't agree with their morals, don't want the limitations, etc, just don't vote. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ But, only if you have some really -compelling- reason they should not be able to start their group, should you vote "No." Live and let live. So your vote is for confusion and duplication? If this was for anything other than just a rec.woodworking duplicate your point would be valid - but it is to create an *identical* newsgroup! No difference. That benefits nobody. It is a bad idea and needs to be rejected on that basis. If there is someone who wants to create a valid and reasonable proposal (such as the original moderated proposal only with a better moderation team) then *that* would be properly handled the way you describe. Saying "let them do something wrong, bad and injurious in a small way to our online world just to get them out of our hair" is an irresponsible attitude. Tim Douglass http://www.DouglassClan.com |
|
#4
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Thu, 30 Sep 2004 09:26:51 -0700, Larry Jaques
wrote: But, only if you have some really -compelling- reason they should not be able to start their group, should you vote "No." Live and let live. Agreed. I don't buy the dilution argument. |
|
#5
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Thu, 30 Sep 2004 18:08:14 GMT, patrick conroy wrote:
On Thu, 30 Sep 2004 09:26:51 -0700, Larry Jaques wrote: But, only if you have some really -compelling- reason they should not be able to start their group, should you vote "No." Agreed. I don't buy the dilution argument. Why don't you go check out alt.genealogy.methods for a good example of a group created by someone who thought they had a better idea? Yes, it's alt rather than rec., but it's the first example I can think of of a group that was very vocally proposed and has since effectively died. |
|
#6
|
|||
|
|||
|
Tim Douglass wrote:
[snip] So your vote is for confusion and duplication? If this was for anything other than just a rec.woodworking duplicate your point would be valid - but it is to create an *identical* newsgroup! No difference. That benefits nobody. It is a bad idea and needs to be rejected on that basis. If there is someone who wants to create a valid and reasonable proposal (such as the original moderated proposal only with a better moderation team) then *that* would be properly handled the way you describe. Saying "let them do something wrong, bad and injurious in a small way to our online world just to get them out of our hair" is an irresponsible attitude. Tim Douglass http://www.DouglassClan.com I agree whole heartedly. Don't cast a "what the heck" vote. mahalo, jo4hn |
|
#7
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Thu, 30 Sep 2004 10:57:34 -0700, Tim Douglass
wrote: It is a bad idea and needs to be rejected on that basis. That's my thought, Tim - and I will vote accordingly. Regards, Tom. "People funny. Life a funny thing." Sonny Liston Thomas J.Watson - Cabinetmaker (ret.) tjwatson1ATcomcastDOTnet (real email) http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1 |
|
#8
|
|||
|
|||
|
Larry Jaques wrote in message . ..
On Thu, 30 Sep 2004 04:39:54 +0000, (Bill Aten) calmly ranted: FIRST CALL FOR VOTES (of 2) unmoderated group rec.woodworking.all-ages Newsgroups line: rec.woodworking.all-ages Woodworking for all ages. A suggestion to the Wreckers: If you like the idea, vote "Yes." If you want them out of our hair, vote "Yes". If you don't care one way or the other, won't go visit, don't agree with their reasons, don't agree with their morals, don't want the limitations, etc, just don't vote. You don't understand Larry. Some people feel compelled to impose their standards onto everybody, so now the nine or ten people who were going to congregate in r.w.m. will have no place to go. But, only if you have some really -compelling- reason they should not be able to start their group, should you vote "No." Live and let live. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - If God approved of nudity, we all would have been born naked. If you ever took a walk down the beach at Blacks or Trail 6 San O' you would realize that God hadn't thought that one all the way through. Cheers, Mike |
|
#9
|
|||
|
|||
|
Half Step responds:
If God approved of nudity, we all would have been born naked. If you ever took a walk down the beach at Blacks or Trail 6 San O' you would realize that God hadn't thought that one all the way through. Yeah. After a certain age, you don't wanna be naked in front of yourself, fer pete's sake. Charlie Self "Politics, n. Strife of interests masquerading as a contest of principles." Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary |
|
#10
|
|||
|
|||
|
On 30 Sep 2004 18:15:43 GMT, Dave Hinz wrote:
Why don't you go check out alt.genealogy.methods for a good example of a group created by someone who thought they had a better idea? Yes, it's alt rather than rec., but it's the first example I can think of of a group that was very vocally proposed and has since effectively died. Sorry, Dave - I'm not following. And I'd prefer to not check out that group instead I'd rather ask others (you) what you think happened. I like to consider myself bright enough to change my mind if someone "shows me the light". I see newsgroups as dynamic - people come, people go. If I'm in the Elks Club, I've got no beef about a Moose Lodge opening up across the street. How can something as inexhaustible as "participation in an internet newsgroup" become diluted by another newsgroup? More power to them - if it's any good, I'll join. If it's better, I'll switch. And yes - there's some self-centered hypocrisy at work, on my part. I didn't give a toot about Howard Stern until I had children myself. |
|
#11
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article , patrick conroy wrote:
I see newsgroups as dynamic - people come, people go. If I'm in the Elks Club, I've got no beef about a Moose Lodge opening up across the street. No, but you might beef about somebody trying to open up another Elks Club right across the street. IMO that's a bit closer analogy. -- Regards, Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com) Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com You must use your REAL email address to get a response. |
|
#12
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article , patrick conroy
wrote: How can something as inexhaustible as "participation in an internet newsgroup" become diluted by another newsgroup? More power to them - if it's any good, I'll join. If it's better, I'll switch. IMO the problem with the proposal is that it's simply a duplication of the namespace with no mechanism to enforce the proposed "all-ages" part of the proposal. If they had stayed with the moderated proposal and found a group of moderators that could be trusted I would have voted yes. As it stands, the proposal makes no sense. djb |
|
#13
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Fri, 01 Oct 2004 23:08:05 GMT, patrick conroy
wrote: I see newsgroups as dynamic - people come, people go. If I'm in the Elks Club, I've got no beef about a Moose Lodge opening up across the street. How about one with a sign, "Christian Moose Lodge, for better people that those sewer-dwelling mad dog Elks" ? |
|
#14
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Sat, 02 Oct 2004 12:06:28 +0100, Andy Dingley
wrote: On Fri, 01 Oct 2004 23:08:05 GMT, patrick conroy wrote: I see newsgroups as dynamic - people come, people go. If I'm in the Elks Club, I've got no beef about a Moose Lodge opening up across the street. How about one with a sign, "Christian Moose Lodge, for better people that those sewer-dwelling mad dog Elks" ? Would that be the alcohol-free Elks? G Barry |
|
#15
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Sat, 02 Oct 2004 12:06:28 +0100, Andy Dingley
wrote: On Fri, 01 Oct 2004 23:08:05 GMT, patrick conroy wrote: I see newsgroups as dynamic - people come, people go. If I'm in the Elks Club, I've got no beef about a Moose Lodge opening up across the street. How about one with a sign, "Christian Moose Lodge, for better people that those sewer-dwelling mad dog Elks" ? And under that a sign: "Everyone welcome to come in and hang out, even those sewer-dwelling mad dog Elks across the street - and they are welcome to talk and act here just as they do there". Rec.woodworking.all-ages is *IDENTICAL* to the existing newsgroup. There is *NO* difference other than the name. It is an ill-advised attempt to create a moderated newsgroup without a moderator and because it is badly planned and badly implemented it needs to be rejected until such time as someone presents a proposal that is well thought out and planned in such a way that it will meet the goals of the proponents and be acceptable to the usenet community as well. Tim Douglass http://www.DouglassClan.com |
|
#16
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#17
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#18
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Sat, 02 Oct 2004 18:10:02 -0700, Tim Douglass
wrote: Rec.woodworking.all-ages is *IDENTICAL* to the existing newsgroup. There is *NO* difference other than the name. It is an ill-advised Appreciate the food-for-thought. Which is *why* I like this place. But, why just not let the market decide? If the new newsgroup sucks, it will wither and die, right? Did "Fox" dilute NBC, ABC, CBS? Or was is generally accepted as a win for the TV viewing public(*)? (*) NB: There's NOT much on Fox, that I'll watch. There's not much on TV that I'll watch, but I think that's beside my (attempted) point. |
|
#19
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Fri, 01 Oct 2004 23:08:05 GMT, patrick conroy wrote:
On 30 Sep 2004 18:15:43 GMT, Dave Hinz wrote: Why don't you go check out alt.genealogy.methods for a good example of a group created by someone who thought they had a better idea? Sorry, Dave - I'm not following. And I'd prefer to not check out that group instead I'd rather ask others (you) what you think happened. Well, there's a group called soc.genealogy.methods, which is moderated. The moderator (singular) had some availability problems and the group sat idle for a while. One person (and her sock-puppet/s) who had a grudge that goes back years against said moderator decided to make a big deal about it, and went off and created alt.genealogy.methods with the hope of it being a place to have those discussions but without the 'interference of an absentee moderator' or whatever her catch-phrase was. The group was created (being in alt., it was just a matter of constructing the correct cmsg's), and the group was there. But, there wasn't really a _need_ for it other than the proponent having an opinion that wasn't widely shared by participants in the group. To me, that's pretty similar to the situation we have here. I like to consider myself bright enough to change my mind if someone "shows me the light". Well, groups.google.com's archives of the group have it all, but I just checked 12 articles at random, and didn't find _one_ message which wasn't crosspsted to at least two other similar groups. alt.genealogy.methods I see newsgroups as dynamic - people come, people go. If I'm in the Elks Club, I've got no beef about a Moose Lodge opening up across the street. Look at the posts, though; they're all crossposts to similar groups. So, yes there's traffic, but it's all traffic that is on-topic to _other_ groups. It is, in my opinion, a good example of what happens when you have two (or more) groups with similar enough content that people aren't going to decide which to post to, so they'll post to both. By making it unmoderated, the "no crossposts", "no naughty language or OT posts" and so on is going to be ineffective at best, and possibly inviting trolling. How can something as inexhaustible as "participation in an internet newsgroup" become diluted by another newsgroup? More power to them - if it's any good, I'll join. If it's better, I'll switch. Maybe someday one of these un-needed divisions will work, but I haven't seen it happen yet. I see "neutral at best" as an end result here, which makes it hard to want to support it. The fact that the proponents have been _so_ absent here discussing what they want to do and what the real reasons are, makes me wonder what they're _really_ up to. If they want our support, why aren't they here talking about it with us? Dave Hinz |
|
#20
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article , patrick conroy
wrote: But, why just not let the market decide? If the new newsgroup sucks, it will wither and die, right? No, it will just whither. There's virtually no acceptable mechanism for removing a newsgroup once it's been created, so the appropriate time to do that is in the voting process. 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. As a result, creating the new group is unlikely to add any value. I was seriously considering voting in favor of the mooderated proposal, had the proponents put together a viable moderation team. They failed to do so, and then pulled the moderation from their proposal. At that point, the new group simply became an attempted duplication of the existing wreck under a new name. No redeeming features whatsoever. That's why I voted no. |
|
#21
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article , patrick conroy wrote:
But, why just not let the market decide? If the new newsgroup sucks, it will wither and die, right? Yes, it will. And then it will sit there, occupying name space until the end of time, collecting nothing but spam posts. It's *very* difficult to get rid of a group once it's created. Did "Fox" dilute NBC, ABC, CBS? Or was is generally accepted as a win for the TV viewing public(*)? Generally accepted as a win, IMO, but (again IMO) that was because it added some variety to the existing fare. The proposed new newsgroup will add nothing. And hence it's useless. Worse than useless, actually, for the reasons I noted previously. -- Regards, Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com) Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com You must use your REAL email address to get a response. |
|
#22
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#23
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article , Woodchuck Bill wrote:
(J T) wrote in news:19640-415F7C97-191@storefull- 3152.bay.webtv.net: So what if it has a charter? With no moderator, how's a charter supposed to keep out the trolls, and all? Actually, remember when we had the Dizum.com invasion? IIRC, you were a victim of those attacks, JOAT. Dizum said that they were willing to block any newsgroup with a ban on remailers in their charter, but since the wreck has no charter, they wouldn't block us. Was it ever established that the message making that claim actually came from Dizum? Around the same time, there was at least one other similar post, purporting to be from Dizum, which was demonstrated to be bogus. It's worth noting that neither their published abuse policy https://ssl.dizum.com/help/abuse.html nor their mail-to-news gateway page https://ssl.dizum.com/help/mail2news.html makes any mention of this supposed policy. In any event, Dizum is only one of a host of anonymous remailers. If a troll finds his access through Dizum to be shut down, so what? He'll just find another group. And Google might as well be an anonymous remailer. Anybody can open a hotmail or yahoo account, use that ID to sign up with Google, and post any trash he pleases. Google will respond, eventually, to complaints of abuse, but all they do [in fact, all they *can* do] is shut off the Google Groups account involved. They don't/won't/can't prevent the culprit from immediately opening up another Google Groups account using a different email address from hotmail or yahoo. I noticed that the soft wreck has a clear ban on remailer posts in the proposed charter, so Dizum would probably block that group if it were to be created. ... If, in fact, that is actually Dizum's policy, a proposition that is not supported by Dizum's published "standards", such as they are. But as noted above, Dizum is only one way, of many, by which trolls gain access to newsgroups. Even if Dizum shuts him/them off, that won't keep him/it/them out. Thus, this argument in favor of the proposed new group holds no water. Charters also matter to Ebay auctions too. Ebay does act on Usenet charter violations. Yep, and IMO that alone is sufficient reason to vote NO. What's the problem with occasional posts such as "FA: 3HP 10-inch blurfl" with a link to the eBay auction page? I agree that most ISPs will not act on charter violations, but there are a few examples above of entities that will act, and who knows what the future will bring. Some will, I imagine. And the charter of the proposed new group would outlaw *any* postings offering *anything* for sale or trade. That's a very, very bad idea IMO. For the record, I abstained on the soft wreck vote. And for the record, I voted NO. -- Regards, Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com) Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com You must use your REAL email address to get a response. |
|
#24
|
|||
|
|||
|
Actually, remember when we had the Dizum.com invasion? IIRC, you were a victim of those attacks, JOAT. Dizum said that they were willing to block any newsgroup with a ban on remailers in their charter, but since the wreck has no charter, they wouldn't block us. I noticed that the soft wreck has a clear ban on remailer posts in the proposed charter, so Dizum would probably block that group if it were to be created. Here is a link to the Dizum response to Bob S. http://tinyurl.com/2ahms -- Bill |
|
#26
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#28
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article , Woodchuck Bill wrote:
(Doug Miller) wrote in om: Thus, this argument in favor of the proposed new group holds no water I was not arguing in favor of the new group. I did not vote "yes". I was pointing out to JOAT that there are some instances where a charter can matter. And my point was that this is not one of them; at least not one in which the charter can make a *beneficial* difference. Even granting the somewhat dubious assumption that the charter would cause Dizum to block access through *their* mail-to-news gateway, 1) many other similar gateways exist, and\ 2) it's still wide-open through Google. And the proposed charter, if enforced, would shut off *all* commercial posts, no matter how limited in frequency, including posts which many of us find to be of benefit. -- Regards, Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com) Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com You must use your REAL email address to get a response. |
|
#29
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article , Woodchuck Bill wrote:
(Doug Miller) wrote in om: Charters also matter to Ebay auctions too. Ebay does act on Usenet charter violations. Yep, and IMO that alone is sufficient reason to vote NO. What's the problem with occasional posts such as "FA: 3HP 10-inch blurfl" with a link to the eBay auction page? I don't have a problem with Ebay posts here, but you just clarified that charters can have some bearing. That was my point. I never said that charters didn't have any bearing, just that in this case at least, the only discernible effects the charter would have are negative. -- Regards, Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com) Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com You must use your REAL email address to get a response. |
|
#31
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#32
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article , Woodchuck Bill wrote:
(Doug Miller) wrote in . com: And the proposed charter, if enforced, would shut off *all* commercial posts, no matter how limited in frequency, including posts which many of us find to be of benefit. Why does that bother you if you have no plans to use the group? The point being that creation of the new group has numerous negative aspects (which have been cited ad nauseum in earlier posts, by myself and many others) and I'm arguing that the charter does not, in fact, provide any discernible positive aspects which would counterbalance the negatives. Thus the creation of the new group has an overall negative effect. -- Regards, Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com) Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com You must use your REAL email address to get a response. |
|
#33
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article , Woodchuck Bill wrote:
(Doug Miller) wrote in .com: I never said that charters didn't have any bearing, just that in this case at least, the only discernible effects the charter would have are negative. They would not be perceived as negative by those in favor of the inclusions. Again. my point was just to demonstrate to JOAT that charters can have some bearing..I agree not much, but *some*. If by "some" you mean "only infinitesimally greater than zero" I guess I'd have to agree. In the only aspect that is likely to make much difference to JOAT, that would have to be *none*, not "some". As I pointed out, closing off one mail-to-news gateway of the hundreds that exist not only won't stop the troll(s), it won't even slow them down very much. -- Regards, Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com) Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com You must use your REAL email address to get a response. |
|
#34
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Mon, 04 Oct 2004 16:07:38 GMT, patrick conroy
calmly ranted: On Sat, 02 Oct 2004 18:10:02 -0700, Tim Douglass wrote: Rec.woodworking.all-ages is *IDENTICAL* to the existing newsgroup. There is *NO* difference other than the name. It is an ill-advised Appreciate the food-for-thought. Which is *why* I like this place. Someone doesn't like the OT chatter so they want to start a new group and that's "ill-advised"? (NOTE: Buzzword used.) But, why just not let the market decide? If the new newsgroup sucks, it will wither and die, right? RIGHT! Instead, these guys want to stop it from happening even though they won't be participating. I'm amazed at the answers some of these folks are giving in an attempt to justify their closed-mindedness. I view it as an additional "channel". Why can't they? Feh! Children. Did "Fox" dilute NBC, ABC, CBS? Or was is generally accepted as a win for the TV viewing public(*)? C - Both of the above. The second WB and Fox came online, I went to watch some of the new shows that the other networks didn't have. Occasionally, it made me choose between an existing show and the new one. Usually, though, it was an addition since the crap on the other networks wasn't worth watching anyway. (*) NB: There's NOT much on Fox, that I'll watch. There's not much on TV that I'll watch, but I think that's beside my (attempted) point. Grok that. -- Strong like ox, smart like tractor. ---------------------------------- www.diversify.com Oxen-free Website Design |
|
#35
|
|||
|
|||
|
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. -- Bill |
|
#36
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Mon, 04 Oct 2004 10:49:07 -0600, Dave Balderstone
wrote: In article , patrick conroy wrote: But, why just not let the market decide? If the new newsgroup sucks, it will wither and die, right? 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. No, it will just whither. There's virtually no acceptable mechanism for removing a newsgroup once it's been created, so the appropriate time to do that is in the voting process. Right. There are a lot of newsgroups that should be called dried.up.hunks.of.spam instead of the name they give. 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. As a result, creating the new group is unlikely to add any value. Agreed. The only way I'd vote yes for it is if it had a moderator. I was seriously considering voting in favor of the mooderated proposal, had the proponents put together a viable moderation team. They failed to do so, and then pulled the moderation from their proposal. At that point, the new group simply became an attempted duplication of the existing wreck under a new name. No redeeming features whatsoever. That's why I voted no. |
|
#37
|
|||
|
|||
|
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. Lemme check the proposal..... Yep. Message-ID: "In general, crossposting is not encouraged. If you feel the need to crosspost between rec.woodworking.all-ages and another newsgroup, please only do it if the post is on-topic to all groups in the crosspost. Please limit crossposts to a maximum of two or three groups, and set follow-ups to a single group if you must crosspost. Posts should never be crossposted between rec.woodworking.all-ages and rec.woodworking under any circumstances." -- Bill |
|
#38
|
|||
|
|||
|
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. Lemme check the proposal..... Yep. Message-ID: "In general, crossposting is not encouraged. If you feel the need to crosspost between rec.woodworking.all-ages and another newsgroup, please only do it if the post is on-topic to all groups in the crosspost. Please limit crossposts to a maximum of two or three groups, and set follow-ups to a single group if you must crosspost. Posts should never be crossposted between rec.woodworking.all-ages and rec.woodworking under any circumstances." So what happens if someone does? They get sent to the principal's office? Talk about toothless paper. There's only one sensible vote: NO. - - LRod Master Woodbutcher and seasoned termite Shamelessly whoring my website since 1999 http://www.woodbutcher.net |
|
#39
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Mon, 04 Oct 2004 15:06:05 -0700, Larry Jaques
wrote: On Mon, 04 Oct 2004 16:07:38 GMT, patrick conroy calmly ranted: On Sat, 02 Oct 2004 18:10:02 -0700, Tim Douglass wrote: Rec.woodworking.all-ages is *IDENTICAL* to the existing newsgroup. There is *NO* difference other than the name. It is an ill-advised Appreciate the food-for-thought. Which is *why* I like this place. Someone doesn't like the OT chatter so they want to start a new group and that's "ill-advised"? (NOTE: Buzzword used.) Not just a new group. An IDENTICAL group, save for the name. There's no mechanism to and no explanation as to how the new group would prevent OT chatter. Ill-advised is exactly the right word. But, why just not let the market decide? If the new newsgroup sucks, it will wither and die, right? RIGHT! Unfortunately, once the new newsgroup is determined to suck and the traffic withers and dies the mechanism stays forever and irretrievably in place, taking up cyberspace for no good reason. Instead, these guys want to stop it from happening even though they won't be participating. Why wouldn't you want to prevent that from happening? I'm amazed at the answers some of these folks are giving in an attempt to justify their closed-mindedness. I view it as an additional "channel". Why can't they? Because it's not. It's essentially a mirror of the wreck. What purpose does it serve? What function can it perform but to confuse and then eventually just take up space. Feh! Children. Ah, now we're down to ad hominem attacks. That's your "attempt to justify [your] closed-mindedness." Why not just invoke the feuhrer's name and get it over with? - - LRod Master Woodbutcher and seasoned termite Shamelessly whoring my website since 1999 http://www.woodbutcher.net |
|
#40
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article , LRod
wrote: Unfortunately, once the new newsgroup is determined to suck and the traffic withers and dies the mechanism stays forever and irretrievably in place, taking up cyberspace for no good reason. And continues to confuse new people, who will have none of the history as to why the whithered group was created in the first place. If the proponents had had the balls to stick to their moderated group proposal and address the concerns raised about the abilities and stability of the moderation team and mechanisms I probably would have voted yes. I told one of the proponents that in an email that never got a reply. Why are they afraid to confront criticism and address it? The proposal doesn't deserve a yes vote, IMO, for just those reasons. |
| Reply |
|
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| OT - middle ages? | Woodworking | |||
| OT- Writer Mark Steyn Compares Gun(g) Ho America To "Civilized" Europe or Why Law Abiding Gun Owners Reduce Crime | Metalworking | |||
Linear Mode
