After further consideration, the proponents of rec.woodworking.all-ages
have elected to withdraw their proposal rather than seek a revote. There
will not be a revote, and no newsgroup will be created. Procedurally, the
proposal will be treated as if the first vote had never occurred and the
proposal was withdrawn by the proponent.
My apologies for leaving people in suspense for so long as to what had
happened. In retrospect, an announcement that the revote was on hold
while other options were being discussed was in order.
--
Russ Allbery ([email protected])
news.announce.newgroups moderation team member
On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 11:45:13 -0700, [email protected] wrote:
>they won't. people sometimes say fuck here....
They do not.
They do say, fuque them.
Regards,
Tom.
"People funny. Life a funny thing." Sonny Liston
Thomas J.Watson - Cabinetmaker (ret.)
tjwatson1ATcomcastDOTnet (real email)
http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1
Mon, Nov 29, 2004, 8:27pm (EST-3) [email protected] (NAN=A0Team)
burbled:
<snip> My apologies for leaving people in suspense for so long as to
what had happened. In retrospect, an announcement that the revote was on
hold while other options were being discussed was in order.
Gods above, you're good, you make it sound almost like someone
actually cared. "Leaving people in suspense". Yeah, I could hardly
stand it. ROTFLMAO
JOAT
Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind dont
matter, and those who matter dont mind.
- Dr Seuss
On 30 Nov 2004 14:14:54 GMT, Woodchuck Bill <[email protected]>
wrote:
[snip]
>Despite JOAT's flamage, there were many people who were *very* interested
>in the outcome of this vote. Some of those people were rec.woodworking
>regulars, some were news.groups regulars. Some people fell into both
>categories. In the end, the proponents did the right thing. If you read the
>"concession speech" they posted to news.groups, you'll see that their
>proposed all-ages woodworking group will still be created in another
>hierarchy, but not in rec.*. I wish them well. I only suggest that they go
>back to the original plan of moderating the group, or else it might not
>serve their intended purpose.
I agree. However, the problem is that they did not consider a
compromise. They originally proposed manual moderation. Then they
proposed no moderation. The compromise was robomoderation, which
works reasonably well at keeping out dirty words.
I think that they should consider robomoderation.
- - Bob McClenon
On Wed, 01 Dec 2004 04:47:27 GMT, Robert McClenon <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> I agree. However, the problem is that they did not consider a
> compromise. They originally proposed manual moderation. Then they
> proposed no moderation. The compromise was robomoderation, which
> works reasonably well at keeping out dirty words.
>
> I think that they should consider robomoderation.
I think they should come here (the Wreck) and introduce themselves,
and explain what they're actually up to, participate in a conversation,
and explain why they want our support.
130. Technology advances with great rapidity and threatens freedom at
many different points at the same time (crowding, rules and
regulations, increasing dependence of individuals on large
organizations, propaganda and other psychological techniques, genetic
engineering, invasion of privacy through surveillance devices and
computers, etc.) To hold back any ONE of the threats to freedom would
require a long different social struggle. Those who want to protect
freedom are overwhelmed by the sheer number of new attacks and the
rapidity with which they develop, hence they become pathetic and no
longer resist. To fight each of the threats separately would be
futile. Success can be hoped for only by fighting the technological
system as a whole; but that is revolution not reform.
131. Technicians (we use this term in its broad sense to describe all
those who perform a specialized task that requires training) tend to
be so involved in their work (their surrogate activity) that when a
conflict arises between their technical work and freedom, they almost
always decide in favor of their technical work. This is obvious in the
case of scientists, but it also appears elsewhere: Educators,
humanitarian groups, conservation organizations do not hesitate to use
propaganda or other psychological techniques to help them achieve
their laudable ends. Corporations and government agencies, when they
find it useful, do not hesitate to collect information about
individuals without regard to their privacy. Law enforcement agencies
are frequently inconvenienced by the constitutional rights of suspects
and often of completely innocent persons, and they do whatever they
can
[email protected] wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 13:36:33 +0000, Andy Dingley
>>> After further consideration, the proponents of rec.woodworking.all-ages
>>> have elected to withdraw their proposal rather than seek a revote. There
>>> will not be a revote, and no newsgroup will be created.
>>
>> Thankyou Susan and Vito. I sincerely think this is the best result
>> for the newsgroup and its users. I appreciate your action in making
>> this decision.
>>
>>
>> Now, how about showing up in the group and talking about some
>> woodworking ? It's a good group, you'd be very welcome.
>
>
> they won't. people sometimes say fuck here....
Who does that?
--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN
[email protected]
"J T" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Gods above, you're good, you make it sound almost like someone
> actually cared. "Leaving people in suspense". Yeah, I could hardly
> stand it. ROTFLMAO
I kind of snickered at the serious, original posting, then roared when I
read your reply.
Before internet, I operated a bulletin board with fidonet discussion groups.
We learned over the years to just ride out a few storms in an active group,
rather than go off and create a new one. The new one and any group with
large, active participation is going to have problems from time to time.
This group has proven that its vital and lasting. The worst thing in the
world would be to try to kill it. Its a good thing just like it is - warts
and all.
Bob
<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 13:36:33 +0000, Andy Dingley
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 20:27:01 -0800, NAN Team
> ><[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >>After further consideration, the proponents of rec.woodworking.all-ages
> >>have elected to withdraw their proposal rather than seek a revote.
There
> >>will not be a revote, and no newsgroup will be created.
> >
> >Thankyou Susan and Vito. I sincerely think this is the best result
> >for the newsgroup and its users. I appreciate your action in making
> >this decision.
> >
> >
> >Now, how about showing up in the group and talking about some
> >woodworking ? It's a good group, you'd be very welcome.
>
>
> they won't. people sometimes say fuck here....
No shit?
"Bob" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
>
> "J T" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Gods above, you're good, you make it sound almost like someone
>> actually cared. "Leaving people in suspense". Yeah, I could hardly
>> stand it. ROTFLMAO
>
> I kind of snickered at the serious, original posting, then roared when
> I read your reply.
>
> Before internet, I operated a bulletin board with fidonet discussion
> groups. We learned over the years to just ride out a few storms in an
> active group, rather than go off and create a new one. The new one
> and any group with large, active participation is going to have
> problems from time to time. This group has proven that its vital and
> lasting. The worst thing in the world would be to try to kill it.
> Its a good thing just like it is - warts and all.
Despite JOAT's flamage, there were many people who were *very* interested
in the outcome of this vote. Some of those people were rec.woodworking
regulars, some were news.groups regulars. Some people fell into both
categories. In the end, the proponents did the right thing. If you read the
"concession speech" they posted to news.groups, you'll see that their
proposed all-ages woodworking group will still be created in another
hierarchy, but not in rec.*. I wish them well. I only suggest that they go
back to the original plan of moderating the group, or else it might not
serve their intended purpose.
--
Bill
Tue, Nov 30, 2004, 2:14pm (EST+5) [email protected] (Woodchuck=A0Bill)
says:
Despite JOAT's flamage, <snip>
Nah, maybe a warm fuzzy feeling, but he's not smoking. LOL
I don't care if he gets his off-spring group or not. I didn't vote
for it, and didn't vote against it. Just wish he'd quit beating it,
either way.
JOAT
Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind dont
matter, and those who matter dont mind.
- Dr Seuss
Robert McClenon <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> On 30 Nov 2004 14:14:54 GMT, Woodchuck Bill <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>>Despite JOAT's flamage, there were many people who were *very*
>>interested in the outcome of this vote. Some of those people were
>>rec.woodworking regulars, some were news.groups regulars. Some people
>>fell into both categories. In the end, the proponents did the right
>>thing. If you read the "concession speech" they posted to news.groups,
>>you'll see that their proposed all-ages woodworking group will still
>>be created in another hierarchy, but not in rec.*. I wish them well. I
>>only suggest that they go back to the original plan of moderating the
>>group, or else it might not serve their intended purpose.
>
> I agree. However, the problem is that they did not consider a
> compromise. They originally proposed manual moderation. Then they
> proposed no moderation. The compromise was robomoderation, which
> works reasonably well at keeping out dirty words.
>
> I think that they should consider robomoderation.
I meant moderation in general, which could be either robo or manual..or a
hybrid of both.
--
Bill
On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 21:05:39 GMT, "Mortimer Schnerd, RN"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>[email protected] wrote:
>> On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 13:36:33 +0000, Andy Dingley
>>>> After further consideration, the proponents of rec.woodworking.all-ages
>>>> have elected to withdraw their proposal rather than seek a revote. There
>>>> will not be a revote, and no newsgroup will be created.
>>>
>>> Thankyou Susan and Vito. I sincerely think this is the best result
>>> for the newsgroup and its users. I appreciate your action in making
>>> this decision.
>>>
>>>
>>> Now, how about showing up in the group and talking about some
>>> woodworking ? It's a good group, you'd be very welcome.
>>
>>
>> they won't. people sometimes say fuck here....
>
>
>Who does that?
<http://groups.google.com/groups?as_q=fuck&safe=images&as_ugroup=rec.woodworking&lr=&num=100&hl=en>
On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 13:36:33 +0000, Andy Dingley
<[email protected]> wrote:
>On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 20:27:01 -0800, NAN Team
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>After further consideration, the proponents of rec.woodworking.all-ages
>>have elected to withdraw their proposal rather than seek a revote. There
>>will not be a revote, and no newsgroup will be created.
>
>Thankyou Susan and Vito. I sincerely think this is the best result
>for the newsgroup and its users. I appreciate your action in making
>this decision.
>
>
>Now, how about showing up in the group and talking about some
>woodworking ? It's a good group, you'd be very welcome.
they won't. people sometimes say fuck here....
On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 20:27:01 -0800, NAN Team
<[email protected]> wrote:
>After further consideration, the proponents of rec.woodworking.all-ages
>have elected to withdraw their proposal rather than seek a revote. There
>will not be a revote, and no newsgroup will be created.
Thankyou Susan and Vito. I sincerely think this is the best result
for the newsgroup and its users. I appreciate your action in making
this decision.
Now, how about showing up in the group and talking about some
woodworking ? It's a good group, you'd be very welcome.
On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 11:45:13 -0700, [email protected] vaguely proposed
a theory
......and in reply I say!:
Balls!
>they won't. people sometimes say fuck here....