"Vito Kuhn" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> 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.
In article <[email protected]>, Art Finkelstein
<[email protected]> 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
In article <[email protected]>, Mark L.
<[email protected]> 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
On Mon, 13 Sep 2004 21:13:25 -0400, Tom Watson <[email protected]>
calmly ranted:
>On 14 Sep 2004 01:11:31 GMT, Woodchuck Bill <[email protected]>
>wrote:
>
>>Tom Watson <[email protected]> wrote in
>>news:[email protected]:
>>
>>> 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
In article <cMM0d.520$n%[email protected]>, Mortimer
Schnerd, RN <[email protected]> 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.
In article <[email protected]>, Mark L.
<[email protected]> 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.
In article <[email protected]>, Phil Hansen
<[email protected]> wrote:
> Thanks for the explanaition. If creating a new group requires all these
> steps why are there so many wank.wank.biggerwanker.he.is.a.wanker
> groups?
Thye guidelines are for creating groups in the "Big 8".
Creating a group in the alt.* hierarchy is much, much simpler.
In article <[email protected]>, Larry Jaques
<novalidaddress@di\/ersify.com> 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 Mon, 13 Sep 2004 14:08:23 GMT, "Bob Schmall" <[email protected]>
calmly ranted:
>
>"Larry Jaques" <novalidaddress@di\/ersify.com> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> On Sun, 12 Sep 2004 00:30:00 GMT, "Mortimer Schnerd, RN"
>> <[email protected]> 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!
--------------------------------------------------------
In article <[email protected]>, 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..
In article <[email protected]>,
Robert Bonomi <[email protected]> wrote:
>In article <[email protected]>,
>Woodchuck Bill <[email protected]> wrote:
>>Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote in
>>news:[email protected]:
>>
>>> 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'.
In article <[email protected]>,
Tom Watson <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Mon, 13 Sep 2004 16:50:32 -0700, Larry Jaques
><novalidaddress@di\/ersify.com> 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.
Idiot savant possibly?
On Sun, 12 Sep 2004 17:08:44 GMT, "Edwin Pawlowski" <[email protected]>
wrote:
>Probably, but it does not mean the artist is lower or higher class than anyone that is not.
On Mon, 13 Sep 2004 16:50:32 -0700, Larry Jaques
<novalidaddress@di\/ersify.com> 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 fucking 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
On Sun, 12 Sep 2004 19:36:48 -0700, Larry Jaques <novalidaddress@di\/ersify.com>
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
On Sun, 12 Sep 2004 20:33:14 +0000, [email protected]
(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? 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.
Thanks,
Barry
In article <[email protected]>,
B a r r y <nospam*removethis*@snet.net> wrote:
>On Sun, 12 Sep 2004 20:33:14 +0000, [email protected]
>(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'.
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=F8=F8=F8=F8=F8=F8=F8=F8=F8=
=F8=F8=F8=F8=F8=F8=F8=F8=F8=F8=F8=F8=F8
In article <[email protected]>,
Woodchuck Bill <[email protected]> wrote:
>Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote in
>news:[email protected]:
>
>> 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_.
On Mon, 13 Sep 2004 20:14:56 -0400, Tom Watson <[email protected]>
calmly ranted:
>On Mon, 13 Sep 2004 16:50:32 -0700, Larry Jaques
><novalidaddress@di\/ersify.com> 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 fucking 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
"mp" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>> 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.
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
says...
Thanks for the explanaition. If creating a new group requires all these
steps why are there so many wank.wank.biggerwanker.he.is.a.wanker
groups?
--
Phillip Hansen
Skil-Phil Solutions
Phil Hansen asks:
>Thanks for the explanaition. If creating a new group requires all these
>steps why are there so many wank.wank.biggerwanker.he.is.a.wanker
>groups?
Probably for pretty much the same reason there are trolls putting out a lot of
effort to annoy people when it would be easier and more rewarding to do
something constructive. Stupidity is part of it, but there are a multitude of
added reasons, none of them particularly pleasant to contemplate.
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 <[email protected]>, [email protected]
says...
> In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
> says...
> Thanks for the explanaition. If creating a new group requires all these
> steps why are there so many wank.wank.biggerwanker.he.is.a.wanker
> groups?
>
Thanks for the answers
--
Phillip Hansen
Skil-Phil Solutions
A pretty high attitude from a webtv user....
Edwin Pawlowski wrote:
> "Sir Edgar" <[email protected]> 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.
>
>
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.
>
>
>
On 14 Sep 2004 01:01:58 GMT, Woodchuck Bill <[email protected]>
wrote:
>Tom Watson <[email protected]> wrote in
>news:[email protected]:
>
>> 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
On Tue, 14 Sep 2004 01:02:05 GMT, "John Emmons"
<[email protected]> 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
On 14 Sep 2004 01:11:31 GMT, Woodchuck Bill <[email protected]>
wrote:
>Tom Watson <[email protected]> wrote in
>news:[email protected]:
>
>> 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
Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> 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
Examples of passing voter outcomes:
YES: 100
NO: 0
YES: 101
NO: 1
YES: 300
NO: 150
Examples of failing voter outcomes:
YES: 100
NO: 1
YES: 99
NO: 2
YES: 299
NO: 150
--
Bill
Dave Balderstone <dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_S.balderstone.ca> wrote in
news:110920042031130574%dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_S.balderstone.ca:
> In article <[email protected]>, Mark L.
> <[email protected]> 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
"Mark L." <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> 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
"Mortimer Schnerd, RN" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> 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
Woodchuck Bill <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> 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
Phil Hansen <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
> says...
> Thanks for the explanaition. If creating a new group requires all these
> steps why are there so many wank.wank.biggerwanker.he.is.a.wanker
> 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
[email protected] (Robert Bonomi) wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> 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.
To cancel out a prior vote, you submit another vote and choose CANCEL. The
four possible choices are YES, NO, ABSTAIN, and CANCEL. If you cancel a
vote, your name and e-mail address will be deleted from the record..as if
you never voted in the first place. If you change your vote to ABSTAIN,
your name and e-mail address will appear in the results.
> There is currently utterly _no_ point in casting an -initial-
> 'abstain' vote.
The abstain vote is generally reserved for those who participated in the
RFD, but do not plan to use the group if created, or do not have a
technical objection to the creation of the group.
--
Bill
Tom Watson <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> 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
[email protected] (Robert Bonomi) wrote in
news:[email protected]:
>>>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 Big-8 newsgroup creation system is very confusing. There are currently
discussions taking place in news.groups about changing that system.
--
Bill
Tom Watson <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> 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
Tom Watson <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> 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
So who votes?
Dave Balderstone wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, Mark L.
> <[email protected]> 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
[email protected]
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
Larry Jaques wrote:
> On Mon, 13 Sep 2004 14:08:23 GMT, "Bob Schmall" <[email protected]>
> calmly ranted:
>
>
>>"Larry Jaques" <novalidaddress@di\/ersify.com> wrote in message
>>news:[email protected]...
>>
>>>On Sun, 12 Sep 2004 00:30:00 GMT, "Mortimer Schnerd, RN"
>>><[email protected]> 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!
> --------------------------------------------------------
>
That 'was' a very special goat:-)
joe
"Joe Gorman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
>
> Larry Jaques wrote:
>> On Mon, 13 Sep 2004 14:08:23 GMT, "Bob Schmall" <[email protected]>
>> calmly ranted:
>>
>>
>>>"Larry Jaques" <novalidaddress@di\/ersify.com> wrote in message
>>>news:[email protected]...
>>>
>>>>On Sun, 12 Sep 2004 00:30:00 GMT, "Mortimer Schnerd, RN"
>>>><[email protected]> 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!
>> --------------------------------------------------------
>>
>
> That 'was' a very special goat:-)
> joe
You seem pretty sure of that, Joe. 8-)
Bob
In article <[email protected]>,
Mark L. <[email protected]> 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.
On Tue, 14 Sep 2004 06:44:37 +0000, [email protected]
(Robert Bonomi) calmly ranted:
>In article <[email protected]>,
>Tom Watson <[email protected]> wrote:
>>On Mon, 13 Sep 2004 16:50:32 -0700, Larry Jaques
>><novalidaddress@di\/ersify.com> 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.
132 posts since '02 by Vito isn't exactly non-participatory, although
mostWreckers might not be familiar with his name (as I wasn't.) True,
Susan has never posted on the Wreck with the Bigfoot address AFAICD.
<http://groups.google.com/groups?safe=off&ie=UTF-8&as_ugroup=rec.woodworking&[email protected]&lr=&num=100&hl=en>
----
- Nice perfume. Must you marinate in it? -
http://diversify.com Web Applications
On 14 Sep 2004 00:31:35 GMT, Woodchuck Bill <[email protected]>
wrote:
>Tom Watson <[email protected]> wrote in
>news:[email protected]:
>
>> 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
A little bit off topic but did you just buy a new thesaurus there Tom....?
;^)
John Emmons
"Tom Watson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On 14 Sep 2004 00:31:35 GMT, Woodchuck Bill <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> >Tom Watson <[email protected]> wrote in
> >news:[email protected]:
> >
> >> 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
On Sun, 12 Sep 2004 00:30:00 GMT, "Mortimer Schnerd, RN"
<[email protected]> 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!
--------------------------------------------------------
On Sun, 12 Sep 2004 15:57:08 GMT, "Bob Schmall" <[email protected]>
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.
"Sir Edgar" <[email protected]> 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.
"mp" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>> > 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
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" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Vito Kuhn" <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>> 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.
>
>
>
In article <[email protected]>, Woodchuck Bill
<[email protected]> wrote:
> 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..
But still has not responded to questions about the qualifications of
the two proposed moderators, and has declined to identify an anonymous
"backup moderator".
That's the weakest part of the proposal right now, IMO. If noboody has
confidence in the moderators, why would they vote for the proposal?
While I'm not inherently opposed to a moderated group being established
(though I think it will rapidly fall flat on its face) if there are no
qualified moderators added to the RFD then I will vote "No" should it
actually come to a vote.
djb
In article <[email protected]>, Woodchuck Bill
<[email protected]> 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
In article <[email protected]>, Woodchuck Bill
<[email protected]> 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.
In article <[email protected]>, Larry Kraus
<[email protected]> 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.
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
On 12 Sep 2004 19:15:57 GMT, Woodchuck Bill <[email protected]> wrote:
>"Greg Millen" <[email protected]> wrote in
>news:[email protected]:
>
>> 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
Interesting, looking at the pictures, looks like someone and his
secretary proposing this.
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/
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" <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>> 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
>
"Charlie Self" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> 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.
"Greg Millen" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> 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
--
Bill
dave in Fairfax <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> 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
Dave Balderstone <dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_S.balderstone.ca> wrote in
news:120920041945162355%dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_S.balderstone.ca:
> In article <[email protected]>, Woodchuck Bill
> <[email protected]> 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
Dave Balderstone <dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_S.balderstone.ca> wrote in
news:120920042022329587%dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_S.balderstone.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
Larry Kraus <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> 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
"Charlie Self" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> 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 :)
From what I've seen, a complaint posted here is more of a RFA
(Request For Abuse). I have more respect for the OP for making a
positive step toward a group narrowly focused on woodworking than if
he just whined about the crap that ends up here. I cannot remember any
complaints that generated improvements in the quality of discussion.
I can deal with the problems of the current group but it does get
tiresome. I usually kill the threads that have degenerated into flame
wars. I also kill any thread that lasts more than 10-12 posts since it
will be hopelessly OT by that point. There are a few web sites that
have moderated woodworking discussions, but I find them to be slow and
awkward to navigate compared to using a good news reader like Agent.
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.
[email protected] (Charlie Self) wrote:
>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.
I missed the first 60 or so...
Working too much overtime.
Woodchuck Bill <[email protected]> wrote:
>Larry Kraus <[email protected]> wrote in
>news:[email protected]:
>
>> 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. ;-)
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" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sun, 12 Sep 2004 03:07:52 GMT, "Frank Ketchum"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Charlie Self" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news:[email protected]...
>>>
>>> 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
On Sun, 12 Sep 2004 03:07:52 GMT, "Frank Ketchum"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
>"Charlie Self" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>>
>> 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
"Art Finkelstein" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Vito Kuhn" <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
> > 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.
"Sir Edgar" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
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 12 Sep 2004 03:08:07 GMT, Woodchuck Bill <[email protected]> wrote:
>Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote in
>news:[email protected]:
>
>> 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.
On Sat, 11 Sep 2004 20:29:50 -0600, Dave Balderstone
<dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_S.balderstone.ca> wrote:
>In article <cMM0d.520$n%[email protected]>, Mortimer
>Schnerd, RN <[email protected]> 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.
"Larry Jaques" <novalidaddress@di\/ersify.com> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sun, 12 Sep 2004 00:30:00 GMT, "Mortimer Schnerd, RN"
> <[email protected]> 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
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
[email protected]
http://www.mortimerschnerd.com
"Edwin Pawlowski" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:wo%[email protected]...
>
> "Bob Schmall" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>
>> "Sir Edgar" <[email protected]> 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.
>
>
"Bob Schmall" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> "Sir Edgar" <[email protected]> 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