Re: RESULT: rec.woodworking.all-ages passes 283:93

snipped-for-privacy@netagw.com (Bill Aten) wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@isc.org:

RESULT > unmoderated group rec.woodworking.all-ages passes 283:93

Damn. It passed. I'm in shock.

Reply to
Woodchuck Bill
Loading thread data ...

Interesting perusing the list of those voting for it -- Man in the Doorway?

Reply to
Mark & Juanita

"Alan Bierbaum" wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@comcast.com:

We may never know. Voters are only expected to read the group..not necessarily to post to it.

Reply to
Woodchuck Bill

I'm not. The current voting process is a sham.

I can write a script that will cast 500 yes, and 500 no votes for every CFV posted from legitimate email address (in that the ACK won't bounce). They will all be real votes under the current system.

It's very tempting.

Reply to
Dave Balderstone

And we all look forward to their first post.

The voting procedure for new groups is a farce. Once you accept that, it all comes into a meaningless focus.

I really wish Vido had the balls to stick with the moderated proposal. But he wussed out, like so many cowards... unable to defend what he thought he believed in. Now he can live with his choice.

Reply to
Dave Balderstone

Charlie Delf?

Barry

Reply to
Ba r r y

Absolutely. Since usenet is not a centralized database, there is no governing body, just self-appointed gods, [snicker]. It's quite funny.

Reply to
Larry Bud

April 1st late this year?

Reply to
Lawrence Wasserman

They won't, it'll just noise up the namespace and confuse people looking for discussion. Ah well.

Reply to
Dave Hinz

Dave Hinz wrote in news:2tsni3F2225qjU2@uni- berlin.de:

Now they're planning to propose more new woodworking groups, and a reorganization of rec.woodworking.

Reply to
Woodchuck Bill

And given the farce that the voting procedure has been allowed to deteriorate to, they'll quite possibly succeed.

Pity.

Reply to
Dave Balderstone

Dave Balderstone wrote in news:221020041015443953%dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_S.balderstone.ca:

The system hasn't changed much in 15 years or so, with the exception of banning the changing of groups from unmoderated to moderated.

Reply to
Woodchuck Bill

I didn't vote because it IS a free country and they have the right to start a news group. If they try to alter rec.woodworking, I will definitely vote, and solicit opposing votes from as many people as I can find.

Bob

Reply to
Bob Schmall

That's quite apparent.

Reply to
Dave Balderstone

Dave Balderstone wrote in news:221020041121592471%dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_S.balderstone.ca:

You're an *official* news.groupie now, Dave. (IIRC you called yourself a "junior" member or something like that) They are generally a good group of people, but they're very opposed to any kind of changes to the current system. Both of us have made some very constructive suggestions in recent weeks, and almost nothing has come of it.

Reply to
Woodchuck Bill

You're quite wrong. I've come to the conclusion that news.groups is a complete waste of bandwidth.

Reply to
Dave Balderstone

Dave Balderstone wrote in news:221020041143470954%dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_S.balderstone.ca:

Sorry. It is a bit difficult to keep track of your status there. ;-)

At one point, you did refer to yourself as a "news.groups newbie".

Message-ID:

I don't mean to patronize you. I kinda wish you'd stick around a bit longer and help fix things down there.

Reply to
Woodchuck Bill

You should see the antics of UK Control

The Parish Council, run riot....

Reply to
Andy Dingley

Andy Dingley wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com:

At least the UK hierarchy has a verifiable vote-ack system to prevent forgeries of e-mail addresses. The Big-8 needs this..like YESTERDAY.

Reply to
Woodchuck Bill

I've never thought you were patronizing, Bill. Certainly not in this thread.

I simply don't believe that things will be fixed, regardless of who participates in the discussion.

Given what's considered to be a valid vote, I think it's hopeless.

Reply to
Dave Balderstone

HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.