Re: The Soft Wreck ?

[nospambob]

is not.

[Bill Rogers]

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.

[Edwin Pawlowski]

That is exacty right. It has nothing to do with turners being of a higher class and flat workers being of a lower class.

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

[Bob Schmall]

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.

[mp]

What I meant to say is that this thread would be off topic in the proposed moderated group.

[Woodchuck Bill]

"Greg Millen" wrote in news:kwW0d.28291$ [e-mail]:

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..

[Dave Balderstone]

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

[Mark & Juanita]

secretary proposing this.

[Mark & Juanita]

... snip

Thanks, as I said, it's been a number of years since I've had any exposure to the process at all.

[Robert Bonomi]

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_.

[B a r r y]

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

[Robert Bonomi]

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.

[Bob Schmall]

Understood, but it might be on topic there since it does deal with the creation of a new group on the same topic.

Bob

[dave in Fairfax]

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

[Woodchuck Bill]

dave in Fairfax wrote in news: [e-mail]:

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.

[Dave Balderstone]

Must be, as I didn't see it when checking out their site. My browser blocks popups.

djb

[Woodchuck Bill]

Dave Balderstone wrote in news:120920041945162355%dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_S.balderstone.ca:

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!

[Dave Balderstone]

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.

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.

[Woodchuck Bill]

Dave Balderstone wrote in news:120920042022329587%dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_S.balderstone.ca:

Agreed. Long live the wreck!

[Larry Jaques]

On Sun, 12 Sep 2004 00:30:00 GMT, "Mortimer Schnerd, RN" calmly ranted:

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?" ----------------------------

Dynamic, Interactive Websites!

--------------------------------------------------------