Re: The Soft Wreck ?

[Dave Balderstone]

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

[Tom Veatch]

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

[Bob Schmall]

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

[Robert Bonomi]

Correct.

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'.

[mp]

I guess that would depend on the open-mindedness of the secret, un-named moderators.

[Richard Clements]

[Robert Bonomi]

*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'.

[John McCoy]

"Mortimer Schnerd, RN" wrote in news:tGU0d.12876$ [e-mail]:

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]

[e-mail] (Robert Bonomi) wrote in news:36a7c$4145f7ac$44a75e7a$ [e-mail]:

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.

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.

[Woodchuck Bill]

Tom Watson wrote in news: [e-mail]:

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.

[Tom Watson]

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)

[Woodchuck Bill]

[e-mail] (Robert Bonomi) wrote in news:36a7c$4145f7ac$44a75e7a$ [e-mail]:

The Big-8 newsgroup creation system is very confusing. There are currently discussions taking place in news.groups about changing that system.

[Woodchuck Bill]

Tom Watson wrote in news: [e-mail]:

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.

[John Emmons]

A little bit off topic but did you just buy a new thesaurus there Tom....? ;^)

John Emmons

[Tom Watson]

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)

[Woodchuck Bill]

Tom Watson wrote in news: [e-mail]:

Tom, my vocabulary is currently not up to par with yours, buddy, but I think I get your point. ;-)

[Tom Watson]

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)

[Tom Watson]

If he don't like us - why try to take our name?

Regards, Tom.

Thomas J.Watson - Cabinetmaker (ret.) tjwatson1ATcomcastDOTnet (real email)

[Larry Kraus]

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.

[e-mail] (Charlie Self) wrote:

[Woodchuck Bill]

Larry Kraus wrote in news: [e-mail]:

You waited until this thread had 75 posts before you replied. ;-)