Re: WITHDRAWN: rec.woodworking.all-ages

[J T]

Mon, Nov 29, 2004, 8:27pm (EST-3) [e-mail] (NAN=A0Team) burbled: 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

[Bob]

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

[Andy Dingley]

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.

[Woodchuck Bill]

"Bob" wrote in news:IZTqd.3812$ [e-mail]:

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.

[bridger]

they won't. people sometimes say f*ck here....

[Thomas Bunetta]

Gasp!

[Mortimer Schnerd, RN]

Who does that?

[Vic Baron]

No shit?

[J T]

Tue, Nov 30, 2004, 2:14pm (EST+5) [e-mail] (Woodchuck=A0Bill) says: Despite JOAT's flamage,

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

[bridger]

[Tom Watson]

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)

[Robert McClenon]

[snip]

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

[Woodchuck Bill]

Robert McClenon wrote in news: [e-mail]:

I meant moderation in general, which could be either robo or manual..or a hybrid of both.

[Old Nick]

On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 11:45:13 -0700, [e-mail] vaguely proposed a theory ......and in reply I say!:

Balls!

[Dave Hinz]

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.