Welcome to new Board members
Outgoing NAN Team
Thanks once again to those who volunteered to take over administration
of the Big-8 group list. We have tabulated the votes amongst the
volunteers, and the following people will form the Preliminary
Board, in random order:
Joe Bernstein <j...@sfbooks.com>
BarB <pat...@earthlink.net>
Dave Sill <MaxFr...@sws5.ornl.gov>
"Martin X. Moleski, SJ" <mol...@canisius.edu>
Brian Edmonds <br...@gweep.ca>
tski...@killfile.org (Tim Skirvin)
ru.ig...@usask.ca
Yves Bellefeuille <y...@storm.ca>
James Farrar <james.s...@gmail.com>
j...@kamens.brookline.ma.us (Jonathan Kamens)
Thomas Lee <t...@psp.co.uk>
We will be creating a mailing list for these people to use while
they discuss what they want to do with the Big8.
For the public: I hope you join me in welcoming and thanking these
people for their willingness to administrate the Big8. Once the
new volunteers have determined their course of action, they will
be letting you know how to proceed on any group proposals you might
have.
For those who are interested in the details of the voting:
I followed a STV voting scheme as discussed here:
<URL:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counting_Single_Transferable_Votes>. In
particular, I used the Senatorial rules for reallocation of initial
surplus, and the naive skipping method for subsequent surplus. The
latter was described as typical, and little wonder, because fully
applying the Senatorial approach there would be rather complicated
(and recursive).
At any rate, we had 22 ballots. There were initially 24 volunteers,
but 3 explicitly withdrew, and one never responded to the call for
votes. That left 20 volunteer ballots, and 2 ballots by Russ and
myself. All 22 ballots were treated identically. Since the number
of seats to fill was indeterminate, I first tried a "quota" of 3
votes. This yielded 7 board members. This was deemed too few, and
so I tried a quota of 2 votes. This yielded 11 board members,
including all 7 from the previous attempt. This was in the range
of board members I considered reasonable, and so the STV scheme
(namely 22 divided by 2) decided the final number.
I will not be discussing the order of finish further, except with
Russ. I might also be willing to redo this procedure on the same
ballots in the event that the preliminary Board itself requests it,
to account for attrition or something of that nature. One elegant
thing about the ballot method is that ineligible candidates can
simply be removed from people's lists, resulting in newly valid
lists. This is how I handed the 3 volunteers who withdrew.
For those interested in the minutia of this voting scheme -- and I
found it fairly interested myself -- the 9th elected Board member
won with the sum of 1 full vote, 1 half vote, 2 one-ninth votes,
and finally a 5/17th vote. This yielded a 5/306th overage, which
I dutifully redistributed proportionately to the remaining candidates.
Lucky for me, the determination of the first 8 elected candidates
went very simply. Determining 10th and 11th place was much more
involved, which is another good indication that that's a reasonable
spot to deem the Board filled. Anyway, I found it an interesting
exercise, and I'd like to see this sort of voting appear in more
elections out in physical politics. It would certainly make me
feel more engaged as a voter; I have not experienced it as a voter
myself.
Todd McComb for Outgoing NAN Team
Rob Kelk
NAN Team) wrote:
>Thanks once again to those who volunteered to take over administration
>of the Big-8 group list. We have tabulated the votes amongst the
>volunteers, and the following people will form the Preliminary
>Board, in random order:
>
>Joe Bernstein <j...@sfbooks.com>
>BarB <pat...@earthlink.net>
>Dave Sill <MaxFr...@sws5.ornl.gov>
>"Martin X. Moleski, SJ" <mol...@canisius.edu>
>Brian Edmonds <br...@gweep.ca>
>tski...@killfile.org (Tim Skirvin)
>ru.ig...@usask.ca
>Yves Bellefeuille <y...@storm.ca>
>James Farrar <james.s...@gmail.com>
>j...@kamens.brookline.ma.us (Jonathan Kamens)
>Thomas Lee <t...@psp.co.uk>
>
>We will be creating a mailing list for these people to use while
>they discuss what they want to do with the Big8.
>
>For the public: I hope you join me in welcoming and thanking these
>people for their willingness to administrate the Big8. Once the
>new volunteers have determined their course of action, they will
>be letting you know how to proceed on any group proposals you might
>have.
Thank you for all your hard work in this, Todd.
To all the volunteers who were selected to serve, thank you for
volunteering, and you have my best wishes for your term at the helm.
I'm relieved to see that Brian Edmonds was selected to serve. Having at
least one person from the old team on the new team ensures "continuity
of memory"; the new team will be less likely to try things that the old
team discovered don't work.
<snip>
--
Rob Kelk
Personal address (ROT-13): eboxryx -ng- tznvy -qbg- pbz
Any opinions here are mine, not ONAG's.
ott.* newsgroup charters: <http://onag.pinetree.org>
Wayne Brown
>
> Thanks once again to those who volunteered to take over administration
> of the Big-8 group list. We have tabulated the votes amongst the
> volunteers, and the following people will form the Preliminary
> Board, in random order:
So, the Politburo is official.
--
Wayne Brown (HPCC #1104) | "When your tail's in a crack, you improvise
fwb...@bellsouth.net | if you're good enough. Otherwise you give
| your pelt to the trapper."
e^(i*pi) + 1 = 0 -- Euler | -- John Myers Myers, "Silverlock"
BarB
(Outgoing NAN Team) wrote:
>
>Thanks once again to those who volunteered to take over administration
>of the Big-8 group list. We have tabulated the votes amongst the
>volunteers, and the following people will form the Preliminary
>Board, in random order:
One part of my brain was saying I hope I don't have to do this, you
know, look like a good guy for volunteering but get out of doing any
actual work. :) Actually there were people on my list who I thought
would be a lot better than I at this job and a lot of others who
didn't volunteer. I hope we'll continue to hear from them because I
for one do not have a clear picture yet of what changes I would like
to see.
BarB
David Bostwick
>In news.announce.newgroups Outgoing NAN Team <newgroup...@isc.org> wrote:
>>
>> Thanks once again to those who volunteered to take over administration
>> of the Big-8 group list. We have tabulated the votes amongst the
>> volunteers, and the following people will form the Preliminary
>> Board, in random order:
>
>So, the Politburo is official.
>
I haven't been following every word of the discussion. Did you volunteer and
didn't make it? Or are you just angry because things weren't done the way you
thought was best? If that's the case, any group would have been a Politburo
to you.
The End of the World is probably not measurably nearer.
Todd Michel McComb
tm <t...@tmoero.invalid> wrote:
>Dear god, not them! We're doomed, doomed i tells yah!
Nah, only you and Wayne are doomed. --TMM
Wayne Brown
>
> I haven't been following every word of the discussion. Did you volunteer and
> didn't make it? Or are you just angry because things weren't done the way you
> thought was best? If that's the case, any group would have been a Politburo
> to you.
No, I didn't volunteer. I publicly *refused* to volunteer. I want
absolutely nothing to do with the Board, because I don't want the Board
to exist. My terming it the Politburo (a term I intend to use in all
future references to it) was intended as a shorthand reference to the
fact that I've lost any respect I formerly had for any of the people on
it, simply because they choose to be a part of it.
> The End of the World is probably not measurably nearer.
No it isn't but hopefully the end of the Big 8 group creation process is.
Walter Roberson
BarB <pat...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>Actually there were people on my list who I thought
>would be a lot better than I at this job and a lot of others who
>didn't volunteer. I hope we'll continue to hear from them because I
>for one do not have a clear picture yet of what changes I would like
>to see.
I know that some of us have an interest in contributing, even if
we didn't volunteer. I know that my personal situation kept me fully
occupied the particular volunteering week; I wasn't uninterested,
but first things had to come first.
--
Okay, buzzwords only. Two syllables, tops. -- Laurie Anderson
Joe Bernstein
<newgroup...@isc.org> wrote:
> Thanks once again to those who volunteered to take over administration
> of the Big-8 group list. We have tabulated the votes amongst the
> volunteers, and the following people will form the Preliminary
> Board, in random order:
Well, hmm. I didn't want to make my vote public, because I knew I
would be one of the last to vote, so any value publicising it would
have in informing other voters would be massively outweighed by
the implied insults. But on the whole, I'm relieved. That said,
I *do* want to make public the fact that I regret that David
Matthewman, Stephen Adams, and John Stanley did not make the list.
(There are others I'd have had no objections to, but I won't name
those, given that that would amount to naming by exclusion those I
actively objected to.)
On a different note, we end up with three Canadians, one British
citizen and one American resident in Britain (if I understand
correctly). I'd actually have been happier with a wider net,
but the most that was *possible*, given the public withdrawal of
the one Australian volunteer, was one more Brit - um, Welshman? -
so the actual outcome is not notably more US-centric than the
least US-centric possible. Not that this will stop my recent
bete noir from complaining, but to the extent that his complaints
have any merit at all, anyway a relief.
And I trust that'll be the end of this meta-process side of things.
I look forward to the mailing list. But I do intend, whenever, if
ever, I complete my own proposal, to post it publicly, and I do
hope much of this board's business will in fact be conducted in
public.
Separately, although it was not my campaign platform such as it
was, I concur with the willingness of at least one selected
volunteer and one not, to start by running NAN under the old
guidelines with the sole change of 50+ rather than 100+. I do
think we need fast track of some sort. I also think we need to
determine and publicise a group removal policy; while I'm not
happy with the one originated by Jani Patokallio and last (as best
I recall, anyway) put forward by Graham Drabble and Kathy Morgan,
if it *is* an official policy, we need to say so, and if it *isn't*,
we need to say that. Finally, though he's been quiet about it lately,
if Todd McComb does come back to us with information about alternatives
to voting, we need to consider that seriously. But in general, I would
rather see a cautious than a headlong approach to change. And the most
urgent change is probably to sort out succession, because this board
should not have long-term running of the show in its remit. While
we're doing that, and (preferably) working out other changes, I see no
reason we shouldn't get back to the core job of enabling the creation
of newsgroups.
Joe Bernstein
--
Joe Bernstein, writer j...@sfbooks.com
<http://www.panix.com/~josephb/> "She suited my mood, Sarah Mondleigh
did - it was like having a kitten in the room, like a vote for unreason."
<Glass Mountain>, Cynthia Voigt
Todd Michel McComb
Well, we worked with what we had. I think the only really practical
way to draw a wider range of people is to create a positive flow
of people, which should automatically self-widen over time, if it
is seen to be a positive way to use one's time. That's really the
critical part.
>And I trust that'll be the end of this meta-process side of things.
I won't be initiating anything else like that, at least.
>I do hope much of this board's business will in fact be conducted
>in public.
That's entirely up to the people involved.
>... if it *is* an official policy, we need to say so, and if it
>*isn't*, we need to say that.
Well, for us, we said over and over we'd accept the results of it,
if someone would only undertake it, but no one would. We were also
willing to consider other proposals, but no one made any.
>Finally, though he's been quiet about it lately, if Todd McComb
>does come back to us with information about alternatives to voting,
>we need to consider that seriously.
I would like to do this, or at least take a serious look at what
might be possible (the "alternatives" here meaning statistical/analytical
methods, not just any ol' alternative). Honestly, though, I'm not
entirely sure at this point. I have to see how I feel after getting
myself out of the middle of this thing. Mainly I'm just looking
forward to some time not considering any of this right now.
Todd McComb
mcc...@medieval.org
Adam H. Kerman
>Thanks once again to those who volunteered to take over administration
>of the Big-8 group list. We have tabulated the votes amongst the
>volunteers, and the following people will form the Preliminary
>Board, in random order:
>Joe Bernstein <j...@sfbooks.com>
>BarB <pat...@earthlink.net>
>Dave Sill <MaxFr...@sws5.ornl.gov>
>"Martin X. Moleski, SJ" <mol...@canisius.edu>
>Brian Edmonds <br...@gweep.ca>
>tski...@killfile.org (Tim Skirvin)
>ru.ig...@usask.ca
>Yves Bellefeuille <y...@storm.ca>
>James Farrar <james.s...@gmail.com>
>j...@kamens.brookline.ma.us (Jonathan Kamens)
>Thomas Lee <t...@psp.co.uk>
Todd, you are still to be criticized for not making this decision
yourself.
If anyone gives a damn about my opinion, I'm relieved that several of the
volunteers weren't selected and I'm pleased with most of the other
choices. Despite his persnickety nature, John Stanley should have been
chosen. Shame on a couple of you voting for not ranking him higher; it
would have shown some actual guts, if not political good sense.
>I will not be discussing the order of finish further, except with Russ.
Gee whiz. I suppose you'll be denying us the exit interviews too. The only
reason to go through this exercise was to expose the back stabbing and
bitchiness for our entertainment.
Paul Carpenter
j...@sfbooks.com "Joe Bernstein" wrote:
>In article <1132593...@isc.org>, Outgoing NAN Team
><newgroup...@isc.org> wrote:
>
>> Thanks once again to those who volunteered to take over administration
>> of the Big-8 group list. We have tabulated the votes amongst the
>> volunteers, and the following people will form the Preliminary
>> Board, in random order:
>
>Well, hmm. I didn't want to make my vote public, because I knew I
>would be one of the last to vote, so any value publicising it would
>have in informing other voters would be massively outweighed by
>the implied insults. But on the whole, I'm relieved. That said,
>I *do* want to make public the fact that I regret that David
>Matthewman, Stephen Adams, and John Stanley did not make the list.
>(There are others I'd have had no objections to, but I won't name
>those, given that that would amount to naming by exclusion those I
>actively objected to.)
>
>On a different note, we end up with three Canadians, one British
>citizen and one American resident in Britain (if I understand
>correctly). I'd actually have been happier with a wider net,
>but the most that was *possible*, given the public withdrawal of
>the one Australian volunteer, was one more Brit - um, Welshman? -
>so the actual outcome is not notably more US-centric than the
>least US-centric possible.
As another Brit who has been involved in the uk.* process for some time
at varying levels, I did consider putting my name forward but had a lot on
my "to do list" and work wise, so ducked out this time around.
> Not that this will stop my recent
>bete noir from complaining, but to the extent that his complaints
>have any merit at all, anyway a relief.
I have been skipping most of his posts for some time in various groups, it
helps my blood pressure that way.
--
Paul Carpenter | pa...@pcserviceselectronics.co.uk
<http://www.pcserviceselectronics.co.uk/> PC Services
<http://www.gnuh8.org.uk/> GNU H8 & mailing list info
<http://www.badweb.org.uk/> For those web sites you hate
Thomas Lee
<j...@sfbooks.com> writes
>On a different note, we end up with three Canadians, one British
>citizen and one American resident in Britain (if I understand
>correctly).
FWIW: I've lived here in the UK for over 30 years and hold dual British
and US Nationality. When I write, I naturally write English (vs
American) spellings. Not sure what that makes me...
Thomas
--
Thomas Lee
(t...@psp.co.uk)
James Farrar
wrote:
>David Bostwick <david.b...@chemistry.gatech.edu> wrote:
>>
>> I haven't been following every word of the discussion. Did you volunteer and
>> didn't make it? Or are you just angry because things weren't done the way you
>> thought was best? If that's the case, any group would have been a Politburo
>> to you.
>
>No, I didn't volunteer. I publicly *refused* to volunteer. I want
>absolutely nothing to do with the Board, because I don't want the Board
>to exist. My terming it the Politburo (a term I intend to use in all
>future references to it) was intended as a shorthand reference to the
>fact that I've lost any respect I formerly had for any of the people on
>it, simply because they choose to be a part of it.
Your opinion is duly noted.
--
James Farrar
. @gmail.com
James Farrar
<j...@sfbooks.com> wrote:
>On a different note, we end up with three Canadians, one British
>citizen and one American resident in Britain (if I understand
>correctly).
Yeah, that's about as well as anyone has any right to expect, IMO.
--
James Farrar
A minority of one...
James Farrar
Strange! :-)
Brian Mailman
> At 9:15am -0800, 11/21/05, Outgoing NAN Team <newgroup...@isc.org> wrote:
>
>>Thanks once again to those who volunteered to take over administration
>>of the Big-8 group list. We have tabulated the votes amongst the
>>volunteers, and the following people will form the Preliminary
>>Board, in random order:
>
>>Joe Bernstein <j...@sfbooks.com>
>>BarB <pat...@earthlink.net>
>>Dave Sill <MaxFr...@sws5.ornl.gov>
>>"Martin X. Moleski, SJ" <mol...@canisius.edu>
>>Brian Edmonds <br...@gweep.ca>
>>tski...@killfile.org (Tim Skirvin)
>>ru.ig...@usask.ca
>>Yves Bellefeuille <y...@storm.ca>
>>James Farrar <james.s...@gmail.com>
>>j...@kamens.brookline.ma.us (Jonathan Kamens)
>>Thomas Lee <t...@psp.co.uk>
>
> Todd, you are still to be criticized for not making this decision
> yourself.
But he did. Didn't you see that he and Russ added their votes in?
B/
Brian Mailman
> On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 18:32:19 GMT, Wayne Brown <fwb...@bellsouth.net>
> wrote:
(snip)
You're one of the leaders now. You're supposed to be one of the people
setting the tone. Is this the tone you wish to set?
Time to set a good example and let go of this, as well as John Stockton.
B/
Graham Drabble
news:2it4o1d5rpvl0lh43...@4ax.com:
We've known that for a long time!
--
Graham Drabble
Want help with an RFD?
Try the RFDMaker: http://users.ox.ac.uk/~sjoh1646/rfd/
Henrietta K Thomas
<james.s...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 19:50:46 +0000 (UTC), Joe Bernstein
><j...@sfbooks.com> wrote:
>
>>On a different note, we end up with three Canadians, one British
>>citizen and one American resident in Britain (if I understand
>>correctly).
>
>Yeah, that's about as well as anyone has any right to expect, IMO.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I was under the impression you are from New
Zealand.
Rob Kelk
>And anyone who values data, statistical analyses not based on opinion, the
>scientific method, etc.
That sounds a lot like Ru, actually. You did notice that he's on the
transition board, didn't you?
BowTie
> And I trust that'll be the end of this meta-process side of things.
> I look forward to the mailing list. But I do intend, whenever, if
> ever, I complete my own proposal, to post it publicly, and I do
> hope much of this board's business will in fact be conducted in
> public.
Yes, agreed, I think most of its business should be in the public.
Could it begin this way: Form a new robo moderated news group, with the board
as the white list, allow the board to expand the list by invitation.
?
> Separately, although it was not my campaign platform such as it
> was, I concur with the willingness of at least one selected
> volunteer and one not, to start by running NAN under the old
> guidelines with the sole change of 50+ rather than 100+. I do
> think we need fast track of some sort. I also think we need to
> determine and publicise a group removal policy; while I'm not
> happy with the one originated by Jani Patokallio and last (as best
> I recall, anyway) put forward by Graham Drabble and Kathy Morgan,
> if it *is* an official policy, we need to say so, and if it *isn't*,
> we need to say that. Finally, though he's been quiet about it lately,
> if Todd McComb does come back to us with information about alternatives
> to voting, we need to consider that seriously. But in general, I would
> rather see a cautious than a headlong approach to change. And the most
> urgent change is probably to sort out succession, because this board
> should not have long-term running of the show in its remit. While
> we're doing that, and (preferably) working out other changes, I see no
> reason we shouldn't get back to the core job of enabling the creation
> of newsgroups.
Joe, hasn't the core job now mushroomed into also being big 8's visionaries?
Or are you farming this out?
:)x
Kathy Morgan
> Thanks once again to those who volunteered to take over administration
> of the Big-8 group list. We have tabulated the votes amongst the
> volunteers, and the following people will form the Preliminary
> Board (snip)
Thank you to all of you who volunteered, and congratulations to those
elected to the Preliminary Board. It looks like a good group of people;
you can count on my support.
--
Kathy - Good Net Keeping Seal of Approval at <http://www.gnksa.org/>
OE-quotefix can fix OE:
<http://home.in.tum.de/~jain/software/oe-quotefix/>
James Farrar
<bmai...@sfo.invalid> wrote:
>James Farrar wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 18:32:19 GMT, Wayne Brown <fwb...@bellsouth.net>
>> wrote:
>
>(snip)
>
>You're one of the leaders now. You're supposed to be one of the people
>setting the tone. Is this the tone you wish to set?
That we should consider the opinions of everyone here, even those
opposed to the whole process? Certainly.
James Farrar
wrote:
That's the first time anyone's ever said that about me! :)
No, I'm British, born and bred.
David Matthewman
> That said, I *do* want to make public the fact that I regret
> that David Matthewman, Stephen Adams, and John Stanley did not
> make the list.
Gosh, thanks. I'm personally a little relieved; I honestly suspect the
people who were chosen will do a better job than I'd have done. I'm
certainly not about to up sticks and leave news.groups any time soon, and
that's probably where I can best contribute from.
> ...was one more Brit - um, Welshman? -
If you mean me (and it's by no means obvious that I am a Brit, I realise),
then no, I'm English, born and raised in Cambridge but of Yorkshire stock.
> Separately, although it was not my campaign platform such as it
> was, I concur with the willingness of at least one selected
> volunteer and one not, to start by running NAN under the old
> guidelines with the sole change of 50+ rather than 100+.
As a starting point to get things moving, I agree
--
David Matthewman
Bill Cole
Thomas Lee <t...@psp.co.uk> wrote:
A SPY!
:)
--
Now where did I hide that website...
David Bostwick
BarB
McComb) wrote:
I expect tm to fall on his sword any time now.
BarB
Brian Mailman
> On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 17:56:33 -0800, Brian Mailman
> <bmai...@sfo.invalid> wrote:
>
>>James Farrar wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 18:32:19 GMT, Wayne Brown <fwb...@bellsouth.net>
>>> wrote:
>>
>>(snip)
>>
>>You're one of the leaders now. You're supposed to be one of the people
>>setting the tone. Is this the tone you wish to set?
>
> That we should consider the opinions of everyone here, even those
> opposed to the whole process? Certainly.
Of course, if that's how you wish to frame it (others may see it as
simply the usual endless bickering with loons and trolls).
There comes a time when one realizes that discussing someone else's
opinions further are either non-constructive or futile because there's
nothing one can say that's non-repetitive.
While I have some reservations about Todd McComb's seeming
high-handedness, I can respect his pressure to keep the process moving
by not engaging in a never-ending niggle.
B/
Peter J Ross
<bmai...@sfo.invalid> wrote in news.groups:
> James Farrar wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 17:56:33 -0800, Brian Mailman
>> <bmai...@sfo.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> James Farrar wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 18:32:19 GMT, Wayne Brown <fwb...@bellsouth.net>
>>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> (snip)
>>>
>>> You're one of the leaders now. You're supposed to be one of the people
>>> setting the tone. Is this the tone you wish to set?
>>
>> That we should consider the opinions of everyone here, even those
>> opposed to the whole process? Certainly.
>
> Of course, if that's how you wish to frame it (others may see it as
> simply the usual endless bickering with loons and trolls).
One thing that impresses me, in retrospect, about this process is that
the loons and trolls were allowed to speak their minds and even to
vote, but that a group of competent people were nevertheless chosen.
In my opinion, it's too large a group to get anything done quickly,
but it's a competent enough group to appoint a few of their number to
be in charge of restoring business as usual ASAP, pending discussion
among themselves of future changes.
> There comes a time when one realizes that discussing someone else's
> opinions further are either non-constructive or futile because there's
> nothing one can say that's non-repetitive.
>
> While I have some reservations about Todd McComb's seeming
> high-handedness, I can respect his pressure to keep the process moving
> by not engaging in a never-ending niggle.
I like the high-handedness. I hope high-handedness will continue to be
a feature of the news.groups process, since my principal objection was
that too much bowing to public pressure seemed to be seeping in.
<pratchett>
An accused person: "You can't do that!"
Lord Vetinari: "Can I not? I am a tyrant."
</pratchett>
PJR :-)
--
Nemo hibericam exspectat inquisitionem.
alt.usenet.kooks award-winners and FAQ:
<http://www.insurgent.org/~kook-faq/>
Todd Michel McComb
Gary L. Burnore <gbur...@databasix.com> wrote:
>(And yes, I'm saying partially because I'm not on the list).
That's a valid reason to object. I am sorry that we were not able
to make further use of your willingness to volunteer at this time.
Perhaps the new people will be able to make you a better offer in
the future.
As far as the number 11, I told you how I arrived at it. You can
shake your fist at an algorithm, if you want.
Anyway, thank you again for volunteering, Gary.
Todd McComb
mcc...@medieval.org
Brian Mailman
> One thing that impresses me, in retrospect, about this process is that
> the loons and trolls were allowed to speak their minds...
Sure, of course, a given. I'm not saying they shouldn't be. I'm saying
that after a reasonable amount of discourse, a mostly sane person should
disengage. The old saw about teaching pigs to sing and all that...
Especially a leader, who to my mind would lose credibility if they're
seen entering into what usually happens in many of the flame groups
(i.e., a continuous go-around that just goes on and on and on).
I feel if someone doesn't 'get it' after explaining it three times,
three different ways, they're never going to and it's time to move on to
something more productive because it'll just be repetitive if it continues.
B/
Dr John Stockton
09:15:44, seen in news:news.groups, Outgoing NAN Team <newgroups-
req...@isc.org> posted :
>
>Joe Bernstein <j...@sfbooks.com>
>BarB <pat...@earthlink.net>
>Dave Sill <MaxFr...@sws5.ornl.gov>
>"Martin X. Moleski, SJ" <mol...@canisius.edu>
>Brian Edmonds <br...@gweep.ca>
>tski...@killfile.org (Tim Skirvin)
>ru.ig...@usask.ca
>Yves Bellefeuille <y...@storm.ca>
>James Farrar <james.s...@gmail.com>
>j...@kamens.brookline.ma.us (Jonathan Kamens)
>Thomas Lee <t...@psp.co.uk>
Eleven.
Those who go by that list will see six with American-style addresses,
one with an explicitly-US address, three with Canadian addresses, and
one from the UK.
They will see none from mainland Europe; none from Latin America,
Africa, Asia, etc. That's unrepresentative of the international
newsgroups that I use.
Eight obviously male names, one presumably so, two without clear
personal names. That is, unfortunately, representative.
At most seven seem reasonably like new blood, independent of the
previous Big-8 regime.
It's a step in the right direction; but a disappointingly, though not a
surprisingly, small one.
--
© John Stockton, Surrey, UK. ?@merlyn.demon.co.uk Turnpike v4.00 MIME ©
Web <URL:http://www.uwasa.fi/~ts/http/tsfaq.html> -> Timo Salmi: Usenet Q&A.
Web <URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/news-use.htm> : about usage of News.
No Encoding. Quotes before replies. Snip well. Write clearly. Don't Mail News.
James Farrar
<j...@merlyn.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>JRS: In article <1132593...@isc.org>, dated Mon, 21 Nov 2005
>09:15:44, seen in news:news.groups, Outgoing NAN Team <newgroups-
>req...@isc.org> posted :
>>
>>Joe Bernstein <j...@sfbooks.com>
>>BarB <pat...@earthlink.net>
>>Dave Sill <MaxFr...@sws5.ornl.gov>
>>"Martin X. Moleski, SJ" <mol...@canisius.edu>
>>Brian Edmonds <br...@gweep.ca>
>>tski...@killfile.org (Tim Skirvin)
>>ru.ig...@usask.ca
>>Yves Bellefeuille <y...@storm.ca>
>>James Farrar <james.s...@gmail.com>
>>j...@kamens.brookline.ma.us (Jonathan Kamens)
>>Thomas Lee <t...@psp.co.uk>
>
>Eleven.
>
>Those who go by that list will see six with American-style addresses,
Two (Messrs Sill and Moleski). And four with international-style email
addresses.
Russ Allbery
>>> "Martin X. Moleski, SJ" <mol...@canisius.edu>
>> Those who go by that list will see six with American-style addresses,
> Two (Messrs Sill and Moleski). And four with international-style email
> addresses.
Just a point of random trivia: While indeed Martin's .edu is a US
institution, .edu is not, as is commonly perceived, a US-only domain.
See, for instance, ui.edu.
--
Russ Allbery (r...@stanford.edu) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
Woodchuck Bill
news:4SNSIRGd...@merlyn.demon.co.uk:
> Eleven.
>
> Those who go by that list will see six with American-style addresses,
> one with an explicitly-US address, three with Canadian addresses, and
> one from the UK.
Give it a rest. None of that matters.
--
Bill
Vito Kuhn
> Thanks once again to those who volunteered to take over administration
> of the Big-8 group list. We have tabulated the votes amongst the
> volunteers, and the following people will form the Preliminary
> Board, in random order:
>
> Joe Bernstein <j...@sfbooks.com>
> BarB <pat...@earthlink.net>
> Dave Sill <MaxFr...@sws5.ornl.gov>
> "Martin X. Moleski, SJ" <mol...@canisius.edu>
> Brian Edmonds <br...@gweep.ca>
> tski...@killfile.org (Tim Skirvin)
> ru.ig...@usask.ca
> Yves Bellefeuille <y...@storm.ca>
> James Farrar <james.s...@gmail.com>
> j...@kamens.brookline.ma.us (Jonathan Kamens)
> Thomas Lee <t...@psp.co.uk>
I'd like to congratulate the newly elected board members. As much as I
wanted to sit on the board, I reckon it worked out better this way
because I'll need that extra time to spend working on the new usenet
service provider I'm in the process of establishing with Susan Welchel
and Ernie Roscoe. I'm especially happy to see Father Moleski on the
board, because I trust him to represent the best interests of
Christianity. I'm also relieved that none of the alt.usenet,kooks trolls
(BURNORE, CANNON, OTAKI) made it, because that would have been a MAJOR
mistake.
If any donations are needed to help offset the costs of infrastructure,
I'll be happy to kick in some money.
VK
Otaku
> If any donations are needed to help offset the costs of infrastructure,
> I'll be happy to kick in some money.
>
> VK
--
© 2005 Otaku
Should any political party attempt to abolish social security,
unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs,
you would not hear of that party again in our political
history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes you
can do these things. Among them are H. L. Hunt (you possibly know his
background), a few other Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional
politician or business man from other areas. Their number is
negligible and they are stupid.
-- Pres. Dwight D. Eisenhower
November 8, 1954
Walter Roberson
Dr John Stockton <repl...@merlyn.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>Those who go by that list will see six with American-style addresses,
>one with an explicitly-US address, three with Canadian addresses, and
>one from the UK.
>They will see none from mainland Europe; none from Latin America,
>Africa, Asia, etc. That's unrepresentative of the international
>newsgroups that I use.
Did anyone from those areas volunteer?
There was one volunteer who was apparently from Australia. Should
s/he have been appointed without further consideration, as the
token Pacific Rim representative?
Should Todd/Ross have kept the volunteer roster open until at least
two people from each of the areas you specify had volunteered,
and then reserved board slots for at least one person from each
of those areas, with the possibility of others if they achieved
enough votes?
Should Todd/Ross have found and appointed people from each of those
areas even though they did not volunteer?
Which people from those areas have contributed -anything- to the
ongoing discussions? Is there (for example) even a single person
from Africa who has made a relevant posting during this 1+ month-long
process?
>Eight obviously male names, one presumably so, two without clear
>personal names. That is, unfortunately, representative.
So "representative" is good when it is anti-USA/Canada, and bad
when it reflects actual contribution and usage dynamics?
--
Is there any thing whereof it may be said, See, this is new? It hath
been already of old time, which was before us. -- Ecclesiastes
BowTie
Vito, when are you going to learn that all that is Usenet deserves a voice and
equal representaion? They have as much right to exist as you.
Now get along back to the business at hand with your hierarchy. Seems you need
a few more wholesome participants. :)
Martin X. Moleski, SJ
<4383e...@x-privat.org>:
> .... I'm especially happy to see Father Moleski on the
>board, because I trust him to represent the best interests of
>Christianity. ...
Chances are quite good that many more people are unhappy
that I'm on the board for fear that I may try to "represent
the best interests of Christianity." :o(
I also know that many Christians would not want my kind of
Christianity to be taken as representative of them.
As I indicated when I nominated myself, I may have to
sit out some hot topics if my personal religious commitments
seem to be in conflict with the generally accepted (or
eventually adopted) principles of Big Eight governance.
I love Usenet. I enjoy talking with people through this
strange medium. I admire the people who brought it
into existence and who sustained it long enough for
me to participate in it. I see some principles in
tension:
-- Freedom of speech. Anyone gets to say anything
they want.
-- Freedom from spam. It seems impolite to interrupt
conversations with commercial ads.
-- Freedom from noise. I don't enjoy people who
swamp the channel with junk posts (I don't have
a complete taxonomy of what I mean by this, but
I know them when I read them).
While I'm on the Board, my goal will be to make good
decisions for the health of the Big Eight. We've inherited
something that has a life of its own and I hope that the
Board can nurture that life and hand it on to the next
generation.
Marty
Brian Mailman
> Vito, when are you going to learn that all that is Usenet deserves a voice and
> equal representaion?
The point of this particular exercise doesn't seem to be to provide "a
voice and equal representation," it's whether or not someone can work
effectively with others.
B/
Aratzio
09:14:46 -0500, "BowTie" <bowtieATbrightdslDOTnet> transparently
proposed:
*snorkle*
The question should be, which one of you two net.loons will garner the
most votes in the annual awards.
The net.loon with the failed hierarchy and control *issues*
or
The net.loon with the panties wrapped so tightly about his head he
thinks his obvious froggery & forgery are trolling.
--
Pierre Salinger Hook, Line & Sinker - May, 2005
Hammer of Thor - July, 2005
David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus) on 10-22-2005
Message-Id: <slrndlk3ae....@dformosa.zeta.org.au>
"But it is not isolated AUK has a massive impact the rest of usenet."
BowTie
> BowTie wrote:
>> Vito, when are you going to learn that all that is Usenet deserves a voice
>> and equal representation?
> The point of this particular exercise doesn't seem to be to provide "a
> voice and equal representation," it's whether or not someone can work
> effectively with others.
I certainly accept that, I also think the exercise is to point the big8 a
new direction, a path that values *all* contributions to a better whole.
IMHO, history has often ignored grass roots concerns, simply because their
wasn't enough man-power, or the structure to accommodate.
:)x
K. A. Cannon
<4383e...@x-privat.org> in news.groups on 23 Nov 2005 04:37:26
+0100:
>"Outgoing NAN Team" <newgroup...@isc.org> wrote:
<snip>
>represent the best interests of Christianity.
The best interests of "Christianity" are not the same as the best
interests of UseNet.
>I'm also relieved that none of the alt.usenet,kooks trolls
>(BURNORE, CANNON, OTAKI) made it, because that would have been a MAJOR
>mistake.
Heh...A rather exclusive lits o' hate you have there.
I was pragmatic about my chances to get on that committee.
You seem rather disappointed. Still stinging about the fam.* debacle?
I don't care if you like or dislike me Vito. I think you are a vapid
droning X-tian dolt who damn sure doesn't practice what he preaches.
Now kindly pound salt.
<snip>
--
K. A. Cannon
kcannon at insurgent dot org
(change the orgy to org to reply)
Don't worry about the world coming to an end today.
It's already tomorrow in Australia.
-Charles Schultz
Brian Mailman
> Really? Then why were some people "ejected" when they can work
> effectively with others?
Dunno, ask the others who had a vote why they didn't want to work with you.
It *is* a shame they didn't think John's Stanley's perceptions of
process were valuable. Maybe they'll have a change of heart and ask him.
B/
Jim Logajan
> We will be creating a mailing list for these people to use while
> they discuss what they want to do with the Big8.
Occasional public status reports on their progress, or lack thereof, would
be appreciated.
Geoff Berrow
contained the following:
>It *is* a shame they didn't think John's Stanley's perceptions of
>process were valuable.
They may be, but I can fully understand why he didn't make it.
--
Geoff Berrow (put thecat out to email)
It's only Usenet, no one dies.
My opinions, not the (uk.*) commitee's, mine.
Brian Mailman
> On Wed, 23 Nov 2005 12:28:56 -0800, Brian Mailman
> <bmai...@sfo.invalid> wrote:
>
>>Gary L. Burnore wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, 23 Nov 2005 08:57:13 -0800, Brian Mailman
>>> <bmai...@sfo.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>>BowTie wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Vito, when are you going to learn that all that is Usenet deserves a voice and
>>>>> equal representaion?
>>>>
>>>>The point of this particular exercise doesn't seem to be to provide "a
>>>>voice and equal representation," it's whether or not someone can work
>>>>effectively with others.
>>>
>>> Really? Then why were some people "ejected" when they can work
>>> effectively with others?
>>
>>Dunno, ask the others who had a vote why they didn't want to work with you.
>
> So you're saying those who were selected couldn't work effectively
> with others.
No, I'm not.
B/
edward ohare
>I'd like to congratulate the newly elected board members. As much as I
>wanted to sit on the board, I reckon it worked out better this way
>because I'll need that extra time to spend working on the new usenet
>service provider I'm in the process of establishing with Susan Welchel
>and Ernie Roscoe. I'm especially happy to see Father Moleski on the
>board, because I trust him to represent the best interests of
>Christianity.
If you understood what he's posted, you'd realize he doesn't consider
his job to be to represent Christianity. Of course, you're not alone
in your misconception about what the members of this committee are
supposed to represent; Stockton thinks they're supposed to represent
their home country and/or home hierarchy. They're actually supposed
to represent their views of sound Usenet practices.
> I'm also relieved that none of the alt.usenet,kooks trolls
>(BURNORE, CANNON, OTAKI) made it, because that would have been a MAJOR
>mistake.
The voters agree with you on this, however, due to another experience,
I can say Cannon is quite effective in a committee setting.
Joe Bernstein
Jim Logajan <Jam...@Lugoj.com> wrote:
We're currently in the middle of choosing a chair for the group, and
approaching a decision on how private the mailing list should be.
I personally have felt reluctant to say much precisely because of
the privacy-of-the-list issue, but at this point I'm pretty sure
that my saying *that* much will not be a problem.
A number of things are being discussed with the general sense that
they should land on the agenda once we have a chair. A fairly tame
mission statement (boils down to "we should design a system and not
break anything") seems to be high on the list. What should actually
go *into* the system design is being talked about, but less, and
with more of a sense that it's out of turn; as you may have guessed,
we don't all agree on it, and on at least one major issue I sense
a roughly even split of opinion. Since this is unlikely to produce
a widely-agreed result, we're being cautious with it so far.
I am the interim chair, I suppose (perhaps by now even a majority
of members have agreed with that), so I suppose I can call this a
proper status report from the group. When I hand over the gavel,
I'll urge the elected chair to notify everyone of his role and to
make, as you suggest, "occasional" reports.
Joe Bernstein
still wishing you'd been one of the group
--
Joe Bernstein, writer j...@sfbooks.com
<http://www.panix.com/~josephb/> "She suited my mood, Sarah Mondleigh
did - it was like having a kitten in the room, like a vote for unreason."
<Glass Mountain>, Cynthia Voigt
Russ Allbery
I agree; I think that would be very useful. (It's probably worth noting
that neither Todd nor I are on the mailing list, by design, so we can't
give you an update even if we wanted to.)
BowTie
> Jim Logajan <Jam...@Lugoj.com> writes:
>> newgroup...@isc.org (Outgoing NAN Team) wrote:
>>> We will be creating a mailing list for these people to use while they
>>> discuss what they want to do with the Big8.
>> Occasional public status reports on their progress, or lack thereof,
>> would be appreciated.
> I agree; I think that would be very useful. (It's probably worth noting
> that neither Todd nor I are on the mailing list, by design, so we can't
> give you an update even if we wanted to.)
so you're one of *us* now!? ;)
Brian Mailman
> Then perhaps you should read what you wrote. You said:
>> ask the others who had a vote why they didn't want to work with you.
Yes, *that's* what I said. And have you?
B/
Brian Mailman
>>> Then perhaps you should read what you wrote. You said:
>>
>>>> ask the others who had a vote why they didn't want to work with you.
>>
>>Yes, *that's* what I said.
>
> Snippage of truth noted.
<Shrug>. You don't pay my mortgage. I didn't not vote for you. Have
you asked those who did vote why you were rejected?
B/
Jim Logajan
> Jim Logajan <Jam...@Lugoj.com> wrote:
>> Occasional public status reports on their progress, or lack thereof,
>> would be appreciated.
>
> We're currently in the middle of choosing a chair for the group, and
> approaching a decision on how private the mailing list should be.
> I personally have felt reluctant to say much precisely because of
> the privacy-of-the-list issue, but at this point I'm pretty sure
> that my saying *that* much will not be a problem.
Thanks much for the update Joe.
> still wishing you'd been one of the group
Appreciate the sentiment behind that. Hope you have a good Thanksgiving.
Mark Kramer
>of the Big-8 group list. We have tabulated the votes amongst the
>volunteers, and the following people will form the Preliminary
>Board, in random order:
>
A better method of ensuring a flow of volonteers I have rarely seen devised.
1. Ask in public for volunteers.
2. Hold a private vote to see who doesn't like whom, just like we used
to have in grade school.
2a. Discuss in public who cannot work with whom.
3. Don't announce in advance how the vote is to be counted or what it means.
4. Tell half the people who did volunteer their help is not wanted.
(So, did a vote listing a name at the bottom really mean "I cannot work with
X", or just "he's at the bottom because I don't know him"?)
>For those interested in the minutia of this voting scheme -- and I
>found it fairly interested myself -- the 9th elected Board member
>won with the sum of 1 full vote, 1 half vote, 2 one-ninth votes,
>and finally a 5/17th vote. This yielded a 5/306th overage, which
>I dutifully redistributed proportionately to the remaining candidates.
I better example of landslide mandate can rarely be found.
>Lucky for me, the determination of the first 8 elected candidates
>went very simply.
How does this make YOU lucky?
>Anyway, I found it an interesting exercise,
I'm glad you find the "management" of OUR hobby an "interesting exercise."
Mark Kramer
James Farrar <james.s...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 17:56:33 -0800, Brian Mailman
><bmai...@sfo.invalid> wrote:
>>You're one of the leaders now. You're supposed to be one of the people
>>setting the tone. Is this the tone you wish to set?
>
>That we should consider the opinions of everyone here, even those
>opposed to the whole process? Certainly.
I think he was referring to the snide attitude you were copping while doing
so.
Mark Kramer
Russ Allbery <r...@stanford.edu> wrote:
>> Occasional public status reports on their progress, or lack thereof,
>> would be appreciated.
>
>I agree; I think that would be very useful.
You've just handed the future of Usenet over to a handful of carefully
appointed people and you only "think" it would be "useful" if they made
public reports of what they were doing?
Joe Bernstein
<bmai...@sfo.invalid> wrote:
> Have you asked those who did vote why you were rejected?
It looks to me like the procedure as enacted could not have been
designed better to ensure that *nobody* would take responsibility
for what happened.
Since (with one exception) our votes are secret, none of us have to.
Since Todd McComb devised an apparently indifferent procedure and
then just applied it, he doesn't have to.
Since nobody else was even involved (except by not volunteering,
if you will), they don't have to.
What a mess.
We do have public reports of *how many* people various folks said
"yes" or "no" to. Ranging from "yes to all 24" (if I understand
what Gary Burnore is saying) to "yes to half a dozen".
I sent a vote consisting first of a bare list, then of an annotated
list. In the middle of my annotated list, I did make a point of
specifying whether a particular person was someone I wanted on the
committee or not.
There were thirteen people I actively wanted on the committee,
counting myself. (We weren't supposed to include ourselves in
our votes, but I did say explicitly that I would have put myself
fifth. I don't know whether the procedure applied had any built-
in assumption that everyone should come first in their own vote;
if it did, I don't know whether that was modified in my case to
fifth.)
There were eight people I actively didn't want on the committee.
And there were three on whom I was neutral. (Note please that
I did not attempt to take withdrawals into account.)
I have already decided not to make my vote public, and indeed
have decided *twice* not to - once when I voted, a second time
when I posted my own direct response to the announcement. I am
not going to be drawn into explaining to each individual who
didn't make it what went into my personal 1/22 or whatever it
was of their not making it.
Like it or not, *I did not specify the size of the committee*.
Nor, as best I can tell, did anyone else, except Todd McComb.
Like it or not, most of us on the committee can live with the
outcome, though speaking as someone taking a *vote* on that
committee, I will say the thought of *more* people who might
delay dealing with stuff makes me blanch. (The actual vote
on the chairmanship seems to be going quickly, but the
nomination period ended with two people silent, one of whom
had actually been nominated but chose not to say whether he
would accept.)
I *hope* that the process by which the interim board is replaced
is a less complex, shadowy, and restricted process. I am not in
a position to guarantee that. I am tired of being insulted
because I chose to volunteer for something, was accepted as a
volunteer, and am now doing the job. I would really like it if
we could just move forward, but since that's been the futile
plea of pretty much every winner of everything since time began,
I suppose I'll just have to get used to its not being so.
Joe Bernstein
Todd Michel McComb
Joe Bernstein <j...@sfbooks.com> wrote:
>Since Todd McComb devised an apparently indifferent procedure and
>then just applied it, he doesn't have to.
Oh, I can take any blame. That's fine.
Thank you again to you and the others, elected or not, for volunteering.
Todd McComb
mcc...@medieval.org
James Farrar
How anyone can determine an attitude from a simple five-word sentence
is beyond me. You may have your prejudices that determine what you
think I meant, but it was a pure statement of fact - I have noted
Wayne's opinion (and I had no reply to make to it.)
--
James Farrar
. @gmail.com
James Farrar
Do you actually have anything constructive to say, or are you just
going to continue to snipe from the sidelines? I didn't note your name
on the list of volunteers for something that is your hobby...
James Farrar
>James Farrar wrote:
>
>
>> How anyone can determine an attitude from a simple five-word sentence
>> is beyond me. You may have your prejudices that determine what you
>> think I meant, but it was a pure statement of fact - I have noted
>> Wayne's opinion (and I had no reply to make to it.)
>
>Snide. Who elected you?
See the OP.
Brian Mailman
> On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 05:33:41 +0000 (UTC), c28...@TheWorld.com (Mark
> Kramer) wrote:
>
>>In article <4cq5o15v0a2pc2ahs...@4ax.com>,
>>James Farrar <james.s...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 17:56:33 -0800, Brian Mailman
>>><bmai...@sfo.invalid> wrote:
>>>>You're one of the leaders now. You're supposed to be one of the people
>>>>setting the tone. Is this the tone you wish to set?
>>>
>>>That we should consider the opinions of everyone here, even those
>>>opposed to the whole process? Certainly.
>>
>>I think he was referring to the snide attitude you were copping while doing
>>so.
>
> How anyone can determine an attitude from a simple five-word sentence
> is beyond me.
Perhaps Robert Burns was incorrect in one assumption. It's Usenet that
that the giftie gie us....
B/
Brian Mailman
> On Wed, 23 Nov 2005 18:09:37 -0800, Brian Mailman
> <bmai...@sfo.invalid> wrote:
>
>>Gary L. Burnore wrote:
>>
>>>>> Then perhaps you should read what you wrote. You said:
>>>>
>>>>>> ask the others who had a vote why they didn't want to work with you.
>>>>
>>>>Yes, *that's* what I said.
>>>
>>> Snippage of truth noted.
>>
>><Shrug>.
>
> You're the one who said they couldn't work well with others. Not I.
No, again, I didn't say that. That's several times I've corrected you
on that. If you continue to say this I conclude you're purposefully
lying. And that's all I have to say to you.
B/
edward ohare
<gbur...@databasix.com> wrote:
>On Wed, 23 Nov 2005 16:46:18 -0500, edward ohare
><edward...@nospam.yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:
>>The voters agree with you on this, however, due to another experience,
>>I can say Cannon is quite effective in a committee setting.
>
>I can say the same for Cannon. And, frankly, for myself. As it is
>now, there's a rubber stamp of a committee. Chances are they'll agree
>on every single issue they decide they want to decide on.
Probably not. I think there will be a lot of differences. In
committee work, both on line and real life, I've found people often
have views I didn't expect. Things that look automatic aren't and
things that look like a problem turn out to be automatic.
However, I also expect that with this group, once the first round of
discussion on an issue occurs, people will see where the majority is
and those with minority views won't be disruptive. It will only look
like everyone agrees to those who aren't perceptive.
edward ohare
<gbur...@databasix.com> wrote:
>Yes, he should have. In fact several (who you likely list among those
>you're "relieved weren't selected" should have been added because they
>have an interest the process.
To me, "interest (in) the process" isn't sufficient. If a person
can't turn that interest into an effective contribution...
Mark Kramer
James Farrar <james.s...@gmail.com> wrote:
>How anyone can determine an attitude from a simple five-word sentence
>is beyond me.
That very well may be. That it is not beyond others is all that matters.
Mark Kramer
James Farrar <james.s...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Do you actually have anything constructive to say, or are you just
>going to continue to snipe from the sidelines? I didn't note your name
>on the list of volunteers for something that is your hobby...
And now the assinine attitude that those who didn't have the time to
devote to joining the committee and thus knew they should not volunteer
deserve no voice in the matter.
There is nothing to be said anymore. The elite have been chosen, the future
of Usenet is given to them, we users are irrelevant and will be assimilated.
If there was some idea that YOU, for example, actually had any interest in
listening to anyone but yourself type, maybe more people would take their
time to comment.
Mark Kramer
The OP didn't say who elected you. We know who the 20 or so voters were,
but who voted FOR you out of those is a "secret".
edward ohare
<gbur...@databasix.com> wrote:
>On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 18:33:59 -0500, edward ohare
><edward...@nospam.yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:
>>However, I also expect that with this group, once the first round of
>>discussion on an issue occurs, people will see where the majority is
>>and those with minority views won't be disruptive.
>
>That's what I meant by rubber stamping. You call stating an
>appointing point of view being disruptive and think that simply
>folding when a majority sees things differently as a good thing.
People who do this aren't folding. They're conserving their political
capital for a time when they have a chance of their views prevailing.
BowTie
A very eloquent way of putting it. I get a few and you get a few :)
Each when they hurt the least.
That's very hard to accomplish out here in mainstream
BowTie
> Mark Kramer wrote:
>> James Farrar wrote:
>> >>Snide. Who elected you?
>> >See the OP.
>> The OP didn't say who elected you. We know who the 20 or so voters
>> were, but who voted FOR you out of those is a "secret".
> Say Mark, if you are going to hang your silliness off my joke post, at
> least give me a credit, eh? Snip not the attributes, lest you be
> labeled newbie.
> I'm rather enjoying the argumentative new snide face of big8
> management, sure beats those inhibited well-mannered hobbits we had
> before. They hardly ever engaged in endless pointless arguments.
heh heh
you're always worth reading tm
Peter J Ross
news.groups:
> I'm rather enjoying the argumentative new snide face of big8
> management, sure beats those inhibited well-mannered hobbits we had
> before. They hardly ever engaged in endless pointless arguments.
Yes they did.
PJR :-)
--
Nemo hibericam exspectat inquisitionem.
alt.usenet.kooks award-winners and FAQ:
<http://www.insurgent.org/~kook-faq/>
Brian Edmonds
> Someone will soon accuse you of handing over all usenet to evil.
Nah, I was already on the NAN team.
Brian.