Unfortunately, this can't be done and will never happen. Fortunately there are kill files and plenty of alternatives when you feel like a serious poker discussion.
Irish Mike
"Rich M" <r...@holdemsecrets.com> wrote in message
> On Wed, 19 May 2004 16:06:50 GMT, "ChuckJ" wrote:
> >However, when there is reason for significant opposition (as there was > >here), there is need for a super-majority before the status quo -- which > >has existed for many years -- is altered.
> I was told that these rules were created at a time when it was > possible to change an existing group's status to moderated. It would > seem reasonable under those circumstances to require a supermajority.
> I have no problem with the rules. It's not the first time that the > short stack has ended up winning.
> >Clearly there are many forums to discuss poker that are moderated > >and/or segregated by topic.
> Ouch! Enough good posters have left Usenet in favor of the web-based > forums. Why would you send those who are interested in RGPM away? > Why not clean up RGP instead?
> >The overwhelming support was not there...
> I agree. Many other groups one-tenth the volume of RGP produced more > than the 300 votes that would have been needed to pass this proposal. > RGP is the largest newsgroup in the rec.* hierarchy. Below is a list > of moderated groups that managed to produce 300+ YES votes:
> simple, poker players DON'T LIKE TO BE TOLD WHAT TO DO!
> On Wed, 19 May 2004 09:55:56 -0700, Rich M <r...@holdemsecrets.com> > wrote:
> >On Wed, 19 May 2004 16:06:50 GMT, "ChuckJ" wrote:
> >>However, when there is reason for significant opposition (as there was > >>here), there is need for a super-majority before the status quo -- which > >>has existed for many years -- is altered.
> >I was told that these rules were created at a time when it was > >possible to change an existing group's status to moderated. It would > >seem reasonable under those circumstances to require a supermajority.
> >I have no problem with the rules. It's not the first time that the > >short stack has ended up winning.
> >>Clearly there are many forums to discuss poker that are moderated > >>and/or segregated by topic.
> >Ouch! Enough good posters have left Usenet in favor of the web-based > >forums. Why would you send those who are interested in RGPM away? > >Why not clean up RGP instead?
> >>The overwhelming support was not there...
> >I agree. Many other groups one-tenth the volume of RGP produced more > >than the 300 votes that would have been needed to pass this proposal. > >RGP is the largest newsgroup in the rec.* hierarchy. Below is a list > >of moderated groups that managed to produce 300+ YES votes:
In 6 months. Maybe if RichM or whomever writes the guidelines is a little more open minded and listens to input instead of stuborningly defending their points next time it may pass.
"Irish Mike" <mjos...@ameritech.net> wrote in message
> > >>However, when there is reason for significant opposition (as there was > > >>here), there is need for a super-majority before the status quo -- which > > >>has existed for many years -- is altered.
> > >I was told that these rules were created at a time when it was > > >possible to change an existing group's status to moderated. It would > > >seem reasonable under those circumstances to require a supermajority.
> > >I have no problem with the rules. It's not the first time that the > > >short stack has ended up winning.
> > >>Clearly there are many forums to discuss poker that are moderated > > >>and/or segregated by topic.
> > >Ouch! Enough good posters have left Usenet in favor of the web-based > > >forums. Why would you send those who are interested in RGPM away? > > >Why not clean up RGP instead?
> > >>The overwhelming support was not there...
> > >I agree. Many other groups one-tenth the volume of RGP produced more > > >than the 300 votes that would have been needed to pass this proposal. > > >RGP is the largest newsgroup in the rec.* hierarchy. Below is a list > > >of moderated groups that managed to produce 300+ YES votes:
> On 19 May 2004 18:43:05 GMT, ajohn...@aol.com (AJohn808) wrote:
> >lol. so here we have a guy who recruited his whole family to vote "yes". Amy > >and Beth are his 10 yr old and 12 yr old kids! and this guy Chris Barnes is a > >moderator at rec.hunting. nice. real nice.
> I'm surprised that a moderator would do this. I guess we know how > unbiased he is, huh? No wonder the group at rec.hunting is on his > case.
> Peg
You know Peg, I didn't even know that rec.hunting dogs was moderated the first time I went to it after reading a post here by Chris Barnes.
The first time I looked at it there was a couple of "Nadar calls for Bush Impechment" post and numerous post about Iams dog food.
I guess Chris feels like it is his personal playground.
> Actually, the system used by Usenet (2/3, 100 vote margin) makes a lot of > sense. When a new forum is proposed on a brand new topic, I would suspect > that there are not going to be a whole lot of folks opposed to it and the > need for certain margins in the vote are moot.
In this particular situation, the system worked against the creation of RGPM. RGP is one of the few groups (perhaps the only one) that people access using a customized web interface (as in recpoker.com). Those people were more predisposed to vote NO, because they would not be able to access RGPM using the same method.
> However, when there is reason for significant opposition (as there was > here), there is need for a super-majority before the status quo -- which > has existed for many years -- is altered. The result here is a good > result. Clearly there are many forums to discuss poker that are moderated > and/or segregated by topic. RGP is a unique entity in the poker community > and there needed to be overwhelming support for an action that had the > potential of destroying it.
That's just an idiotic thing to say. If anything at all was proved by the vote, it's that so few people voted that anyone who thought that RGPM had the potential to destroy RGP was deluding himself.
> The overwhelming support was not there (and I > still believe there was some considerable ballot stuffing on the Yes > side). Here, the proposal had many flaws and was poorly conceived. I > suspect there will be other poker-related newsgroups created in the future > -- but this one was the wrong one.
The RGPM proposal wasn't a perfect solution. However, it was a decent amount of effort put forth to create a quality newsgroup about poker. It's too bad that a few scared people wanted to keep this a one-newspaper town.
The arguments against RGPM were selfish and paranoid. They were also hypocritical ("free speech"...). A true advocate of free speech would vote for soc.nazi.skinheads.arethebest.moderated no matter how distasteful they thought the subject was.
As is so often the case, the uneducated public was too worried about losing what they had (needlessly) to understand the potential good of what could have been created.
It's also a shining example of exactly how ignorant of Usenet all the RGP readers are. To the point where I must have read a thousand times that such-and-such coverup would never have been revealed in an RGPM - when it was irrelevant, because RGP WOULD STILL HAVE EXISTED.
Let's stop pretending to be high and mighty. The people against RGPM fell into a few very basic categories:
- "I'm a frequent poster who people respond to and I'm scared of losing my audience"
- "I'm ignorant and worried that if RGPM passes it will mean that RGP will disappear"
- "I'm misguided and believe that the principle of 'free speech' means that nobody should be allowed to discuss things without a constant background drone of marketing and insults"
- "I like to spam my affiliate codes and personal poker sites, and I wouldn't be able to do it there"
RGP was created out of RG many years ago, when the (much more intelligent) readership of RG realized that conversations could be more focused in a more narrowly defined newsgroup.
RGPM should have been created yesterday, to create a place where people who prefer to converse without insults or marketing could have slightly higher-level conversations about poker.
Oh well. The people have spoken, and they screwed it up. It's not the first time that's happened, and it won't be the last.
>The RGPM proposal wasn't a perfect solution. However, it was a decent >amount of effort put forth to create a quality newsgroup about poker. It's >too bad that a few scared people wanted to keep this a one-newspaper town.
This doesn't quite properly characterize why many people voted NO. Skimming the list of NO votes, I saw over a dozen who I'm sure voted for very different reasons. Many were for a moderated poker newsgroup, but felt that the charter was fundamentally flawed in one way or another.
That is why *I* voted no.
>Let's stop pretending to be high and mighty. The people against RGPM fell >into a few very basic categories:
>- "I'm a frequent poster who people respond to and I'm scared of losing my >audience"
>- "I'm ignorant and worried that if RGPM passes it will mean that RGP will >disappear"
>- "I'm misguided and believe that the principle of 'free speech' means that >nobody should be allowed to discuss things without a constant background >drone of marketing and insults"
>- "I like to spam my affiliate codes and personal poker sites, and I >wouldn't be able to do it there"
You're just making this up, right?
Maybe some posters voted no for those reasons. Some voted for different reasons.
What about:
- "Spam is not a problem." - "I don't trust the moderator." - "Moderation won't sovle the volume problem." - "Poker isn't about being nice, neither should poker discussion." - "I like RGP just the way it is." - "I know how to use a kill file." - "I enjoy the off-topic threads." - "I'm more interested in a split." - "I don't trust RichM, even if he's not a moderator."
My favorite though is the *alternate* reasons people voted for/against RGPM
- "I'm married to someone who voted for/against RGPM." - "I'm a child of someone who voted for/against RGPM."
>RGPM. RGP is one of the few groups (perhaps the only one) that people >access using a customized web interface (as in recpoker.com). Those people >were more predisposed to vote NO, because they would not be able to access >RGPM using the
Yes, they would. recpoker.com and other websites could, and would, point to rgpm.
You could argue that those using website access are more likely to vote YES because they can't filter out spam. If you look at the votes there are more NO votes I recognize as regular posters than YES votes.
>The RGPM proposal wasn't a perfect solution. However, it was a decent >amount of effort put forth to create a quality newsgroup about poker.
Effort does not equate to quality.
There is no reason to opt for a half-assed solution to problems that don't exist.
>It's >too bad that a few scared people wanted to keep this a one-newspaper town.
Most of us are in favor of splitting. We just weren't in favor of rgpm.
> RGPM should have been created yesterday, to create a place where people who > prefer to converse without insults or marketing could have slightly > higher-level conversations about poker.
I agree. A moderated group would actually INCREASE free speech because people would no longer worry about their posts being flamed by some asshole if they are at all controversial (or not). There would still be the "say what you want" RGP and the "civilized discussion" RGPM. Those (like me) who like forums full of trolls and want to be able to say what they want can still have their newsgroup, while those who don't like such a forum would have their own playground.
Personally I think if there are some folks who want a moderated group they should get it without begging for votes in a stupid rigged election.
_________________________________________________________________ Posted using RecPoker.com - http://www.recpoker.com
> Maybe some posters voted no for those reasons. Some voted for > different reasons.
> What about:
> - "Spam is not a problem."
Irrelevant. Not a good reason to deny other people a moderated newsgroup.
> - "I don't trust the moderator."
I never saw that listed, but it's not a good reason to deny other people a moderated newsgroup.
> - "Moderation won't sovle the volume problem."
Not a good reason to deny other people a moderated newsgroup.
> - "Poker isn't about being nice, neither should poker discussion."
Not a good reason to deny other people a moderated newsgroup.
> - "I like RGP just the way it is."
Not a good reason to deny other people a moderated newsgroup.
> - "I know how to use a kill file."
Not a good reason to deny other people a moderated newsgroup.
> - "I enjoy the off-topic threads."
Not a good reason to deny other people a moderated newsgroup.
> - "I'm more interested in a split."
The only good reason you listed. And in your particular case, since you advocated a split many times, I can appreciate that you voted against RGPM because you felt it would hurt future chances of a split. As I posted at least once, I'd find a split more ideal also - but since nobody has bothered to try to do one in many years, I thought it was smarter to take advantage of the RGPM effort being made.
> - "I don't trust RichM, even if he's not a moderator."
Not a good reason to deny other people a moderated newsgroup.
> My favorite though is the *alternate* reasons people voted > for/against RGPM
> - "I'm married to someone who voted for/against RGPM." > - "I'm a child of someone who voted for/against RGPM."
Whatever. Clearly, vote fraud is lame. Lumping all the YES voters with one person who may or may not have committed fraud is as reasonable as saying you're at the same level of cluelessness as arlo payne because you both voted NO.
On Wed, 19 May 2004 12:34:35 -0700, "OneOut" wrote: >The first time I looked at it there was a couple of "Nadar calls for Bush >Impechment" post and numerous post about Iams dog food. >I guess Chris feels like it is his personal playground.
Your assumption about any moderator approving one of the Nadar posts is ill-informed. I have seen these posts in many moderated groups. They appeared because they had forged approve headers.
>>No, and it's not the first time a group has responded negatively to an >>outsider >>showing up and telling them he knows what's best for them.
>Exactly, it's as if Rich M doesn't realize he's really the sole reason this >"lost". If six months from now, someone from inside the group modifies some >of the problems with the charter and leaves it somewhat open for discussion, >it'll probably pass.
I support the concept of some sort of split or moderated poker groups, but a lot of things about the RGPM RFD just rubbed me the wrong way. The final straw was the cliquish behavior of some of the moderators (the worst part being that moderators were starting off topic threads themselves! Great idea, shit over RGP so that people want to join your moderated group...) I will certainly consider voting yes on a re-org if it's proposed in a better fashion.
-- This post brought to you courtesy of the Beet Man!
I'm sorry (OK I'm not) I laughed when I read this post. So much for the posts about this and that wouldn't happen in a moderated group, never mentioning this little tidbit.
Joan who didn't vote. would have voted "abstain" but decided not to be added to a list that will most likely soon be harvested for spam.
>r...@holdemsecrets.com >Your assumption about any moderator approving one of the Nadar posts >is ill-informed. I have seen these posts in many moderated groups. >They appeared because they had forged approve headers.
Do you realize how ignorant your statement "A moderated group would actually INCREASE free speech..." sounds? In a FREE speech society does a person posting a flame have less rights than a person posting "civilized discussion"?
"Nuts4daNuts" <anonym...@msn.com> wrote in message
> > RGPM should have been created yesterday, to create a place where people who > > prefer to converse without insults or marketing could have slightly > > higher-level conversations about poker.
> I agree. A moderated group would actually INCREASE free speech because > people would no longer worry about their posts being flamed by some > asshole if they are at all controversial (or not). There would still be > the "say what you want" RGP and the "civilized discussion" RGPM. Those > (like me) who like forums full of trolls and want to be able to say what > they want can still have their newsgroup, while those who don't like such > a forum would have their own playground.
> Personally I think if there are some folks who want a moderated group they > should get it without begging for votes in a stupid rigged election.
> _________________________________________________________________ > Posted using RecPoker.com - http://www.recpoker.com
> > However, when there is reason for significant opposition (as there was > > here), there is need for a super-majority before the status quo -- which > > has existed for many years -- is altered. The result here is a good > > result. Clearly there are many forums to discuss poker that are moderated > > and/or segregated by topic. RGP is a unique entity in the poker community > > and there needed to be overwhelming support for an action that had the > > potential of destroying it.
> That's just an idiotic thing to say. If anything at all was proved by the > vote, it's that so few people voted that anyone who thought that RGPM had > the potential to destroy RGP was deluding himself.
You are really the king of the non sequiturs. I don't know how to respond to a statement so devoid of logic. The threat to RGP was stated many times. The creation of the newsgroup as proposed would basically split a relatively healthy online community for no good reason.
> > The overwhelming support was not there (and I > > still believe there was some considerable ballot stuffing on the Yes > > side). Here, the proposal had many flaws and was poorly conceived. I > > suspect there will be other poker-related newsgroups created in the future > > -- but this one was the wrong one.
> The RGPM proposal wasn't a perfect solution. However, it was a decent > amount of effort put forth to create a quality newsgroup about poker. It's > too bad that a few scared people wanted to keep this a one-newspaper town.
You are completely off-base. Many of the people voting no -- including myself -- have said that they would support one or more new poker newsgroups -- just not the one that was proposed here.
> The arguments against RGPM were selfish and paranoid. > [snip]
Boy are you pissed -- you just keep characterizing people that disagree with you in negative ways.
> Oh well. The people have spoken, and they screwed it up. It's not the > first time that's happened, and it won't be the last.
No screw up. The results was appropriate.
Quit your whining.
Chuck
_________________________________________________________________ Posted using RecPoker.com - http://www.recpoker.com
>> Maybe some posters voted no for those reasons. Some voted for >> different reasons.
>> What about:
>> - "Spam is not a problem."
>Irrelevant. Not a good reason to deny other people a moderated newsgroup.
Who so ever thinks that people need good reasons to vote one way or another should seriously consider meritocracy as the solution to all their problems.
Who defines "good"? You?
You seem to be under some kind of illusions about the way the world works.
> On Wed, 19 May 2004 12:34:35 -0700, "OneOut" wrote:
> >The first time I looked at it there was a couple of "Nadar calls for Bush > >Impechment" post and numerous post about Iams dog food. > >I guess Chris feels like it is his personal playground.
> Your assumption about any moderator approving one of the Nadar posts > is ill-informed. I have seen these posts in many moderated groups. > They appeared because they had forged approve headers.
> Rich M
Perhaps it's your assumption that is ill-informed. Did you bother to go and check to see if the headers were forged?
I do not remember the *Nadar* post as being forged with an approved header. In fact *impeach Bush* is what caught my attention.
The multiple Iams post headers were not misleading.
Why do you feel the need to take up for someone who has been caught *stuffing* the ballot box with YES votes?
OneOut <craigswhomes(nospam)@tca.net> wrote: > The first time I looked at it there was a couple of "Nadar calls for > Bush Impechment" post and numerous post about Iams dog food.
> I guess Chris feels like it is his personal playground.
Look at other newsgroups - that person was spoofing the moderator approval.
I certainly do NOT support Nader - and even if I did, I wouldn't after the spoofing...
--
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Chris Barnes AOL IM: CNBarnes ch...@txbarnes.com Yahoo IM: chrisnbarnes Usenet really is all about standing around and hitting the ground with clubs, on a spot where many years earlier a dead horse lay.
> > > However, when there is reason for significant opposition (as there was > > > here), there is need for a super-majority before the status quo -- which > > > has existed for many years -- is altered. The result here is a good > > > result. Clearly there are many forums to discuss poker that are moderated > > > and/or segregated by topic. RGP is a unique entity in the poker community > > > and there needed to be overwhelming support for an action that had the > > > potential of destroying it.
> > That's just an idiotic thing to say. If anything at all was proved by the > > vote, it's that so few people voted that anyone who thought that RGPM had > > the potential to destroy RGP was deluding himself.
> You are really the king of the non sequiturs. I don't know how to respond > to a statement so devoid of logic. The threat to RGP was stated many > times. The creation of the newsgroup as proposed would basically split a > relatively healthy online community for no good reason.
OK, I'll explain it in simpler terms. As only 228 people voted yes on the proposal, and there are tens of thousands that read this group, quite clearly it was a relatively tiny percentage who wanted to participate in RGPM. As in, so small a percentage that it would be very unlikely that RGP content would change more than slightly.
You say "split a relatively healthy online community". RGP is the third most active newsgroup in the Big Eight. That's out of tens of thousands of newsgroups. It could have handled losing a couple thousand members who wanted to participate in a moderated version (and that's ignoring the fact that many of them would have stayed in RGP as well).
> > > The overwhelming support was not there (and I > > > still believe there was some considerable ballot stuffing on the Yes > > > side). Here, the proposal had many flaws and was poorly conceived. I > > > suspect there will be other poker-related newsgroups created in the future > > > -- but this one was the wrong one.
> > The RGPM proposal wasn't a perfect solution. However, it was a decent > > amount of effort put forth to create a quality newsgroup about poker. It's > > too bad that a few scared people wanted to keep this a one-newspaper town.
> You are completely off-base. Many of the people voting no -- including > myself -- have said that they would support one or more new poker > newsgroups -- just not the one that was proposed here.
> > The arguments against RGPM were selfish and paranoid. > > [snip]
> Boy are you pissed -- you just keep characterizing people that disagree > with you in negative ways.
I appreciate that you misread my sentence. I said that the ARGUMENTS against RGPM were selfish and paranoid. I chose those words intentionally. I did not say that everyone who voted NO was selfish and paranoid.
> > Oh well. The people have spoken, and they screwed it up. It's not the > > first time that's happened, and it won't be the last.
> No screw up. The results was appropriate.
Your opinion is noted.
> Quit your whining.
Ah, sophisticated riposte. I fear I am wounded.
> Chuck
Thanks for the feedback. I'm actually rather confident that at some point, most of the "NO" voters will realize that they made a mistake. Most of them voted in the sense of "would you be a member of a newsgroup with this charter", as opposed to "if somebody else wants to have a newsgroup with this charter, is that OK?". See, I don't care if you are a member of RGPM, or rec.fan.pearljam, or talk.kids or anything else. Because I believe that you have the right to hang out in any newsgroup you want, even if it's in a subject I care nothing about, or even if it's in a subject I do care about but I dislike/ignore a newsgroup associated with it.
What offends me so much is how close-minded the NO voters were. It's not like I'm a prolific poker writer with a personal beef against RGP. I have no idea whether I ever would have posted in an RGPM. What I did and do understand is that denying other people something they want when it hardly affects oneself at all is a very selfish thing to do. I don't think the majority of the NO voters were consciously trying to exercise a form of schadenfreude, I just think that they were associating the idea of "am I in favor of creating RGPM" with the idea of "am I in favor of using RGPM".
> >> Maybe some posters voted no for those reasons. Some voted for > >> different reasons.
> >> What about:
> >> - "Spam is not a problem."
> >Irrelevant. Not a good reason to deny other people a moderated newsgroup.
> Who so ever thinks that people need good reasons to > vote one way or another should seriously consider > meritocracy as the solution to all their problems.
> Who defines "good"? You?
> You seem to be under some kind of illusions about > the way the world works.
Aha. So your reasoning is devolving into "everyone has their own opinions and so we can't find a common base from which to ever discuss anything"?
I don't want to put words in your mouth. Here is my question:
If there is a known community of a couple thousand people who would like to have a moderated newsgroup in which they can discuss poker, why do you think they should not be allowed to have it? Its possible effects on you are very small, the people are not conspiring to commit acts of violence or criminality, and it costs you nothing monetarily.
> Aha. So your reasoning is devolving into "everyone has their own opinions > and so we can't find a common base from which to ever discuss anything"?
> I don't want to put words in your mouth. Here is my question:
> If there is a known community of a couple thousand people who would like to > have a moderated newsgroup in which they can discuss poker, why do you think > they should not be allowed to have it? Its possible effects on you are very > small, the people are not conspiring to commit acts of violence or > criminality, and it costs you nothing monetarily.
> > - Andrew
> - Itea
A couple thousand? Isn't that a stretch from 228? If you want a moderated forum for poker there are always web based solutions.
> OneOut <craigswhomes(nospam)@tca.net> wrote: > > The first time I looked at it there was a couple of "Nadar calls for > > Bush Impechment" post and numerous post about Iams dog food.
> > I guess Chris feels like it is his personal playground.
> Look at other newsgroups - that person was spoofing the moderator > approval.
> I certainly do NOT support Nader - and even if I did, I wouldn't after > the spoofing...
I don't care to look at the other newsgroups. I looked at the one you moderate, and I saw a header (IIRC) talking about impeaching Bush. That is what caught my attention. When I first looked at rec.hunting.dogs I wasn't aware at first that it was moderated.
Here is the first page that Google pulls up when I looked at rec.hunting. dogs.
Please explain to me how the last two threads are *spoofed* to get past a moderator?
Threads 1-25 of about 36,800 in rec.hunting.dogs Next 25 threads >>
Date Thread Subject Most Recent Poster May 18, 2004 Hunting Pigeons For Meat (7 articles) Greg Harbaugh May 15, 2004 More IAMS and HSUS Amy Dahl May 14, 2004 "See you in the Sky" (1 article) sparkplug May 14, 2004 Diabetes caused by dog food? (3 articles) Jo Wolf May 14, 2004 Walker hound (or foxhound) for adoption (1 article) flick May 11, 2004 Eating grass Allan Ashton May 10, 2004 AKC Gundog Championships . . . (8 articles) Rugerheim May 10, 2004 Castration - Amy (1 article) cb May 10, 2004 Tri-tronics sprot 50 collar?? Greg Harbaugh May 6, 2004 Free Dog Stand/Platform Directions (1 article) Kevin Fitz-Gerald May 3, 2004 Brittany Breeders - Northeast (4 articles) ppost May 1, 2004 Does harvesting doves affect the population from yea... (8 articles) David's World News Service May 1, 2004 HSUS/IAMS flap- NEWS April 20, 2004 (1 article) Amy Dahl Apr 29, 2004 the reply I received from IAMS (1 article) gz Apr 29, 2004 Iams sees the light? (1 article) Rock Apr 29, 2004 Free Pointing and Retrieving Dog Training Clinics (1 article) Outdoors Magazine Apr 29, 2004 Fw: Hello from Marti @ Iams! (1 article) Matthew R. Lawrence Apr 29, 2004 New GSP and assorted other stuff (1 article) Glenn Apr 29, 2004 Iams Pulls Sponsorship of Animal Rights Events (11 articles) Outdoors Magazine Apr 26, 2004 dove hunting is a blast! (14 articles) Neil Weinder Apr 23, 2004 dove hunting (6 articles) Dawg Apr 23, 2004 IAMS/HSUS flap - update? (1 article) Bear Tooth Apr 21, 2004 as lovingly as Haron lifts, you can walk the jug muc... (1 article) Laurence F. Sheldon, Jr. Apr 17, 2004 Call for an Impeachment Inquiry of Bush and Cheney (2 articles) Stewart Connor Apr 17, 2004 Call for an Impeachment Inquiry of Bush and Cheney Graybags Next 25 threads >>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------- - ---- Google Home - Advertising Programs - Business Solutions - About Google
> + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + > Chris Barnes AOL IM: CNBarnes > ch...@txbarnes.com Yahoo IM: chrisnbarnes > Usenet really is all about standing around and hitting the ground > with clubs, on a spot where many years earlier a dead horse lay.
> > > > However, when there is reason for significant opposition (as there was > > > > here), there is need for a super-majority before the status quo -- > which > > > > has existed for many years -- is altered. The result here is a good > > > > result. Clearly there are many forums to discuss poker that are > moderated > > > > and/or segregated by topic. RGP is a unique entity in the poker > community > > > > and there needed to be overwhelming support for an action that had the > > > > potential of destroying it.
> > > That's just an idiotic thing to say. If anything at all was proved by > the > > > vote, it's that so few people voted that anyone who thought that RGPM > had > > > the potential to destroy RGP was deluding himself.
> > You are really the king of the non sequiturs. I don't know how to respond > > to a statement so devoid of logic. The threat to RGP was stated many > > times. The creation of the newsgroup as proposed would basically split a > > relatively healthy online community for no good reason.
> OK, I'll explain it in simpler terms. As only 228 people voted yes on the > proposal, and there are tens of thousands that read this group, quite > clearly it was a relatively tiny percentage who wanted to participate in > RGPM. As in, so small a percentage that it would be very unlikely that RGP > content would change more than slightly.
> You say "split a relatively healthy online community". RGP is the third > most active newsgroup in the Big Eight. That's out of tens of thousands of > newsgroups. It could have handled losing a couple thousand members who > wanted to participate in a moderated version (and that's ignoring the fact > that many of them would have stayed in RGP as well).
> > > > The overwhelming support was not there (and I > > > > still believe there was some considerable ballot stuffing on the Yes > > > > side). Here, the proposal had many flaws and was poorly conceived. I > > > > suspect there will be other poker-related newsgroups created in the > future > > > > -- but this one was the wrong one.
> > > The RGPM proposal wasn't a perfect solution. However, it was a decent > > > amount of effort put forth to create a quality newsgroup about poker. > It's > > > too bad that a few scared people wanted to keep this a one-newspaper > town.
> > You are completely off-base. Many of the people voting no -- including > > myself -- have said that they would support one or more new poker > > newsgroups -- just not the one that was proposed here.
> > > The arguments against RGPM were selfish and paranoid. > > > [snip]
> > Boy are you pissed -- you just keep characterizing people that disagree > > with you in negative ways.
> I appreciate that you misread my sentence. I said that the ARGUMENTS > against RGPM were selfish and paranoid. I chose those words intentionally. > I did not say that everyone who voted NO was selfish and paranoid.
> > > Oh well. The people have spoken, and they screwed it up. It's not the > > > first time that's happened, and it won't be the last.
> > No screw up. The results was appropriate.
> Your opinion is noted.
> > Quit your whining.
> Ah, sophisticated riposte. I fear I am wounded.
> > Chuck
> Thanks for the feedback. I'm actually rather confident that at some point, > most of the "NO" voters will realize that they made a mistake. Most of them > voted in the sense of "would you be a member of a newsgroup with this > charter", as opposed to "if somebody else wants to have a newsgroup with > this charter, is that OK?". See, I don't care if you are a member of RGPM, > or rec.fan.pearljam, or talk.kids or anything else. Because I believe that > you have the right to hang out in any newsgroup you want, even if it's in a > subject I care nothing about, or even if it's in a subject I do care about > but I dislike/ignore a newsgroup associated with it.
> What offends me so much is how close-minded the NO voters were. It's not > like I'm a prolific poker writer with a personal beef against RGP. I have > no idea whether I ever would have posted in an RGPM. What I did and do > understand is that denying other people something they want when it hardly > affects oneself at all is a very selfish thing to do. I don't think the > majority of the NO voters were consciously trying to exercise a form of > schadenfreude, I just think that they were associating the idea of "am I in > favor of creating RGPM" with the idea of "am I in favor of using RGPM".
> On Wed, 19 May 2004 12:34:35 -0700, "OneOut" wrote:
> >The first time I looked at it there was a couple of "Nadar calls for Bush > >Impechment" post and numerous post about Iams dog food. > >I guess Chris feels like it is his personal playground.
> Your assumption about any moderator approving one of the Nadar posts > is ill-informed. I have seen these posts in many moderated groups. > They appeared because they had forged approve headers.
> Rich M
Oh really? Then take a look at the first page of rec.hunting.dogs and please explain to me how the last two threads were *spoofed*.
Threads 1-25 of about 36,800 in rec.hunting.dogs Next 25 threads >>
Date Thread Subject Most Recent Poster May 18, 2004 Hunting Pigeons For Meat (7 articles) Greg Harbaugh May 15, 2004 More IAMS and HSUS Amy Dahl May 14, 2004 "See you in the Sky" (1 article) sparkplug May 14, 2004 Diabetes caused by dog food? (3 articles) Jo Wolf May 14, 2004 Walker hound (or foxhound) for adoption (1 article) flick May 11, 2004 Eating grass Allan Ashton May 10, 2004 AKC Gundog Championships . . . (8 articles) Rugerheim May 10, 2004 Castration - Amy (1 article) cb May 10, 2004 Tri-tronics sprot 50 collar?? Greg Harbaugh May 6, 2004 Free Dog Stand/Platform Directions (1 article) Kevin Fitz-Gerald May 3, 2004 Brittany Breeders - Northeast (4 articles) ppost May 1, 2004 Does harvesting doves affect the population from yea... (8 articles) David's World News Service May 1, 2004 HSUS/IAMS flap- NEWS April 20, 2004 (1 article) Amy Dahl Apr 29, 2004 the reply I received from IAMS (1 article) gz Apr 29, 2004 Iams sees the light? (1 article) Rock Apr 29, 2004 Free Pointing and Retrieving Dog Training Clinics (1 article) Outdoors Magazine Apr 29, 2004 Fw: Hello from Marti @ Iams! (1 article) Matthew R. Lawrence Apr 29, 2004 New GSP and assorted other stuff (1 article) Glenn Apr 29, 2004 Iams Pulls Sponsorship of Animal Rights Events (11 articles) Outdoors Magazine Apr 26, 2004 dove hunting is a blast! (14 articles) Neil Weinder Apr 23, 2004 dove hunting (6 articles) Dawg Apr 23, 2004 IAMS/HSUS flap - update? (1 article) Bear Tooth Apr 21, 2004 as lovingly as Haron lifts, you can walk the jug muc... (1 article) Laurence F. Sheldon, Jr. Apr 17, 2004 Call for an Impeachment Inquiry of Bush and Cheney (2 articles) Stewart Connor Apr 17, 2004 Call for an Impeachment Inquiry of Bush and Cheney Graybags Next 25 threads >>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------- - ---- Google Home - Advertising Programs - Business Solutions - About Google
