2nd RFD: Re-chartering uk.culture.arts.writing
Andy Mabbett
2ND REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
This is a formal Request For Discussion (RFD) for the following changes
in the uk.* Usenet hierarchy:
amendment to charter of uk.culture.arts.writing
Administrative note:
It should be understood that the statement made in this RFD to the
effect that the changes removed were factual, represents Mr Mabbett's
opinion on the matter.
Control caused a delay of about 3 days during the immediate run-up to
the election. Control will remember to hand over should there be
another election during his term of office.
Changes from previous RFD:
The first RFD was, as stated, a first draft. This 2nd draft is a
complete re-write and attempt to encompass those points made during
the debate (and the restoration on the size of posted extracts,
determined by straw poll) [1]
It is anticipated that a further RFD may be needed to resolve some
outstanding issues, before a vote is called. This applies in
particular to the section on the frequency of posting of work (which
is designed to prevent multi- part postings from circumventing the
rule on length). [2]
NOTE: At the committee's instance, the proponent has removed, under
protest, factual wording from the points marked [1] and [2]
above. This RFD, originally sent to Control, and acknowledged, on 19
May, has been delayed while the Committee considered this matter, and
Control has apologised for his part in the delay. The proponent on the
other hand, has replied to each on controls e-mails within 12 hours of
receiving it.
*** ALL DISCUSSION MUST TAKE PLACE IN UK.NET.NEWS.CONFIG ***
This is not a Call for Votes (CFV); you cannot vote at this time.
Further procedural details are given below.
RATIONALE: uk.culture.arts.writing charter change
The charter of uk.culture.arts.writing is a badly- written mess. This
RFD seeks to rectify that matter.
CHARTER: uk.culture.arts.writing
To replace the current charter:
This newsgroup is a broadly based forum for all genres and aspects
of writing from a UK perspective. All writers and potential writers are
welcome.
Posting of work by writers is discouraged due to the availability of
other forums for this purpose. Pointers to relevant URLs are however
welcome.
ADVERTISEMENTS
All advertisements are banned except for URLs to writers' works
as described above.
BINARIES
Binaries are forbidden, except for short cryptographic signatures
(such as PGP). HTML & RTF postings are also unwelcome in this
newsgroup. Such material belongs on a web or ftp site to which a
pointer may be posted. Posts must be readable as plain text. To
see how to make your newsreader comply with this, read
http://www.usenet.org.uk/ukpost.html
SIGNATURE FILES
Posters are requested to limit their signature files to four
lines or less.
with this:
This newsgroup is for the discussion of all aspects of writing,
from a UK perspective. This includes writing for pleasure or
profit, whether prose or poetry, fact (including, but not
limited to technical writing, criticism and commentary, history
and biography) or fiction (of any genre).
Writers may post samples of work over which they hold copyright,
provided that:
* The body of the post is no longer than 500 words
* No such post shall be substantively repeated, within
[say] six months
* Each poster may only make one such post in a
rolling period of [say] 30 days.
The posting of longer samples is forbidden; although URLs for such
samples may be posted.
ADVERTISING
Advertising is forbidden, with these exceptions:
Suppliers of goods and services relevant to writing in
the UK may post, not more than once every 3 months, an
invitation of four lines or fewer, to visit their web site or
request details. The subject line must begin "ADVERT: "
BINARIES & FORMATTING
Encoded binaries (e.g. pictures, compressed files, etc.), are
*forbidden*, except for cryptographic signatures (e.g. PGP)
Binaries belong on a web or ftp site, whose URL may be posted.
Posts must be in plain text. To see how to make some common
newsreaders comply with this, read
<http://www.usenet.org.uk/ukpost.html>
END CHARTER
PROCEDURE:
This is a request for discussion, not a call for votes. In this phase of
the process, any potential problems with the proposal should be raised
and resolved. The discussion period will continue for a minimum of 10
days, starting from when this RFD is posted to uk.net.news.announce
(i.e. until June 23rd) after which a Call For Votes (CFV) may be
posted by a neutral vote taker if the discussion warrants it.
Alternatively, the proposal may proceed by the fast-track method. Please
do not attempt to vote until this happens.
This RFD attempts to comply fully with the "Guidelines for Group Creation
within the UK Hierarchy" as published regularly in uk.net.news.announce.
Please refer to this document if you have any questions about the process.
DISTRIBUTION:
This RFD has been posted to the following newsgroups:
uk.net.news.announce
uk.net.news.config
uk.culture.arts.writing
Proponent:
Andy Mabbett <an...@pigsonthewing.org.uk>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 6.5.1i
Charset: noconv
iQCVAwUBOyZ6T2OfGXkh8vHZAQEOFwP8CLfLGtqpAiWWt+DYWVc/XvDou4BSwb0q
R8jvSf3VuBt3UyZy4uwDFTQFp5aEmQbSyIIu5SgFATfmgQ5K/1ke+a/tW0VwYxWU
sLClu9vdZDxf+9cFg0b4F6mAyY1H73dtcZZymGLBtNueTck7ypYiDcFaZwbcNNm9
bkM8/XTvFsk=
=+99P
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Andy Mabbett
on.co.uk>, it was suggested that I wrote:
>Administrative note:
>
>It should be understood that the statement made in this RFD to the
>effect that the changes removed were factual, represents Mr Mabbett's
>opinion on the matter.
>
>Control caused a delay of about 3 days during the immediate run-up to
>the election. Control will remember to hand over should there be
>another election during his term of office.
The above wording has been posted under my name, without consultation
and against my wishes.
#~#~#~#~#~#~#~#~#~#~#~#~#~#~#~#~#~#~#~#~#~#~#~#~#~#~#~#~#~#~#~#~#~#~#~#
In article <rfd2-uk.culture.arts.writing-20010612202315$03...@harlech.dem
on.co.uk>, Andy Mabbett <an...@pigsonthewing.org.uk> writes
>Changes from previous RFD:
>
>The first RFD was, as stated, a first draft. This 2nd draft is a
>complete re-write and attempt to encompass those points made during
>the debate (and the restoration on the size of posted extracts,
>determined by straw poll) [1]
The wording removed at this point was:
while ignoring the unfortunate ad hominem and dishonest abuse
spouted by some posters (indulging, sadly, one committee
member), and attempts to personalise the debate, rather then
address real issues.
>It is anticipated that a further RFD may be needed to resolve some
>outstanding issues, before a vote is called. This applies in
>particular to the section on the frequency of posting of work (which
>is designed to prevent multi- part postings from circumventing the
>rule on length). [2]
The wording removed at this point was:
The proponent also notes the stated intention of some posters to
ucaw to "squat" an empty alt.* groups, and wonders whether this
renders ucaw redundant, and needing removal.
>NOTE: At the committee's instance, the proponent has removed, under
>protest, factual wording from the points marked [1] and [2]
>above. This RFD, originally sent to Control, and acknowledged, on 19
>May, has been delayed while the Committee considered this matter, and
>Control has apologised for his part in the delay. The proponent on the
>other hand, has replied to each on controls e-mails within 12 hours of
>receiving it.
Note also that the Committee has, pointlessly, caused a delay of 23 days
(from the day on which Control initially said this RFD would be posted,
Sunday 20 May, until the day he has done so); in a futile attempt to
prevent me from making those points.
--
Andy Mabbett
A 1998 survey of 48 restaurants' chicken tikka masalas
found that the only common ingredient was chicken.
ROBBIE
Andy Mabbett <an...@pigsonthewing.org.uk> wrote in message
news:rfd2-uk.culture.arts.writing-20010612202315$03...@harlech.demon.co.uk...
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
I don't agree with any of the proposals, they smack of anal retention and a
kind of petty bureaucracy that I hope will become a thing of the past in
usenet. Uk.culture.arts.writing is doing fine as it is, and I don't think
limiting expression and the posting of creative work in favour of dreary
note-comparing about journalism rates, literary agents and writing software
is a good move....
ROBBIE
ROBBIE
Marcus Houlden
wrote the following to uk.net.news.config:
> In article <rfd2-uk.culture.arts.writing-20010612202315$03...@harlech.dem
> on.co.uk>, it was suggested that I wrote:
>
>>Administrative note:
>>
>>It should be understood that the statement made in this RFD to the
>>effect that the changes removed were factual, represents Mr Mabbett's
>>opinion on the matter.
>>
>>Control caused a delay of about 3 days during the immediate run-up to
>>the election. Control will remember to hand over should there be
>>another election during his term of office.
>
> The above wording has been posted under my name, without consultation
> and against my wishes.
But how do statements such as:
> while ignoring the unfortunate ad hominem and dishonest abuse
> spouted by some posters (indulging, sadly, one committee
> member), and attempts to personalise the debate, rather then
> address real issues.
improve the quality of the discussion? I'm not interested in message IDs,
beating wives, or bestiality; I just want a straight answer to a straight
question.
mh.
--
"It's a 4000 in an X cup."
Andy Mabbett
on.co.uk>, Andy Mabbett <an...@pigsonthewing.org.uk> writes
>(and the restoration on the size of posted extracts,
^^^^^^^^^^^
>determined by straw poll) [1]
I wrote to Control on 23 May, noting that I had made a typo on the RFD
as submitted to him, and asking him to change "restoration" to
"restriction".
Andy Mabbett
<an...@pigsonthewing.org.uk> writes
>(indulging, sadly, one committee member)
^^^^^^^^^
"including"
ROBBIE
Andy Mabbett <an...@pigsonthewing.org.uk> wrote in message
news:SJcmLVE6$oJ7...@pigsonthewing.org.uk...
Graham Drabble
> In article
> <rfd2-uk.culture.arts.writing-20010612202315$03...@harlech.dem
> on.co.uk>, Andy Mabbett <an...@pigsonthewing.org.uk> writes
>
>>Changes from previous RFD:
>>
>>The first RFD was, as stated, a first draft. This 2nd draft is a
>>complete re-write and attempt to encompass those points made during
>>the debate (and the restoration on the size of posted extracts,
>>determined by straw poll) [1]
>
> The wording removed at this point was:
>
> while ignoring the unfortunate ad hominem and dishonest
> abuse spouted by some posters (indulging, sadly, one
> committee member), and attempts to personalise the debate,
> rather then address real issues.
May I ask why you felt it necessary to include this in the RFD? Whilst
it is true that the debate was, IMO, unnecessarily personal I don't see
what help you feel this statement is in getting the changes passed.
>>It is anticipated that a further RFD may be needed to resolve some
>>outstanding issues, before a vote is called. This applies in
>>particular to the section on the frequency of posting of work
>>(which is designed to prevent multi- part postings from
>>circumventing the rule on length). [2]
>
> The wording removed at this point was:
>
> The proponent also notes the stated intention of some
> posters to ucaw to "squat" an empty alt.* groups, and
> wonders whether this renders ucaw redundant, and needing
> removal.
This seems fine to me. I can't comment on its accuracy but it is fine
to bring the discussion up. After all you could write a proposal for
the rmgrouping of ucaw (but I hope you don't as it would probably be a
waste of time).
However I must ask why did the committee feel it necessary to interfere
at all. An RFD is the proponants work and his view on what should
happen and why. Provided that the RFD meets the requirements set out in
the guidelines, namely it has a charter and the moderation status is
marked, and is broadly in line with the hierarchy charter the committee
should leave it alone. If they feel it is badly worded then this is
what the debate in unnc is for. Note that the guidelines don't even say
that an RFD must have a rationale section. I normally would support the
committee using it's discretion, but this seems to be over the top. If
they really think it is wrong then they could have requested it be
altered (I wouldn't be totally happy at this but can understand the
reasons for them wanting to) but it should have been made clear that
the proponent had the final say.
--
Graham Drabble
Alan Ford
>In article <rfd2-uk.culture.arts.writing-20010612202315$03...@harlech.dem
>on.co.uk>, it was suggested that I wrote:
>
>>Administrative note:
>>
>>It should be understood that the statement made in this RFD to the
>>effect that the changes removed were factual, represents Mr Mabbett's
>>opinion on the matter.
>>
>>Control caused a delay of about 3 days during the immediate run-up to
>>the election. Control will remember to hand over should there be
>>another election during his term of office.
>
>The above wording has been posted under my name, without consultation
>and against my wishes.
The post may indeed be "From:" you -- that in no way says you wrote
everything in it. This post is "From:" me, and oddly enough there is
a lot of stuff I didn't write in it -- suitably titled.
It is blatantly obvious (at least, I would have thought it was) that
that was a note made by somebody involved in the administration of
this process (hence the title), i.e. Control, and not you. And even
if that was missed, would you really be referring to yourself in the
third person?
Okay, for clarity, maybe it could have been indented and signed
"Control" -- but would that really have been necessary? I don't think so.
>>Changes from previous RFD:
>>
>>The first RFD was, as stated, a first draft. This 2nd draft is a
>>complete re-write and attempt to encompass those points made during
>>the debate (and the restoration on the size of posted extracts,
>>determined by straw poll) [1]
>
>The wording removed at this point was:
>
> while ignoring the unfortunate ad hominem and dishonest abuse
> spouted by some posters (indulging, sadly, one committee
> member), and attempts to personalise the debate, rather then
> address real issues.
Which would have added absolutely nothing of benefit, does not change
the facts you wrote, and simply create more antagonism. The bias in it
sticks out a mile. The "changes" section is supposed simply to list
changes (hence the name), factually, and not provide a soap box.
--
Alan Ford * al...@whirlnet.co.uk
Alan Ford
<an...@pigsonthewing.org.uk> wrote:
> This newsgroup is for the discussion of all aspects of writing,
> from a UK perspective. This includes writing for pleasure or
> profit, whether prose or poetry, fact (including, but not
> limited to technical writing, criticism and commentary, history
> and biography) or fiction (of any genre).
Do we really need all that after the first sentance? I said this last
time... the first sentance on itself would do, but there is nothing
wrong with a little bit extra for friendly clarity. It could be (with
grammatical tidying):
This newsgroup is for the discussion of all aspects of writing,
from a UK perspective, including, but not limited to, fact, fiction
and poetry -- both commercially or for pleasure.
> Writers may post samples of work over which they hold copyright,
> provided that:
Maybe insert an "in plain text" for extra anti-Word emphasis.
> The posting of longer samples is forbidden; although URLs for such
> samples may be posted.
"Discouraged", I feel, is better than "forbidden".
I asked you last time how they were "forbidden" -- I can't remember
an answer.
Alan Ford
>Andy Mabbett <an...@pigsonthewing.org.uk> wrote in
>news:uYV5fTCf...@pigsonthewing.org.uk:
>
>>
>> The proponent also notes the stated intention of some
>> posters to ucaw to "squat" an empty alt.* groups, and
>> wonders whether this renders ucaw redundant, and needing
>> removal.
>
>This seems fine to me.
What puzzles me on that one is what it actually means! I can't remember
anything like that in the discussion, does the proponent have a message-ID
or two to enlighten me on this? If it wasn't in the RFD stage, it probably
doesn't belong in the new RFD... but all in all I don't think that one
merited removal... but then I still don't really know what it's on about!
>However I must ask why did the committee feel it necessary to interfere
>at all. An RFD is the proponants work and his view on what should
>happen and why. Provided that the RFD meets the requirements set out in
>the guidelines, namely it has a charter and the moderation status is
>marked, and is broadly in line with the hierarchy charter the committee
>should leave it alone. If they feel it is badly worded then this is
>what the debate in unnc is for. Note that the guidelines don't even say
>that an RFD must have a rationale section. I normally would support the
>committee using it's discretion, but this seems to be over the top. If
>they really think it is wrong then they could have requested it be
>altered (I wouldn't be totally happy at this but can understand the
>reasons for them wanting to) but it should have been made clear that
>the proponent had the final say.
Errr, it *was* with consultation with the proponent. I can't remember
the exact wording, but it said something like "the proponent accepted
these changes, with protest"
It's worth remembering, too, that this isn't the rationale (where
a bit of bias is inevitable), but in the "changes" section, which
really should be restricted to the facts of what has changed, and
not opinionated comment.
Blade Runner
<graham....@lineone.net> wrote:
>However I must ask why did the committee feel it necessary to interfere
>at all. An RFD is the proponants work and his view on what should
>happen and why. Provided that the RFD meets the requirements set out in
>the guidelines, namely it has a charter and the moderation status is
>marked, and is broadly in line with the hierarchy charter the committee
>should leave it alone.
Many previous RFDs have had the changes section written by control and
that alone is sufficient reason. Furthermore, I saw no reason why
this section should relate to anything other than changes. This is a
case where there are no guidelines to help and the committee had to
use its discretion. It was my view that the comments would be
counterproductive and would only serve to inflame and already fraught
situation. Other than that it was a perfectly fine and reasonable
RFD.
I am at a loss to understand Andy's motives. He had the chance to get
his RFD through. As it is, it looks unlikely. The extra comments
were totally unnecessary and give the impression that he is
deliberately trying to sabotage his own proposal.
--
Geoff (Blade Runner)
Temporary sig
MJ Ray
contradicts itself over the fundamental issue of advertising writers'
works in several places.
The opening paragraph is also a wonderful example of bad writing,
including an over-long parenthesised passage and dubious grouping which
should alert the author to the required restructuring. For example,
it appears to suggest that any posting of criticism should also
contain commentary.
Finally, there is known "bad blood" between the proponent and some
users of the group in the past, which he has apparently attempted to
restart with a recent unnc-ucaw cross-post replacing contentious
wording removed by the Committee.
Would people from ucaw *please* make their opinions known in
uk.net.news.config? If these are as hostile as previously, I would
expect the proponent to leave this issue and allow another user of the
group to continue the process. I cannot see any reasonable objection
to this course of action, if the proponent's intentions are
honourable.
--
MJR
Stuart
<an...@pigsonthewing.org.uk> wrote:
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
> 2ND REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
<snip>
Here we bloody go again.
I suggest that those in UCAW that give a damn, join together and tell
this lot of pencil pushers, exactly why it has gone dark.
Stuart
James Coupe
<Stu...@NOSPAMStuartd.demon.co.uk> writes
>I suggest that those in UCAW that give a damn, join together and tell
>this lot of pencil pushers, exactly why it has gone dark.
"this lot" ?
--
James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D
"You reinstall Dial-Up Networking. The Elf screams and becomes EBD690ECD7A1F
an icon. *** CONGRATULATIONS! *** You completed the BT Internet B457CA213D7E6
Helpdesk training course in 15 out of a possible 9000 moves." 68C3695D623D5D
Mark Wallace
"MJ Ray" <markj+uk.net...@cloaked.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:87elspe...@cloaked.freeserve.co.uk...
> Would people from ucaw *please* make their opinions known in
> uk.net.news.config? If these are as hostile as previously, I would
> expect the proponent to leave this issue and allow another user of the
> group to continue the process. I cannot see any reasonable objection
> to this course of action, if the proponent's intentions are
> honourable.
The verbiage:
> Posting of work by writers is discouraged due to the availability of
> other forums for this purpose. Pointers to relevant URLs are however
> welcome.
Still reflects neither the wishes nor intentions of the group's users, and
should therefore be removed.
The further verbiage:
* Each poster may only make one such post in a
rolling period of [say] 30 days.
Appears to be a direct attack on one of the group's users, who; up until
this point; has not engaged in the discussion (read: 'flame war') with the
proposer over the proposer's RFD (read: 'trolling intent'). I therefore see
it as an attempt to cause a widening of the hostile discussion -- yet
another trollism.
The wording throughout is ungrammatical, poorly constructed, and lacking in
any of the qualities one would hope to see in a charter for a literary
newsgroup.
I am agree that a further RFD is required.
My opinions of the proposer's (read: "troll's") actions and intent are as
hostile as previously; but I have made my views known on the matter, and
have no desire to engage in further debate.
--
Mark Wallace
____________________________________________
For the intelligent approach to nasty humour, visit
The Anglo-American Humour (humor) Site
http://funny.as/anything
____________________________________________
Iain Bowen
Marcus Houlden <mhou...@nukesoft.co.uk> wrote:
>On Tue, 12 Jun 2001 22:24:47 +0100, Andy Mabbett <an...@pigsonthewing.org.uk>
>wrote the following to uk.net.news.config:
>> spouted by some posters (indulging, sadly, one committee
>> member), and attempts to personalise the debate, rather then
>> address real issues.
>
>improve the quality of the discussion? I'm not interested in message IDs,
>beating wives, or bestiality; I just want a straight answer to a straight
>question.
That's irrelevant. What is relevant is that they are not changes to
the RFD. Proponent was told that if he wished, he could include such
information in the rationale although committee advised against it.
Iain
--
\/ Member of the UK Usenet Committee, also Control for uk.*
Full information on uk.* newsgroups at http://www.usenet.org.uk
Iain Bowen. in deepest B13. Also available at alaric(at)alaric.org.uk
West Midlands Election Site at http://www.harlech.demon.co.uk/election.html
Mark Wallace
"Alan Ford" <al...@whirlnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:992386750.27009.0...@news.demon.co.uk...
> The post may indeed be "From:" you -- that in no way says you wrote
> everything in it. This post is "From:" me, and oddly enough there is
> a lot of stuff I didn't write in it -- suitably titled.
It had his PGP signature.
(I couldn't let a 'begged for' dig like that pass me by).
Jack Howard
In article <9g6u6v$7bbiu$1...@ID-51325.news.dfncis.de>, Mark Wallace
<mwallacee...@noknok.nl> writes
>The verbiage:
>
>> Posting of work by writers is discouraged due to the availability of
>> other forums for this purpose. Pointers to relevant URLs are however
>> welcome.
>
>Still reflects neither the wishes nor intentions of the group's users, and
>should therefore be removed.
>The further verbiage:
>
> * Each poster may only make one such post in a
> rolling period of [say] 30 days.
>
>Appears to be a direct attack on one of the group's users, who; up until
>this point; has not engaged in the discussion (read: 'flame war') with the
>proposer over the proposer's RFD (read: 'trolling intent'). I therefore see
>it as an attempt to cause a widening of the hostile discussion -- yet
>another trollism.
Indeed - unless these pointless attacks on the established practice of
the group's regular posters are removed, I will continue to oppose these
RFDs on the (well founded) basis that "there is no consensus".
>I am agree that a further RFD is required.
IMO, it needs a total re-write, based on something like the wording PP
proposed during the 1st RFD.
>My opinions of the proposer's (read: "troll's") actions and intent are as
>hostile as previously; but I have made my views known on the matter, and
>have no desire to engage in further debate.
Reading the RFD, I concur with Mark on this one. I would advise the
proponent to either withdraw this RFD entirely, or issue a 3rd RFD that
actually reflects what the regular users of ucaw want.
--
- Jack Howard,
- speaking as a member of, but not for, the UK Usenet Committee
Adam D. Barratt
Wallace" <mwallacee...@noknok.nl> wrote in message
<9g6v6s$7atpf$1...@ID-51325.news.dfncis.de>:
>
>"Alan Ford" <al...@whirlnet.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:992386750.27009.0...@news.demon.co.uk...
>
>> The post may indeed be "From:" you -- that in no way says you wrote
>> everything in it. This post is "From:" me, and oddly enough there is
>> a lot of stuff I didn't write in it -- suitably titled.
>
>It had his PGP signature.
s/his/Control's, I think you'll find, as with every official post sent
by Control (at least the ones posted to unna).
>(I couldn't let a 'begged for' dig like that pass me by).
I'm sure you could have if you'd wanted. As it was, it just made you
look silly, IMHO.
hth
--
Adam D. Barratt
Please reply to the newsgroup rather than via e-mail
Andy Mabbett
<ala...@alaric.org.uk> writes
> What is relevant is that they are not changes to
>the RFD. Proponent was told that if he wished, he could include such
>information in the rationale although committee advised against it.
I was told:
"The committee is of the opinion that the CHANGES section must
be restricted to factual statements of what has changed, along
with statements of what points from the debate have caused such
changes. The committee does not accept comment from the
proponent as to the conduct of the RFD debate as being
appropriate to this.
If the proponent wishes to express partisan opinions about the
conduct to date of the RFD, then he is at liberty to do so
within the rationale though the committee would strongly advise
against so doing.
The committee will not permit the posting of an RFD where the
Changes section is based upon opinion rather than fact"
My changes section as submitted was factual. There were no partisan
opinions. The rationale had not changed since the first RFD. The
Committee has no remit, so far as I can see from the guidelines, to
impose the condition in its final paragraph. The Committee was talking
out if its collective posterior.
FU set
Andy Mabbett
Ford <al...@whirlnet.co.uk> writes
>>> The wording removed at this point was:
>>>
>>> The proponent also notes the stated intention of some
>>> posters to ucaw to "squat" an empty alt.* groups, and
>>> wonders whether this renders ucaw redundant, and needing
>>> removal.
>>
>>This seems fine to me.
>
>What puzzles me on that one is what it actually means!
It has been suggested, on ucaw, that the active members of the group use
, instead, and "empty" alt. group.
>I can't remember
>anything like that in the discussion,
The suggestion was not part of the RFD debate, and was not posted in
unnc.
> does the proponent have a message-ID
>or two to enlighten me on this?
Not at present; I can't remember the original poster, not the name of
the group concerned, and Googling [TM] for the post on "alt.*" or
"squat" has not, so far, found it. Perhaps someone can remind us which
group it was?
> If it wasn't in the RFD stage, it probably
>doesn't belong in the new RFD...
Why not? It's a factual observation of an issue which may impact on the
outcome of the debate.
[...]
>>If
>>they really think it is wrong then they could have requested it be
>>altered (I wouldn't be totally happy at this but can understand the
>>reasons for them wanting to) but it should have been made clear that
>>the proponent had the final say.
>
>Errr, it *was* with consultation with the proponent.
I wouldn't call unwarranted committee dictat "consultation.
> I can't remember
>the exact wording, but it said something like "the proponent accepted
>these changes, with protest"
It did not:
NOTE: At the committee's instance, the proponent has removed,
under protest, factual wording from the points marked [1] and
[2] above.
>It's worth remembering, too, that this isn't the rationale (where
>a bit of bias is inevitable), but in the "changes" section, which
>really should be restricted to the facts of what has changed, and
>not opinionated comment.
There was no opinion, only fact.
Andy Mabbett
<$black-dog$@hten.org.uk> writes
>>However I must ask why did the committee feel it necessary to interfere
>>at all.
>Many previous RFDs have had the changes section written by control and
>that alone is sufficient reason.
Nonsense.
[...]
>I am at a loss to understand Andy's motives. He had the chance to get
>his RFD through. As it is, it looks unlikely.
Why? What has changed, about the need for a re-charter, or the desires
of those of us who use the group, for the contents of the new charter?
> The extra comments
>were totally unnecessary
You are welcome to your opinion; mine differs.
>and give the impression that he is
>deliberately trying to sabotage his own proposal.
I fail to see how you - or anybody - could possibly think that.
Andy Mabbett
t.news...@cloaked.freeserve.co.uk> writes
>I believe this proposed wording to be flawed. Principally, it
>contradicts itself over the fundamental issue of advertising writers'
>works in several places.
Where? How?
>The opening paragraph is also a wonderful example of bad writing,
>including an over-long parenthesised passage and dubious grouping which
>should alert the author to the required restructuring. For example,
>it appears to suggest that any posting of criticism should also
>contain commentary.
Let's see your suggested improvements, then.
>Finally, there is known "bad blood" between the proponent and some
>users of the group in the past,
Some have been extremely hostile and abusive, not to mention dishonest
towards me, as noted, certainly. There is no "bad blood" on my part.
> which he has apparently attempted to
>restart with a recent unnc-ucaw cross-post replacing contentious
>wording removed by the Committee.
What paranoid nonsense.
>Would people from ucaw *please* make their opinions known in
>uk.net.news.config?
Indeed.
> If these are as hostile as previously,
There was some abuse; but other ucaw made constructive suggestions,
which have been incorporated in this draft.
> I would
>expect the proponent to leave this issue and allow another user of the
>group to continue the process.
Tough.
> I cannot see any reasonable objection
>to this course of action, if the proponent's intentions are
>honourable.
You don't appear to have anything constructive to say.
Andy Mabbett
Ford <al...@whirlnet.co.uk> writes
>> This newsgroup is for the discussion of all aspects of writing,
>> from a UK perspective. This includes writing for pleasure or
>> profit, whether prose or poetry, fact (including, but not
>> limited to technical writing, criticism and commentary, history
>> and biography) or fiction (of any genre).
>
>Do we really need all that after the first sentance?
Perhaps it is not "needed", though some sort of indication of the
expected content is common on charters; see uk.rec.gardening, for
example.
>I said this last
>time... the first sentance on itself would do, but there is nothing
>wrong with a little bit extra for friendly clarity.
You seem to answer your earlier question, with that.
> It could be (with
>grammatical tidying):
>
> This newsgroup is for the discussion of all aspects of writing,
> from a UK perspective, including, but not limited to, fact, fiction
> and poetry -- both commercially or for pleasure.
What do others think?
>> Writers may post samples of work over which they hold copyright,
>> provided that:
>
>Maybe insert an "in plain text" for extra anti-Word emphasis.
That's covered elsewhere.
>> The posting of longer samples is forbidden; although URLs for such
>> samples may be posted.
>
>"Discouraged", I feel, is better than "forbidden".
It means something different entirely.
>I asked you last time how they were "forbidden" -- I can't remember
>an answer.
In article <CzWClPDU...@pigsonthewing.org.uk>, Andy Mabbett
<an...@pigsonthewing.org.uk> writes
>>Except the "forbidden"... pray tell, *how* are they forbidden?
>>"Discouraged" is far more accurate.
>
>No, it means something different entirely.
HTH.
Andy Mabbett
>The verbiage:
>
>> Posting of work by writers is discouraged due to the availability of
>> other forums for this purpose. Pointers to relevant URLs are however
>> welcome.
>
>Still reflects neither the wishes nor intentions of the group's users, and
>should therefore be removed.
I'm glad you agree with me, and support my RFD to do so.
>The further verbiage:
By "verbiage" do you mean "overabundance of words"? If so, how?
> * Each poster may only make one such post in a
> rolling period of [say] 30 days.
>
>Appears to be a direct attack on one of the group's users,
Utter nonsense.
The users of ucaw expressed a wish that posted samples by restricted in
size. Allowing people to circumvent that by posting larger works in
multiple parts, at the same time or in close proximity, would defeat
that restriction.
[snip further ad hominem drivel - see what I mean?]
>The wording throughout is ungrammatical, poorly constructed, and lacking in
>any of the qualities one would hope to see in a charter for a literary
>newsgroup.
If you say so. I don't see any constructive suggestions for improvement
from you - nor do I expect any.
>I am agree that a further RFD is required.
[snip further ad hominem drivel]
>I have made my views known on the matter, and
>have no desire to engage in further debate.
How unhelpful.
Mark Wallace
> > This newsgroup is for the discussion of all aspects of writing,
> > from a UK perspective. This includes writing for pleasure or
> > profit, whether prose or poetry, fact (including, but not
> > limited to technical writing, criticism and commentary, history
> > and biography) or fiction (of any genre).
>
> Do we really need all that after the first sentance? I said this last
> time... the first sentance on itself would do, but there is nothing
> wrong with a little bit extra for friendly clarity. It could be (with
> grammatical tidying):
>
> This newsgroup is for the discussion of all aspects of writing,
> from a UK perspective, including, but not limited to, fact, fiction
> and poetry -- both commercially or for pleasure.
I, for one, agree that the more sensible simplicity of your wording would be
preferable.
Dave Mayall
"This lot"????
Andy Mabbett is *one* person.
--
Dave Mayall
Stuart
proper consideration. I also intended it to be posted to UCAW, not
UNNC.
I ask for this RFD to be rejected on the following grounds.
1) The proponent (Andrew Mabett) does not post, or contribute
anything to UCAW that has to do with the group's intended purpose.
The proponent's past actions has antagonised may of the regular
contributors, thereby detracting from the enjoyment of the group by
those who are using it for worthwhile purposes.
Therefore the proponent is an unsuitable person to write and
propose this RFD.
2) The intentions of the proponent, in producing this RFD are
suspect. I believe this RFD is a tool to propel the proponent back
into the limelight, giving him some much needed attention, rather than
for the benefit of the users of UCAW. Further I believe that the
proponent has choosen UCAW for this treatment, as its users are
generally apathetic to Usegroup administration, small enough to be an
easy target, yet busy enough to satisfy the proponent's ego with a
steady stream of posts.
Therefore (I believe) the proponent's motives for making this
RFD are malicious.
3) UCAW is not in need of a new charter. It manages to be a
pleasant, helpful and good natured group with the charter it already
has. It has become a well regarded home for a number of UK writers,
and the number of contributers continues to grow.
Therefore this RFD is unnecessary.
4) The proponent's last RFD caused many arguments and much
disruption to UCAW. Which caused a number of contributor to stop
posting and reading the group.
Therefore this RFD will damage UCAW.
For these reasons I ask for this RFD to be rejected (if such a process
is possible).
I would also politely request that Mr Andrew Mabett stops interfering
with UCAW. That said, I would very much like to read some of his
prose, or his opinions on any literature. If he has neither of these,
why is he so bothered about UCAW?
Stuart
Stuart
or the desires of those of us who use the group,
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
for the contents of the new charter?
I have been a regular contributor and reader of UCAW for the last six
months. I have yet to see a single on-topic contribution by yourself.
So by what criteria do you claim to be a user of the group, and by
what right do you claim to speak for any of those who use the group
for its intended purpose?
Stuart
Jack Howard
In article <3b276948...@news.cable.ntl.com>, Stuart
<Stu...@NOSPAMStuartd.demon.co.uk> writes
>I apologise for my previous post. It was written in anger and without
>proper consideration. I also intended it to be posted to UCAW, not
>UNNC.
uk.* business always tends to have follow-ups set to unnc only - keeps
the arguments out of other groups.
>I ask for this RFD to be rejected on the following grounds.
<snip>
>For these reasons I ask for this RFD to be rejected (if such a process
>is possible).
The procedure is that the RFD is discussed for a minimum of 10 days.
After that, the proponent may request what is known as a "fast track",
whereby his RFD can be accepted without the need for a vote - however
any six objections (or any one "well founded" objection) halts this
process. If this happens the proponent can withdraw the proposal, or
move to a vote.
To succeed in a vote, the proposal must be supported by 12 more people
than object to it, otherwise it fails. This proposal appears to have
generated a large number of objectors, and in it's current form appears
to have no supporters other than the proponent, so I think it's pretty
well doomed already.
>I would also politely request that Mr Andrew Mabett stops interfering
>with UCAW. That said, I would very much like to read some of his
>prose, or his opinions on any literature. If he has neither of these,
>why is he so bothered about UCAW?
That is a very good question, and one I would also like an answer to. I
believe he has contributed to the group in the past, but I don't know to
what extent, and I gather he's not been a regular active participant for
some considerable time.
Jack Howard
In article <xjmOhPDR...@pigsonthewing.org.uk>, Andy Mabbett
<an...@pigsonthewing.org.uk> writes
>In article <992387024.27009.1...@news.demon.co.uk>, Alan
>Ford <al...@whirlnet.co.uk> writes
[ older quote]
>>> The posting of longer samples is forbidden; although URLs for such
>>> samples may be posted.
>>"Discouraged", I feel, is better than "forbidden".
>
>It means something different entirely.
>
>>I asked you last time how they were "forbidden" -- I can't remember
>>an answer.
>
> In article <CzWClPDU...@pigsonthewing.org.uk>, Andy Mabbett
> <an...@pigsonthewing.org.uk> writes
> >>Except the "forbidden"... pray tell, *how* are they forbidden?
> >>"Discouraged" is far more accurate.
> >
> >No, it means something different entirely.
Ok, so you have twice commented that "it means something different
entirely". Now, any chance of actually answering the question?
Glenys Pople
on.co.uk>, Andy Mabbett <an...@pigsonthewing.org.uk> writes
> Writers may post samples of work over which they hold copyright,
> provided that:
>
> * The body of the post is no longer than 500 words
>
> * No such post shall be substantively repeated, within
> [say] six months
>
> * Each poster may only make one such post in a
> rolling period of [say] 30 days.
>
> The posting of longer samples is forbidden; although URLs for such
> samples may be posted.
I've been lurking on ucaw since the first RFD. I didn't vote in the
straw poll.
My impression is that ucaw as it has developed is flourishing and those
that subscribe are getting a lot of benefit out of it. I haven't
particularly liked anything I've read so far but that's not the point.
The group seems to be working well.
Andy, reading the above quote it seems to me that you would condemn many
of the articles that I've read over the last couple of months as being
outside your new charter. Is that what you want?
There may well be good reason for someone to post with more than 500
words, read a critique of what he or she has written, re-write it with
amendments and repost it. I can't see any reason for the bans you
describe above.
Unless I see a shift in your views I'll be voting against if you put
this to a Call for Votes. I know that it is unusual for someone who
doesn't read a group to participate in the vote for/against a group but
in this case I do have strong views.
--
Glenys
Jack Howard
In article
<rfd2-uk.culture.arts.writing-20010612202315$03...@harlech.demon.co.uk>,
Andy Mabbett <an...@pigsonthewing.org.uk> writes
> Writers may post samples of work over which they hold copyright,
> provided that:
>
> * The body of the post is no longer than 500 words
500 words? Unless I am mistaken, the straw poll indicated a preference
for a limit of 500 _lines_, not words.
ROBBIE
Graham Drabble <graham....@lineone.net> wrote in message
news:Xns90BEF0845F97Fgr...@127.0.0.1...> > In article
> > <rfd2-uk.culture.arts.writing-20010612202315$03...@harlech.dem> >>Changes from previous RFD:
> >>
> >>The first RFD was, as stated, a first draft. This 2nd draft is a
> >>complete re-write and attempt to encompass those points made during
> >>the debate (and the restoration on the size of posted extracts,
> >>determined by straw poll) [1]
> >
> > The wording removed at this point was:
> >
> > abuse spouted by some posters (indulging, sadly, one
> > committee member), and attempts to personalise the debate,
> > rather then address real issues.
>
> it is true that the debate was, IMO, unnecessarily personal I don't see
> what help you feel this statement is in getting the changes passed.
>
> >>It is anticipated that a further RFD may be needed to resolve some
> >>outstanding issues, before a vote is called. This applies in
> >>particular to the section on the frequency of posting of work
> >>(which is designed to prevent multi- part postings from
> >>circumventing the rule on length). [2]
> >
> > The wording removed at this point was:
> >
> > The proponent also notes the stated intention of some
> > posters to ucaw to "squat" an empty alt.* groups, and
> > wonders whether this renders ucaw redundant, and needing
> > removal.
>
> to bring the discussion up. After all you could write a proposal for
> the rmgrouping of ucaw (but I hope you don't as it would probably be a
> waste of time).
>
> However I must ask why did the committee feel it necessary to interfere
> happen and why. Provided that the RFD meets the requirements set out in
> the guidelines, namely it has a charter and the moderation status is
> marked, and is broadly in line with the hierarchy charter the committee
> what the debate in unnc is for. Note that the guidelines don't even say
> that an RFD must have a rationale section. I normally would support the
> they really think it is wrong then they could have requested it be
> altered (I wouldn't be totally happy at this but can understand the
> reasons for them wanting to) but it should have been made clear that
> the proponent had the final say.
>
> Graham Drabble
Jesus! Are you people just being satirical- all this blowhard nonsense a
kind of parody of the anal retentives who inhabit usenet?
Dave Mayall
>
> I apologise for my previous post. It was written in anger and without
> proper consideration. I also intended it to be posted to UCAW, not
> UNNC.
>
> I ask for this RFD to be rejected on the following grounds.
[snip]
> For these reasons I ask for this RFD to be rejected (if such a process
> is possible).
The committee cannot reject the RFD on any of the grounds that you suggest.
There is no requirement that the proponent be a user of a group.
--
Dave Mayall
Philip Powell
<mwallacee...@noknok.nl> writes
>
>"Alan Ford" <al...@whirlnet.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:992386750.27009.0...@news.demon.co.uk...
>
>> The post may indeed be "From:" you -- that in no way says you wrote
>> everything in it. This post is "From:" me, and oddly enough there is
>> a lot of stuff I didn't write in it -- suitably titled.
>
>It had his PGP signature.
>
>(I couldn't let a 'begged for' dig like that pass me by).
It had /Control's/ pgp signature.
--
Philip Powell
Looking north across the Derwent Valley and Northumberland
to The Cheviot
Alan Ford
<an...@pigsonthewing.org.uk> wrote:
>In article <992387024.27009.1...@news.demon.co.uk>, Alan
>Ford <al...@whirlnet.co.uk> writes
>
>
>Perhaps it is not "needed", though some sort of indication of the
>expected content is common on charters; see uk.rec.gardening, for
>example.
>
>>I said this last
>>time... the first sentance on itself would do, but there is nothing
>>wrong with a little bit extra for friendly clarity.
>
>You seem to answer your earlier question, with that.
Not really, it's the large scale of the current wording that I think
is unnecessary.
>>> Writers may post samples of work over which they hold copyright,
>>> provided that:
>>
>>Maybe insert an "in plain text" for extra anti-Word emphasis.
>
>That's covered elsewhere.
I know, it was just a suggestion -- I said "extra" as I was wondering
whether it would be worth emphasising the point there, where people
considering posting work may first check.
>>> The posting of longer samples is forbidden; although URLs for such
>>> samples may be posted.
>>
>>"Discouraged", I feel, is better than "forbidden".
>
>It means something different entirely.
Indeed. And it is more accurate, as I see it.
>>I asked you last time how they were "forbidden" -- I can't remember
>>an answer.
>
> In article <CzWClPDU...@pigsonthewing.org.uk>, Andy Mabbett
> <an...@pigsonthewing.org.uk> writes
> >>Except the "forbidden"... pray tell, *how* are they forbidden?
> >>"Discouraged" is far more accurate.
> >
> >No, it means something different entirely.
Thanks for proving my point, you *didn't* answer my question. Let me ask
again, plainly and simply: how are those postings forbidden?
I asked that, and several other questions, in the followup to that post,
<slrn9e6k9...@whirlnet.demon.co.uk> -- I think you ought to look
back on it.
--
Alan Ford * al...@whirlnet.co.uk
Alan Ford
<an...@pigsonthewing.org.uk> wrote:
>It has been suggested, on ucaw, that the active members of the group use
>, instead, and "empty" alt. group.
>
>>doesn't belong in the new RFD...
>
>Why not? It's a factual observation of an issue which may impact on the
>outcome of the debate.
I think you've probably got a point here, and it is (probably, I haven't
seen any evidence) a factual comment. OTOH, it doesn't belong in the
"changes" section, since it's not a change. I think it would have been
fine to add it to the Rationale, perhaps under a "Proponent's Extra
Comments" heading or something.
>I wouldn't call unwarranted committee dictat "consultation.
>
>> I can't remember
>>the exact wording, but it said something like "the proponent accepted
>>these changes, with protest"
>
>It did not:
>
> NOTE: At the committee's instance, the proponent has removed,
> under protest, factual wording from the points marked [1] and
> [2] above.
Okay, it's the general idea. But why did you think those comments had
to go in the "changes" section? What would have been wrong with appending
them to the rationale?
>>It's worth remembering, too, that this isn't the rationale (where
>>a bit of bias is inevitable), but in the "changes" section, which
>>really should be restricted to the facts of what has changed, and
>>not opinionated comment.
>
>There was no opinion, only fact.
But they're not changes.
As I've said, [2] would have been okay in the rationale, but [1] was
simply a soap box speach from a man carrying an oversized chip on his
shoulder, and had no place in the RFD at all.
Alan Ford
<an...@pigsonthewing.org.uk> wrote:
>Why? What has changed, about the need for a re-charter, or the desires
>of those of us who use the group, for the contents of the new charter?
Can you point towards any posts from a user of the group who has said
they would like the charter changed? I can't remember seeing any (that's
not to say there weren't any, I'm genuininely interested).
It seems to me that most posters who have commented here are happy with
the group as it is. Yes, the group has adapted, but to how the posters
like it... they do not feel your proposed charter is right or necessary
(at least, that's what it seems like).
MJ Ray
> I am at a loss to understand Andy's motives. He had the chance to get
> his RFD through. As it is, it looks unlikely. The extra comments
> were totally unnecessary and give the impression that he is
> deliberately trying to sabotage his own proposal.
One would almost think that he wanted to have a failed vote in order
to stuff the ucaw group with the bad charter for some time to come?
--
MJR
MJ Ray
> > does the proponent have a message-ID
> >or two to enlighten me on this?
> Not at present; I can't remember the original poster, not the name of
> the group concerned, and Googling [TM] for the post on "alt.*" or
> "squat" has not, so far, found it. Perhaps someone can remind us which
> group it was?
Mr "Message-Id" Mabbett suddenly is lost for references? I don't
believe it -- is this an imposter trying to ruin his good name?
--
MJR
MJ Ray
[advertising works]
> Where? How?
For example, it says that you may post URLs of works, then that
advertising is restricted in a particular way.
> Let's see your suggested improvements, then.
I would rather allow an active member (rather than a lurker such as
myself) to draft the piece. I believe this to be the right thing to
do.
> >Finally, there is known "bad blood" between the proponent and some
> >users of the group in the past,
> Some have been extremely hostile and abusive, not to mention dishonest
> towards me, as noted, certainly. There is no "bad blood" on my part.
Why do you read more meaning into statements than exists? Actually,
in this case, I think you were equally at fault, but that is a matter
of opinion upon which we will not agree.
I suspect this RFD will not reach a consensus.
--
MJR
Alan Ford
<mwallacee...@noknok.nl> wrote:
>"Alan Ford" <al...@whirlnet.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:992386750.27009.0...@news.demon.co.uk...
>
>> The post may indeed be "From:" you -- that in no way says you wrote
>> everything in it. This post is "From:" me, and oddly enough there is
>> a lot of stuff I didn't write in it -- suitably titled.
>
>It had his PGP signature.
Ah yes, I forgot about that, it does have Control's PGP signature, adding
even more evidence that the post wasn't entirely written by the proponent.
Robbie
to uk.net.news.config and typed...
>500 words? Unless I am mistaken, the straw poll indicated a preference
>for a limit of 500 _lines_, not words.
I look forward to the vote on this subject...
robbie
--
rob...@arrakis.nu <*> Quis custodiet ipsos custodes.
want to know about uk.* ? try www.usenet.org.uk
ukvoting webpages http://www.ukvoting.org.uk/
Alan Ford
<ja...@blackhole.firstnet.co.uk> wrote:
>500 words? Unless I am mistaken, the straw poll indicated a preference
>for a limit of 500 _lines_, not words.
I'm afraid you are mistaken, it was 500 words. I was quite surprised it
was so low, but I posted the full votes as well as the count in the
results posting: <989167410.2006.0...@news.demon.co.uk>
Graham Drabble
news:48cditor42ds30jil...@4ax.com:
> On 12 Jun 2001 22:52:46 GMT, "Graham Drabble"
><graham....@lineone.net> wrote:
>
>>However I must ask why did the committee feel it necessary to
>>interfere at all. An RFD is the proponants work and his view on
>>what should happen and why. Provided that the RFD meets the
>>requirements set out in the guidelines, namely it has a charter and
>>the moderation status is marked, and is broadly in line with the
>>hierarchy charter the committee should leave it alone.
>
> Many previous RFDs have had the changes section written by control
> and that alone is sufficient reason.
I hope, although I suspect I will be dissapointned, that this has
always been done with the consultation of the proponent. Control and
the committee seem to be using powers far beyond that given in the
guidelines. If they choose to interpret them, or use discretion where
the guidelines don't cover it, then this should be done to make the
proponents life easier.
> Furthermore, I saw no reason
> why this section should relate to anything other than changes.
I sort of agree with you their and would support an attempt to put this
in the guidelines but until that is done then the committee should not
interfere.
> This
> is a case where there are no guidelines to help and the committee
> had to use its discretion. It was my view that the comments would
> be counterproductive and would only serve to inflame and already
> fraught situation.
That's the proponents choice. If the committee wished to warn him of
this then I could accept it but it's his RFD.
> I am at a loss to understand Andy's motives. He had the chance to
> get his RFD through. As it is, it looks unlikely. The extra
> comments were totally unnecessary and give the impression that he
> is deliberately trying to sabotage his own proposal.
>
Again I agree. Had I been proponent I would not have used that sort of
language. However if the proponent wants to waste his time (and I'm not
saying that this is Andy's motive) then far be it from me to stop them.
When voting I tend to ignore the changes section anyway and then only
vote if I either strongly support the change or feel that there is a
major defect in the charter.
--
Graham Drabble
Graham Drabble
news:992387573.27009.2...@news.demon.co.uk:
> On 12 Jun 2001 22:52:46 GMT, Graham Drabble
> <graham....@lineone.net> wrote:
>> If they really
>>think it is wrong then they could have requested it be altered (I
>>wouldn't be totally happy at this but can understand the reasons
>>for them wanting to) but it should have been made clear that the
>>proponent had the final say.
>
> Errr, it *was* with consultation with the proponent. I can't
> remember the exact wording, but it said something like "the
> proponent accepted these changes, with protest"
I got the impression that the changes were only accepted because the
RFD wouldn't have been published without them. If the proponent was
inexpierienced then I can see why the committee would see it useful to
warn a proponent that this may be unnecessarily controversial but I
don't see it as needed in this case. However, can see the argument that
all proponents should be treated equally but no-one should be forced to
accept a change. If this had been a 'new' proponent do you think they
would have bought it to unnc like Andy has done. Most seem to consider
Control and the Committee to be untouchable and wouldn't think of doing
anything that doesn;t have their approval.
> It's worth remembering, too, that this isn't the rationale (where
> a bit of bias is inevitable), but in the "changes" section, which
> really should be restricted to the facts of what has changed, and
> not opinionated comment.
>
Neither the rationale or the changes section are are covered in the
Guidelines. The fact that a proponent includes the changes section at
all is simply a curtosy designed to make life easier for people. It
certainly shouldn't be something that they have to do in a certain way.
(Now I've noticed that the rationale section is missing from the
Guidelines I wonder if a change isn't warranted.)
--
Graham Drabble
Andy Mabbett
<may...@consignia.com> writes
>There is no requirement that the proponent be a user of a group.
Irrelevant. The proponent (me) is a user of the group in question
(ucaw).
Andy Mabbett
<g...@howfen.demon.co.uk> writes
>Andy, reading the above quote it seems to me that you would condemn many
>of the articles that I've read over the last couple of months as being
>outside your new charter. Is that what you want?
My intention is for the charter to reflect how the group is being used,
but tempered by the wishes of its users, as expressed in the recent
straw poll and RFD debate.
To simply charter a group as it is being used, without such tempering
would mean, for instance, re-chartering uk.local.birmingham to make the
McKraken troll on- topic.
I would particularly draw your attention to the part of the RFD which
reads:
It is anticipated that a further RFD may be needed to resolve
some outstanding issues, before a vote is called. This applies
in particular to the section on the frequency of posting of work
(which is designed to prevent multi- part postings from
circumventing the rule on length).
>There may well be good reason for someone to post with more than 500
>words, read a critique of what he or she has written, re-write it with
>amendments and repost it. I can't see any reason for the bans you
>describe above.
The wishes of the people who expressed an opinion in the straw poll.
HTH.
Do people really want a charter which allows unlimited posting of
writers works, regardless of length or frequency?
>Unless I see a shift in your views
Which views?
> I'll be voting against if you put
>this to a Call for Votes. I know that it is unusual for someone who
>doesn't read a group to participate in the vote for/against a group but
>in this case I do have strong views.
You would do better to make constructive suggestions for improving the
*draft* which I have offered up for consideration?
Andy Mabbett
"and attempts to personalise the debate, rather then
address real issues"
In article <3b276948...@news.cable.ntl.com>, Stuart <Stuart@NOSPA
MStuartd.demon.co.uk> writes
>I ask for this RFD to be rejected on the following grounds.
>
>1) The proponent (Andrew Mabett)
Who?
>does not post, or contribute
>anything to UCAW that has to do with the group's intended purpose.
That is untrue. Kindly retract it.
>The proponent's past actions has antagonised may of the regular
>contributors, thereby detracting from the enjoyment of the group by
>those who are using it for worthwhile purposes.
That is an opinion, which is not justified by fact.
> Therefore the proponent is an unsuitable person to write and
>propose this RFD.
That is an opinion, which is not justified by fact. It is not grounds
for refusing the RFD.
>2) The intentions of the proponent, in producing this RFD are
>suspect.
You may have your suspicions,; they are nothing to do with me.
> I believe this RFD is a tool to propel the proponent back
>into the limelight, giving him some much needed attention, rather than
>for the benefit of the users of UCAW.
Your fallacious and paranoid beliefs need not concern us. They are not
grounds for refusing the RFD.
> Further I believe that the
>proponent has choosen UCAW for this treatment, as its users are
>generally apathetic to Usegroup administration, small enough to be an
>easy target, yet busy enough to satisfy the proponent's ego with a
>steady stream of posts.
Your fallacious and paranoid beliefs have no basis in reality.
> Therefore (I believe) the proponent's motives for making this
>RFD are malicious.
Your fallacious and paranoid beliefs do you no credit whatsoever.
>3) UCAW is not in need of a new charter.
This is demonstrably not so.
> It manages to be a
>pleasant, helpful and good natured group with the charter it already
>has.
This is demonstrably not so.
> It has become a well regarded home for a number of UK writers,
>and the number of contributers continues to grow.
> Therefore this RFD is unnecessary.
That is an opinion, which is not justified by fact. It is not grounds
for refusing the RFD.
>4) The proponent's last RFD caused many arguments and much
>disruption to UCAW.
The disruption was not caused by the RFD.
> Which caused a number of contributor to stop
>posting and reading the group.
That is their choice; and nothing to do with me.
> Therefore this RFD will damage UCAW.
Film at eleven!
Such rampant nonsense is not grounds for refusing the RFD.
>For these reasons I ask for this RFD to be rejected (if such a process
>is possible).
It is not.
>I would also politely request that Mr Andrew Mabett
Who?
>stops interfering
>with UCAW.
There is no "interference". HTH
> That said, I would very much like to read some of his
>prose, or his opinions on any literature.
You may buy my prose at any good bookshop.
> If he has neither of these, why is he so bothered about UCAW?
Because I am a user of the group; and it is badly chartered. HTH
Now, do you have anything constructive to add?
Andy Mabbett
<ja...@blackhole.firstnet.co.uk> writes
>> Writers may post samples of work over which they hold copyright,
>> provided that:
>>
>> * The body of the post is no longer than 500 words
>
>500 words? Unless I am mistaken, the straw poll indicated a preference for a
>limit of 500 _lines_, not words.
You are mistaken:
In article <989167410.2006.0...@news.demon.co.uk>,
Alan Ford <al...@whirlnet.co.uk> writes
> So option b, 500 words, is the winning option.
^^^^^^^^^
No need to apologise.
Andy Mabbett
MStuartd.demon.co.uk> writes
[I've answered your post as best I can, but I found it hard to fathom
what was new and what was quoting, as it appeared mis-formatted]
>I have been a regular contributor and reader of UCAW for the last six
>months.
That's nice. I've been using it for almost two years: since it was first
created, in fact.
> I have yet to see a single on-topic contribution by yourself.
Oh dear, how sad.
>So by what criteria do you claim to be a user of the group,
See above.
>and by what right do you claim to speak for any of those who use the
>group for its intended purpose?
Other than myself, I claim to speak for no one. You?
Andy Mabbett
Ford <al...@whirlnet.co.uk> writes
>Let me ask
>again, plainly and simply: how are those postings forbidden?
In the same way that, in many charters:
ADVERTISING
Advertising is forbidden
and
BINARIES & FORMATTING
Encoded binaries (e.g. pictures, compressed files, etc.), are
forbidden
Oddly, I don't recall you ever questioning the use of the word
"forbidden" in those contexts.
James Coupe
<an...@pigsonthewing.org.uk> writes
>> The extra comments
>>were totally unnecessary
>
However, Geoff was elected to the Committee to uphold the principles he
believes the Guidelines enshrine, as all other Committee members are.
--
James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D
"You reinstall Dial-Up Networking. The Elf screams and becomes EBD690ECD7A1F
an icon. *** CONGRATULATIONS! *** You completed the BT Internet B457CA213D7E6
Helpdesk training course in 15 out of a possible 9000 moves." 68C3695D623D5D
James Coupe
<mwallacee...@noknok.nl> writes
>> This newsgroup is for the discussion of all aspects of writing,
>> from a UK perspective, including, but not limited to, fact, fiction
>> and poetry -- both commercially or for pleasure.
>
>I, for one, agree that the more sensible simplicity of your wording would be
>preferable.
I would be tempted to add "criticism" back in, or literary criticism or
something. Whilst technical writing can fall as "fact", criticism is an
art form all of its own, at times.
Andy Mabbett
Ford <al...@whirlnet.co.uk> writes
>instead, and "empty" alt. group.
>>
>>> If it wasn't in the RFD stage, it probably
>>>doesn't belong in the new RFD...
>>
>>Why not? It's a factual observation of an issue which may impact on the
>>outcome of the debate.
>
>I think you've probably got a point here, and it is (probably, I haven't
>seen any evidence) a factual comment. OTOH, it doesn't belong in the
>"changes" section, since it's not a change.
As originally written, it read "the second RFD [does something]
while ignoring the unfortunate ad hominem [...]
It was a note on the nature of the changes, and wholly appropriate for
that section.
>I think it would have been
>fine to add it to the Rationale, perhaps under a "Proponent's Extra
>Comments" heading or something.
It is not part of the rationale.
[snip repetition of the above points, and unfounded ad hominem]
Andy Mabbett
Ford <al...@whirlnet.co.uk> writes
>On Wed, 13 Jun 2001 09:09:29 +0100, Andy Mabbett
><an...@pigsonthewing.org.uk> wrote:
>>Why? What has changed, about the need for a re-charter, or the desires
>>of those of us who use the group, for the contents of the new charter?
>
>Can you point towards any posts from a user of the group who has said
>they would like the charter changed?
Message-ID: <rfd1-uk.culture.arts.writing-20010421121126$62...@harlech.de
mon.co.uk>
> I can't remember seeing any (that's
>not to say there weren't any, I'm genuininely interested).
If you recall, I was criticised for submitting an RFD when others were
discussing re-chartering the group, I invited those concerned to
participate. Few if any have.
>It seems to me that most posters who have commented here are happy with
>the group as it is.
The group; yes. The charter, no.
> Yes, the group has adapted, but to how the posters
>like it... they do not feel your proposed charter is right or necessary
>(at least, that's what it seems like).
I see no evidence to support that claim; only ad hominem.
Andy Mabbett
t.news...@cloaked.freeserve.co.uk> writes
>One would almost think that he wanted to have a failed vote in order
>to stuff the ucaw group with the bad charter for some time to come?
Anyone thinking that would be paranoid, if not barking.
Andy Mabbett
Ford <al...@whirlnet.co.uk> writes
>Ah yes, I forgot about that, it does have Control's PGP signature, adding
>even more evidence that the post wasn't entirely written by the proponent.
Only to those familiar with PGP. Empirical evidence suggests that this
is a minority.
Andy Mabbett
t.news...@cloaked.freeserve.co.uk> writes
>Andy Mabbett <an...@pigsonthewing.org.uk> writes:
>[advertising works]
>> Where? How?
>
>For example, it says that you may post URLs of works, then that
>advertising is restricted in a particular way.
Which allows the former; I see no contradiction. Besides, not all posted
URLs will be adverts.
>> Let's see your suggested improvements, then.
>
>I would rather allow an active member (rather than a lurker such as
>myself) to draft the piece. I believe this to be the right thing to
>do.
It's what I've just asked you to do!
James Coupe
<an...@pigsonthewing.org.uk> writes
>In article <3B277B5E...@consignia.com>, Dave Mayall
><may...@consignia.com> writes
>>There is no requirement that the proponent be a user of a group.
>
>Irrelevant. The proponent (me) is a user of the group in question
>(ucaw).
Probably more fully:
"There is no requirement that the proponent can prove to anyone
that he is a user of the group"
Alan Ford
<an...@pigsonthewing.org.uk> wrote:
>In article <992452621.24963.0...@news.demon.co.uk>, Alan
>Ford <al...@whirlnet.co.uk> writes
>>Let me ask
>>again, plainly and simply: how are those postings forbidden?
>
>In the same way that, in many charters:
>
>and
> Encoded binaries (e.g. pictures, compressed files, etc.), are
> forbidden
>
>Oddly, I don't recall you ever questioning the use of the word
>"forbidden" in those contexts.
Ah, we've got around to the point.
"Forbidden" is a strong word. My dictionary definition has a lot of
alternative words, including "prohibited", "prevented", "hindered"
etc. In the case of binaries, they are "prevented" and "hindered"
by being cancelled. They are "prohibited" as with most other things
that are "prohibited" -- not stopping people doing them, but punishing
those people who do do things (ISPs and AUPs).
Advertising is slightly weaker, but again the ISP AUP point comes
around, by no means always, but certainly if the poster is doing it
repeatedly. There is a method in force to act against such actions.
There is no method in place to prevent/prohibit the posting of longer
works. ISPs almost certainly will not act against such postings, it is
simply down to peer pressure from the users of the group -- something
that I think is best described as "discouraging".
Just MHO.
Alan Ford
<an...@pigsonthewing.org.uk> wrote:
>In article <992453123.24963.1...@news.demon.co.uk>, Alan
>Ford <al...@whirlnet.co.uk> writes
>
>>seen any evidence) a factual comment. OTOH, it doesn't belong in the
>>"changes" section, since it's not a change.
I was talking here about point [2] not point [1]... how was point [2]
a change?
> As originally written, it read "the second RFD [does something]
> while ignoring the unfortunate ad hominem [...]
>
>It was a note on the nature of the changes, and wholly appropriate for
>that section.
Such a comment was unnecessary as it has no bearing on the changes made.
Ad homimum itself would not be a comment for altering the RFD, so does
not need a mention in changes, as it a) wasn't a change, and b) wouldn't
have made a change anyway.
>>I think it would have been
>>fine to add it to the Rationale, perhaps under a "Proponent's Extra
>>Comments" heading or something.
>
>It is not part of the rationale.
It's certainly not a change. The rationale would be the best place for
it, as it can be a quite wide-ranging section. It can be the rationale
for many things about the RFD, not just the case for the group itself,
but the case for the whole discussion. That would have been the best
place, and it could have been easily deliminated as I suggested, to
make your (IMO perfectly legitimate) comment.
Blade Runner
wrote:
>
>>You are welcome to your opinion; mine differs.
>
>However, Geoff was elected to the Committee to uphold the principles he
>believes the Guidelines enshrine, as all other Committee members are.
Indeed. My rationale is simple - I want reasonable proposals to
succeed. Now if everyone could be sensible and grown up this one
could stand a chance, I do believe it can make constructive changes.
But since Andy has chosen to make this a battleground and refuses to
heed the advice of the entire committee and practically everyone else
then I wash my hands of the matter.
--
Geoff (Blade Runner)
Temporary sig
Alan Ford
<an...@pigsonthewing.org.uk> wrote:
>In article <3b277258....@news.cable.ntl.com>, Stuart <Stuart@NOSPA
>MStuartd.demon.co.uk> writes
>
>>months.
>
>That's nice. I've been using it for almost two years: since it was first
>created, in fact.
>
>> I have yet to see a single on-topic contribution by yourself.
>
>Oh dear, how sad.
Let's clear up this matter, shall we, rather than just being antagonistic
towards each other?
I have been on a trip to GoogleGoups and looked up all posts by "Andy
Mabbett" in uk.culture.arts.writing. I am not convinced all were listed,
but that's what I did. Looking through, probably about 90% of the posts
appeared to be comments on the charter, or arguments amongst each other.
The rest seemed borderline on-topic cases, including a quotation and an
advert for a competition. I could not find a post by you clearly discussing
writing. Now I know that's not all that's on-topic, but it is the principle
topic. Do you have a message-ID for one -- a nice, clear, writing-orientated
post, to be a basic fact and stop the claims and counter-claims flying.
It would be a lot easier, you know!
Andy Mabbett
Ford <al...@whirlnet.co.uk> writes
>I was talking here about point [2] not point [1]... how was point [2]
>a change?
It is potentially a significant in the circumstances in which the RFD
must be considered.
Andy Mabbett
<ja...@zephyr.org.uk> writes
>>Irrelevant. The proponent (me) is a user of the group in question
>>(ucaw).
>
>Probably more fully:
>
> "There is no requirement that the proponent can prove to anyone
> that he is a user of the group"
Indeed there isn't (and, indeed, there have been RFDs passed which were
proposed by people not users of the group in question); but since, in
this case, the proponent (me) is a user of the group in question (ucaw),
also of no specific import.
Andy Mabbett
Ford <al...@whirlnet.co.uk> writes
>Let's clear up this matter, shall we, rather than just being antagonistic
>towards each other?
Are you referring just to you and I, or all the participants in the
thread? Either way, I'd be happy for the antagonism to stop; after all,
I've done nothing to deserve it.
>I have been on a trip to GoogleGoups and looked up all posts by "Andy
>Mabbett" in uk.culture.arts.writing. I am not convinced all were listed,
I'm convinced that they are not all listed...
[...]
>I could not find a post by you clearly discussing
>writing.
...QED.
> Now I know that's not all that's on-topic, but it is the principle
>topic. Do you have a message-ID for one -- a nice, clear, writing-orientated
>post, to be a basic fact and stop the claims and counter-claims flying.
I have many; I see no reason to pander to demands that I prove that I
have made them. I am not the one flinging false allegations.
>It would be a lot easier, you know!
Than what?
Andy Mabbett
<$black-dog$@hten.org.uk> writes
> I want reasonable proposals to
>succeed.
This is a very reasonable proposal.
> Now if everyone could be sensible and grown up this one
>could stand a chance, I do believe it can make constructive changes.
Thank you; that's my - only - intention.
>But since Andy has chosen to make this a battleground
I have done no such thing; I have merely chosen to defend myself against
others' attempts to do so.
>and refuses to heed the advice of the entire committee
I am at liberty to do so; particularly given the Committee's bizarre
behaviour in this latter, and past record of flawed decision making (of
which you and one Dave Mayall are usually the exception).
> and practically everyone else
?
>then I wash my hands of the matter.
:-(
Andy Mabbett
Ford <al...@whirlnet.co.uk> writes
>Just MHO.
Indeed.
Alan Ford
<an...@pigsonthewing.org.uk> wrote:
>In article <992460763.9692.0...@news.demon.co.uk>, Alan
>Ford <al...@whirlnet.co.uk> writes
>
>>Just MHO.
>
>Indeed.
Thank you for that constructive post. Could you now perhaps tell me
why you feel the comments I set out in that post were wrong?
James Coupe
<an...@pigsonthewing.org.uk> writes
>In article <74gfitgfifelkcugl...@4ax.com>, Blade Runner
><$black-dog$@hten.org.uk> writes
>> I want reasonable proposals to
>>succeed.
>
>This is a very reasonable proposal.
Is it reasonable to continue with a proposal when there is very little
support for it at all?
James Coupe
<an...@pigsonthewing.org.uk> writes
>but since, in
>this case, the proponent (me) is a user of the group in question (ucaw),
>also of no specific import.
No-one can prove they are a "user" of the group, or that they have just
faked it so they can post an RFD.
Hence, relevant to all.
Alan Ford
<an...@pigsonthewing.org.uk> wrote:
>In article <992461894.9692.2...@news.demon.co.uk>, Alan
>Ford <al...@whirlnet.co.uk> writes
>>Let's clear up this matter, shall we, rather than just being antagonistic
>>towards each other?
>
>Are you referring just to you and I, or all the participants in the
>thread?
I was specifically referring to the topic in discussion, that being
the claims made by posters that you haven't actually posted anything
about writing to ucaw. Since this is the first time I have made a
comment on that point, I was making a general comment to all
participants, both in this topic and in general.
What I would really like to see in this discussion is contributions
from users of ucaw about the proposal. Most seem to be rejecting it
out of hand, which while a POV, doesn't tackle the topic at hand, and
'getting it right'.
>> Now I know that's not all that's on-topic, but it is the principle
>>topic. Do you have a message-ID for one -- a nice, clear, writing-orientated
>>post, to be a basic fact and stop the claims and counter-claims flying.
>
>I have many; I see no reason to pander to demands that I prove that I
>have made them. I am not the one flinging false allegations.
>
>>It would be a lot easier, you know!
>
>Than what?
Andy, honestly, this could look suspiciously as if you *don't* have any
references. You've regularly been able to provide evidence in the past,
why not now?
It would be easy just to provide a clear bit of evidence that you have
in fact contributed to ucaw about writing. That would stop the comments
made by many people saying you're not a contributer. Then the topic of
discussion could move on. For the good of the proposal, you should clear
up these little arguments. At the moment, it's about six people against
you on your own on this matter. Plus the fact my own research hasn't
yielded anything. Clear this matter up, and move on. That would be the
sensible thing to do.
Andy Mabbett
Ashton <{R}@sunshine.tm> writes
[...]
while ignoring the unfortunate ad hominem and dishonest abuse
spouted by some posters (indulging, sadly, one committee
member), and attempts to personalise the debate, rather then
address real issues.
Two committee members.
Andy Mabbett
Ford <al...@whirlnet.co.uk> writes
>What I would really like to see in this discussion is contributions
>from users of ucaw about the proposal. Most seem to be rejecting it
>out of hand, which while a POV, doesn't tackle the topic at hand, and
>'getting it right'.
That is odd; given that this draft is much closer to what many ucaw
posters said they wanted, than the first, rough, draft, which they
criticised. I wonder why that might be?
That said, there have been very few actual faults identified, and fewer
suggested improvements.
[MIDs of my posts to ucaw]
>Andy, honestly, this could look suspiciously as if you *don't* have any
>references.
Only to anyone choosing to think that.
> You've regularly been able to provide evidence in the past,
>why not now?
I explained why in the post to which you replied; and you quoted the
relevant comment.
andy roberts
<9g845l$7ph3o$1...@ID-88989.news.dfncis.de> :
>
>Graham Drabble <graham....@lineone.net> wrote in message
>news:Xns90BEF0845F97Fgr...@127.0.0.1...
>> Andy Mabbett <an...@pigsonthewing.org.uk> wrote in
>> news:uYV5fTCf...@pigsonthewing.org.uk:
>>
>> > In article
>> > <rfd2-uk.culture.arts.writing-20010612202315$03...@harlech.dem
>> > on.co.uk>, Andy Mabbett <an...@pigsonthewing.org.uk> writes
>> >
>> >>Changes from previous RFD:
>> >>
>> >>The first RFD was, as stated, a first draft. This 2nd draft is a
>> >>complete re-write and attempt to encompass those points made during
>> >>the debate (and the restoration on the size of posted extracts,
>> >>determined by straw poll) [1]
>> >
>> > The wording removed at this point was:
>> >
>> > while ignoring the unfortunate ad hominem and dishonest
>> > abuse spouted by some posters (indulging, sadly, one
>> > committee member), and attempts to personalise the debate,
>> > rather then address real issues.
>>
>> it is true that the debate was, IMO, unnecessarily personal I don't see
>> what help you feel this statement is in getting the changes passed.
>>
>> >>It is anticipated that a further RFD may be needed to resolve some
>> >>outstanding issues, before a vote is called. This applies in
>> >>particular to the section on the frequency of posting of work
>> >>(which is designed to prevent multi- part postings from
>> >>circumventing the rule on length). [2]
>> >
>> > The wording removed at this point was:
>> >
>> > The proponent also notes the stated intention of some
>> > posters to ucaw to "squat" an empty alt.* groups, and
>> > wonders whether this renders ucaw redundant, and needing
>> > removal.
>>
>> This seems fine to me. I can't comment on its accuracy but it is fine
>> to bring the discussion up. After all you could write a proposal for
>> the rmgrouping of ucaw (but I hope you don't as it would probably be a
>> waste of time).
>>
>> However I must ask why did the committee feel it necessary to interfere
>> at all. An RFD is the proponants work and his view on what should
>> happen and why. Provided that the RFD meets the requirements set out in
>> the guidelines, namely it has a charter and the moderation status is
>> marked, and is broadly in line with the hierarchy charter the committee
>> should leave it alone. If they feel it is badly worded then this is
>> what the debate in unnc is for. Note that the guidelines don't even say
>> that an RFD must have a rationale section. I normally would support the
>> committee using it's discretion, but this seems to be over the top. If
>> they really think it is wrong then they could have requested it be
>> altered (I wouldn't be totally happy at this but can understand the
>> reasons for them wanting to) but it should have been made clear that
>> the proponent had the final say.
>>
>> --
>> Graham Drabble
>
>Jesus! Are you people just being satirical- all this blowhard nonsense a
>kind of parody of the anal retentives who inhabit usenet?
>
Unfortunately not. What you witness is not in fact a parody, but the real
thing :-(
Andy R
--
Support the free.uk.* newsgroups hierarchy
FAQ http://www.bigwig.net/free.uk.usenet/
list of newsgroups http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/rob/freefaq/fgroups.htm
contact usen...@bigfoot.com
Andy Mabbett
<an...@pigsonthewing.org.uk> writes
>>What puzzles me on that one is what it actually means!
>
>It has been suggested, on ucaw, that the active members of the group use
>, instead, and "empty" alt. group.
>
>>I can't remember
>>anything like that in the discussion,
>
>The suggestion was not part of the RFD debate, and was not posted in
>unnc.
>
>> does the proponent have a message-ID
>>or two to enlighten me on this?
>
>Not at present; I can't remember the original poster, not the name of
>the group concerned, and Googling [TM] for the post on "alt.*" or
>"squat" has not, so far, found it. Perhaps someone can remind us which
>group it was?
I have found the post on Deja. They no longer provide MIDs or other
headers (!), but:
<URL:http://groups.google.com/groups?q=group:uk.culture.arts.writing+aut
hor:robbie&num=100&hl=en&lr=&safe=off&rnum=74&ic=1&selm=9cgjrv%24ata%241
%40news8.svr.pol.co.uk>
was:
From: ROBBIE (POOLHAL...@HOTMAIL.COM)
Subject: Alt Books.pynchon
Newsgroups: uk.culture.arts.writing
Date: 2001-04-29 01:37:25 PST
which said:
Anyone fancy taking it over? It's empty and this place is about
to become problematical I think
Alan Hope replied:
From: Alan Hope (ah...@skynet.be)
Subject: Re: Alt Books.pynchon
Newsgroups: uk.culture.arts.writing, alt.books.pynchon
Date: 2001-04-29 13:04:34 PST
Consider it done.
Dave Mayall
<graham....@lineone.net> wrote:
>Neither the rationale or the changes section are are covered in the
>Guidelines. The fact that a proponent includes the changes section at
>all is simply a curtosy designed to make life easier for people. It
>certainly shouldn't be something that they have to do in a certain way.
>(Now I've noticed that the rationale section is missing from the
>Guidelines I wonder if a change isn't warranted.)
These are all part of the "correct form", which isn't explicitly
defined in the guidelines.
The form which an RFD takes is "custom and practice" at the discretion
of the committee unless and until somebody defines it in the
guidelines.
--
Dave Mayall
This posting is made in a personal capacity, the views expressed
may not be those of the UK Usenet Committee.
Dave Mayall
wrote:
>In message <OIWxrDLT...@pigsonthewing.org.uk>, Andy Mabbett
><an...@pigsonthewing.org.uk> writes
>>In article <3B277B5E...@consignia.com>, Dave Mayall
>><may...@consignia.com> writes
>>>There is no requirement that the proponent be a user of a group.
>>
>>Irrelevant. The proponent (me) is a user of the group in question
>>(ucaw).
>
>Probably more fully:
>
> "There is no requirement that the proponent can prove to anyone
> that he is a user of the group"
No. That implies that a proponent must at least claim to be a user of
the group.
Dave Mayall
<an...@pigsonthewing.org.uk> wrote:
>In article <3B277B5E...@consignia.com>, Dave Mayall
><may...@consignia.com> writes
>>There is no requirement that the proponent be a user of a group.
>
>Irrelevant. The proponent (me) is a user of the group in question
>(ucaw).
I wasn't making comment, because I don't know!
I was commenting upon the prospects of the RFD being struck down.
The RFD cannot be struck down for the reasons suggested, not merely
because the truth of them is not determined, but because true or false
it isn't a valid reason.
MJ Ray
> >> Let's see your suggested improvements, then.
> >I would rather allow an active member (rather than a lurker such as
> >myself) to draft the piece. I believe this to be the right thing to
> >do.
> It's what I've just asked you to do!
This makes no sense. I am a lurker, not an active member. You are
not an active on-topic poster either. This makes no sense.
--
MJR
James Coupe
<an...@pigsonthewing.org.uk> writes
>I have found the post on Deja. They no longer provide MIDs or other
>headers (!), but:
>
><URL:http://groups.google.com/groups?q=group:uk.culture.arts.writing+author:robbie&num=100&hl=en&lr=&safe=off&rnum=74&ic=1&selm=9cgjrv%24ata%24
>1%40news8.svr.pol.co.uk>
The item found after "selm" is, in fact, the Message ID (slightly
altered, with a few %XY type replacements, but extractable).
You can use URLs of the format:
http://www.groups.google.com/groups?as_umsgid=MESSAGEID
e.g.
<URL:http://groups.google.com/groups?as_umsgid=57do2rHrADm5EwYe@romana.d
avros.org>
In this case, try:
<URL:http://groups.google.com/groups?as_umsgid=9cgjrv%24ata%241%40news8.
svr.pol.co.uk>
(Slowly trying to educate the world on this matter, cos it's not been
made obvious.)
James Coupe
<andy.r...@chacewater.net> writes
>Unfortunately not. What you witness is not in fact a parody, but the real
>thing :-(
However, it is not necessary to quote an entire article to add two lines
:(
James Coupe
Dave Mayall <david....@ukonline.co.uk> writes
>> "There is no requirement that the proponent can prove to anyone
>> that he is a user of the group"
>
>No. That implies that a proponent must at least claim to be a user of
>the group.
You get the drift, however, I hope.
Blade Runner
<an...@pigsonthewing.org.uk> wrote:
> while ignoring the unfortunate ad hominem and dishonest abuse
> spouted by some posters (indulging, sadly, one committee
> member), and attempts to personalise the debate, rather then
> address real issues.
>
>Two committee members.
Huh? {R} is not a committee member.
Mark Wallace
"Andy Mabbett" <an...@pigsonthewing.org.uk> wrote in message
news:$5CtniSA$9J7...@pigsonthewing.org.uk...
I don't care what he wrote.
Follow-up set to UNNC only.
--
Mark Wallace
____________________________________________
For the intelligent approach to nasty humour, visit
The Anglo-American Humour (humor) Site
http://funny.as/anything
____________________________________________
Mark Wallace
> >I was talking here about point [2] not point [1]... how was point [2]
> >a change?
>
> It is potentially a significant in the circumstances in which the RFD
> must be considered.
Enough of this crap.
None of this trolling, flaming, etc. has any significance whatsoever, as it
all centres around someone who does not use the group -- and who, indeed, is
not welcome there.
What is significant is the purpose for which the subscribers of the group
wish to use the group.
This 'discussion' has, once again, become a flame war. It is not even
remotely relevant to the day-to-day running of the group, so it cannot
possibly be 'significant' to discussion of the group's charter. It is
merely an excuse for you to get your kicks by flaming yet more.
Get it through your head, Mabbett, that no-one thinks you are clever, witty,
or intelligent; and I doubt very much that any here would willingly spend
any time in your presence, given your behaviour.
Your 'contributions' are neither valued nor wanted. Find another game to
play.
Mark Wallace
"Alan Ford" <al...@whirlnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:992467807.13719.1...@news.demon.co.uk...
> It would be easy just to provide a clear bit of evidence that you have
> in fact contributed to ucaw about writing. That would stop the comments
> made by many people saying you're not a contributer. Then the topic of
> discussion could move on. For the good of the proposal, you should clear
> up these little arguments. At the moment, it's about six people against
> you on your own on this matter. Plus the fact my own research hasn't
> yielded anything. Clear this matter up, and move on. That would be the
> sensible thing to do.
He did make two postings, recently, which appear to be on-topic. I believe
both were on or about the same day, which I imagine was around the time he
put in the amended RFD.
IIRC, one was a reply to a question which was posted to many writing groups,
and another was a reply to spam. Neither was more than two lines in length;
and both were very half-hearted, as if he was looking for something to say.
I remember thinking at the time that it was probably because he needed to
have a few message IDs to give as 'evidence' that he 'contributes' to the
group.
Iain Bowen
Alan Ford <al...@whirlnet.co.uk> wrote:
>It's certainly not a change. The rationale would be the best place for
>it, as it can be a quite wide-ranging section. It can be the rationale
>for many things about the RFD, not just the case for the group itself,
>but the case for the whole discussion. That would have been the best
>place, and it could have been easily deliminated as I suggested, to
>make your (IMO perfectly legitimate) comment.
Which is where it was suggested by committee that such text belonged.
Iain
--
\/ Member of the UK Usenet Committee, also Control for uk.*
Full information on uk.* newsgroups at http://www.usenet.org.uk
Iain Bowen. in deepest B13. Also available at alaric(at)alaric.org.uk
West Midlands Election Site at http://www.harlech.demon.co.uk/election.html
Mark Wallace
> On Wed, 13 Jun 2001 07:53:16 +0200, Mark Wallace
> <mwallacee...@noknok.nl> wrote:
> >"Alan Ford" <al...@whirlnet.co.uk> wrote in message
> >
> >> The post may indeed be "From:" you -- that in no way says you wrote
> >> everything in it. This post is "From:" me, and oddly enough there is
> >> a lot of stuff I didn't write in it -- suitably titled.
> >
> >It had his PGP signature.
>
> Ah yes, I forgot about that, it does have Control's PGP signature, adding
> even more evidence that the post wasn't entirely written by the proponent.
<quote>
Proponent:
Andy Mabbett <an...@pigsonthewing.org.uk>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 6.5.1i
Charset: noconv
iQCVAwUBOyZ6T2OfGXkh8vHZAQEOFwP8CLfLGtqpAiWWt+DYWVc/XvDou4BSwb0q
R8jvSf3VuBt3UyZy4uwDFTQFp5aEmQbSyIIu5SgFATfmgQ5K/1ke+a/tW0VwYxWU
sLClu9vdZDxf+9cFg0b4F6mAyY1H73dtcZZymGLBtNueTck7ypYiDcFaZwbcNNm9
bkM8/XTvFsk=
=+99P
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
</quote>
That doesn't exactly scream out "This is Control's Signature!" to me, so
such 'evidence' is lost to me.
In effect, this shows up as a 'forged' document, if the signature is
checked. Perhaps control ought add something to their header or signature
on future forwards, to clarify their role in posting them.
Andy Mabbett
Dave Mayall <david....@ukonline.co.uk> writes
>I wasn't making comment, because I don't know!
You know that I am a user of ucaw, because we have corresponded about
the content of that group previously; my mail to you of 15 Feb this
year, and 29 August last year, and subsequent relies, for instance.
Mark Wallace
"James Coupe" <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote in message
news:inDIEfDK...@obeah.demon.co.uk...
> In message <9g7fi2$7jdfv$1...@ID-51325.news.dfncis.de>, Mark Wallace
> <mwallacee...@noknok.nl> writes
> >> This newsgroup is for the discussion of all aspects of writing,
> >> from a UK perspective, including, but not limited to, fact, fiction
> >> and poetry -- both commercially or for pleasure.
> >
> >I, for one, agree that the more sensible simplicity of your wording would
be
> >preferable.
>
> I would be tempted to add "criticism" back in, or literary criticism or
> something. Whilst technical writing can fall as "fact", criticism is an
> art form all of its own, at times.
You're probably right, it wouldn't hurt; even though a brief lurk will
reveal that 'post and crit' is largely the way the group is currently
running. It would certainly be in the FAQ.
I'd be against adding wording which could be used as an excuse for flaming
any contributors -- "This ad hominem posting ad hominem goes ad hominem
against ad hominem the ad hominem charter ad hominem!" (I've inserted a clue
or two in my syntax, to help you guess whom I mean). The best way to avoid
that kind of thing would be to keep it worded as simply as possible.
Elegance is, after all, simplicity.
Andy Mabbett
the unfortunate ad hominem and dishonest abuse
spouted by some posters (indulging, sadly, one committee
member), and attempts to personalise the debate, rather then
address real issues.
In article <9g9htd$7j0oc$1...@ID-51325.news.dfncis.de>, Mark Wallace
<mwallacee...@noknok.nl> writes
>Enough of this crap.
Quite:
In article <9g6u6v$7bbiu$1...@ID-51325.news.dfncis.de>, Mark
Wallace <mwallacee...@noknok.nl> writes
>I have made my views known on the matter, and
>have no desire to engage in further debate.
>None of this trolling, flaming, etc. has any significance whatsoever, as it
>all centres around someone who does not use the group --
Who would that be? Not me, unless you're posting more lies.
>and who, indeed, is not welcome there.
Who gave you the right to decide that?
>What is significant is the purpose for which the subscribers of the group
>wish to use the group.
Indeed; and that is what this RFD seeks to make clear, in a new charter.
>This 'discussion' has, once again, become a flame war.
Your role in that is clear.
> It is not even
>remotely relevant to the day-to-day running of the group, so it cannot
>possibly be 'significant' to discussion of the group's charter. It is
>merely an excuse for you to get your kicks by flaming yet more.
PKB.
>Get it through your head, Mabbett, that no-one thinks you are clever, witty,
>or intelligent;
Another lie.
> and I doubt very much that any here would willingly spend
>any time in your presence, given your behaviour.
<yawn>
>Your 'contributions' are neither valued nor wanted. Find another game to
>play.
I'm not "playing" any game.
>
>--
>
>Mark Wallace
>____________________________________________
>
> For the intelligent approach to nasty humour, visit
> The Anglo-American Humour (humor) Site
> http://funny.as/anything
>____________________________________________
>
>
>
Your sig is badly broken.
Andy Mabbett
<$black-dog$@hten.org.uk> writes
>> while ignoring the unfortunate ad hominem and dishonest abuse
>> spouted by some posters (indulging, sadly, one committee
>> member), and attempts to personalise the debate, rather then
>> address real issues.
>>
>>Two committee members.
>
>Huh? {R} is not a committee member.
My mistake. His remarkable and bizarre outburst was still lamentable,
though.
Andy Mabbett
t.news...@cloaked.freeserve.co.uk> writes
>> >I would rather allow an active member (rather than a lurker such as
>> >myself) to draft the piece. I believe this to be the right thing to
>> >do.
>> It's what I've just asked you to do!
>
>This makes no sense.
Indeed. I misread your comment in parentheses as simply "such as
myself"; however, I'd welcome suggestions from any, as you call them,
"active poster", too.
Andy Mabbett
the unfortunate ad hominem and dishonest abuse
spouted by some posters (indulging, sadly, one committee
member), and attempts to personalise the debate, rather then
address real issues.
In article <9g9ihd$7sv61$1...@ID-51325.news.dfncis.de>, Mark Wallace
<mwallacee...@noknok.nl> writes
>He did make two postings, recently, which appear to be on-topic. I believe
>both were on or about the same day, which I imagine was around the time he
>put in the amended RFD.
>
>IIRC, one was a reply to a question which was posted to many writing groups,
>and another was a reply to spam. Neither was more than two lines in length;
>and both were very half-hearted, as if he was looking for something to say.
Your recollection is faulty.
>I remember thinking at the time that it was probably because he needed to
>have a few message IDs to give as 'evidence' that he 'contributes' to the
>group.
as is your remembrance.
In article <9g6u6v$7bbiu$1...@ID-51325.news.dfncis.de>, Mark
Wallace <mwallacee...@noknok.nl> writes
>I have made my views known on the matter, and
>have no desire to engage in further debate.
--
Blade Runner
<an...@pigsonthewing.org.uk> wrote:
>>But since Andy has chosen to make this a battleground
>
>I have done no such thing; I have merely chosen to defend myself against
>others' attempts to do so.
No defence is necessary, this is not a battleground. To get this
proposal through would have required you to build bridges, something
you are clearly not going to do.
And without that, it ain't gonna happen.