Notice: RFD rejected: uk.local.borsetshire
andy roberts
<notice-uk.local.bors...@usenet.org.uk> :
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
>
> Notice: RFD rejected: uk.local.borsetshire
>
>The Committee's attention has been drawn to correspondence
>between Charles Hankel and control with regard to a proposed newsgroup
>uk.local.borsetshire. The Committee wishes to make the following
>observations:
>
>1/ Group(s) already exist to discuss the area, under the subject
> of the programme. The proposal would be a duplication of the
> existing newsgroup - uk.media.radio.archers."
Impossible.
>2/ The name is confusing to anybody who knows nothing about the
> programmes that refer to the fictitious area.
> (See Naming guidelines)
>
>3/ The uk.local.* hierarchy is clearly intended for areas that
> actually exist.
>
Borsetshire is a well established locality , a place , unlike for intance
uk.local.geordie.
>4/ Any further groups to discuss a subject or in particular a
> specific aspect of it belong, by usenet hierarchy conventions,
> underneath the main newsgroup, e.g. uk.media.radio.archers.xxx.
>
The Archers are only one family in a small village, let's not give them more
importance than they deserve.
>5/ As to the matter of uk.media.radio.archers not having a charter,
> this newsgroup DOES have a charter established circa August 1995,
> at the same time as the formulations of the committee were taking
> place. The group was formed using the evolving Fast-Track methods
> of the time.
>
> 30th July 1995 Stephen Turner (gla.ac.uk) issued the first newgroup
> 1st August 1995 Stephen Turner sent a second message.
> 10th August 1995 Richard Letts sent a booster message.
>
> Copy attached of the charter below.
>
>The Committee therefore supports the refusal by Control to publish this RFD.
>
Doesn't refusing to publish the RFD make it difficult for anyone other than
the committee to form an opinion as to whether the RFD has any merit?
>As you will be aware, any RFD not posted by control to uk.net.news.announce
>by control will not be considered valid by the committee, by control or by
>the users of uk.net.news.config.
>
>CHARTER OF UK.MEDIA.RADIO.ARCHERS
>
>(Not Moderated)
>
> Discussion of events and characters in the BBC radio soap opera "The
There, that proves it's a fake. Nobody here would ever refer to it as
'soap'.
>Archers". Speculation about future plot developments, and discussion of social
>or agricultural issues arising from the program.
>
>Advertising
> None allowed.
>
>Newsgroups line
>uk.media.radio.archers Discussion of the BBC radio soap opera "The Archers"
Opera ? Surely not, none of them can sing, either.
>
>
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
>Version: 2.6
>
>iQCVAgUBNlnl4WOfGXkh8vHZAQEvpAQAhVqL/Qx24/UJ1C9shPY7ebXOg4iG4Xio
>dcymNMfMH8H6KlAzPrSA/StSExXgS1yS87MtmWVrF4LPFXilfvYGx+jvvHwxFrNC
>x6w4KMruhwFnUw+YfBJyKeGX+NRxxESqX/eL5ZXQXwp1aBQXtkXmxv4/x9PlX+Uj
>Psmfe5h4fJA=
>=nekj
>-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
.
--
Andy R |RFD ulb http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/rob/rfd.txt
|draft Charter http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/rob/charter.txt
| to join the coach mailto:andy...@zetnet.co.uk
Eddy
roberts) wrote:
>Paul Carpenter van "A Good Idea(tm)" heeft geschreven in bericht
><notice-uk.local.bors...@usenet.org.uk> :
>
>>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>
>>
>> Notice: RFD : uk.local.borsetshire
>>
This is an excellent idea. Please can the new borsetshire group
be fastracked for creation before Christmas, I reckon I might be
able to shift a few of my turkeys through it.
And by the way, please stop calling my friend Charles a hobbit
when you know he isn't here to defend himself.
Bloomin cheek!
Cheers luv,
Eddy <mailto:EdEgRundie AT Softhome dot net>
JerseyLil
>Paul Carpenter van "A Good Idea(tm)" heeft geschreven in bericht
><notice-uk.local.bors...@usenet.org.uk> :
>
>>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>
>>
>>
>>The Committee's attention has been drawn to correspondence
>>between Charles Hankel and control with regard to a proposed newsgroup
>>uk.local.borsetshire. The Committee wishes to make the following
>>observations:
>>
>>1/ Group(s) already exist to discuss the area, under the subject
>> of the programme. The proposal would be a duplication of the
>> existing newsgroup - uk.media.radio.archers."
>Impossible.
unnecessary duplication of uk.local.birmingham.
>>2/ The name is confusing to anybody who knows nothing about the
>> programmes that refer to the fictitious area.
>> (See Naming guidelines)
what programmes? and what is fictitious about borsetshire?
>>3/ The uk.local.* hierarchy is clearly intended for areas that
>> actually exist.
>>
>
>Borsetshire is a well established locality , a place , unlike for
intance
>uk.local.geordie.
>
>>4/ Any further groups to discuss a subject or in particular a
>> specific aspect of it belong, by usenet hierarchy conventions,
>> underneath the main newsgroup, e.g.
uk.media.radio.archers.xxx.
>
>The Archers are only one family in a small village, let's not give them
more
>importance than they deserve.
they *are* an important family within the village but it would make more
sense to have uk.local.borsetshire.ambridge.archers
lil
Linda
advance if wrong.
>Discussion of events and characters in the BBC radio soap opera "The
>
>There, that proves it's a fake. Nobody here would ever refer to it as
>'soap'.
I wish to argue that it is now a matter of academic record, that The
Archers is *not* a soap - it is postmodern drama. Therefore that which
refers to it as such is invalid........or something.
--
Linda
andy roberts
<maYW6yBv...@geodeon.demon.co.uk> :
>In article <notice-uk.local.bors...@usenet.org.uk>,
>Paul Carpenter <pa...@pcserv.demon.co.uk> writes
>>
>>
>> Notice: RFD rejected: uk.local.borsetshire
>>
>>The Committee's attention has been drawn to correspondence
>>between Charles Hankel and control with regard to a proposed newsgroup
>>uk.local.borsetshire. The Committee wishes to make the following
>>observations:
>>
>>1/ Group(s) already exist to discuss the area, under the subject
>> of the programme. The proposal would be a duplication of the
>> existing newsgroup - uk.media.radio.archers."
>
>No it wouldn't. Borsetshire is much bigger than Ambridge.
So it is.
>>
>>2/ The name is confusing to anybody who knows nothing about the
>> programmes that refer to the fictitious area.
>> (See Naming guidelines)
>
>It is not fictitious.
No, but I suspect this 'committee' might be. Where is it ever referred to
outside of the virtual world of usenet? In the Radio Times, the Guardian, on
the national news - no never.
>
>>
>>3/ The uk.local.* hierarchy is clearly intended for areas that
>> actually exist.
>
>So weak is their argument, they have to repeat themselves.
>>
>>4/ Any further groups to discuss a subject or in particular a
>> specific aspect of it belong, by usenet hierarchy conventions,
>> underneath the main newsgroup, e.g. uk.media.radio.archers.xxx.
>
>Illogical. The archers are in borestshire, not borsetshire in the
>archers. How do you put counties into people?
>>
You can't, anybody can see that the county should come first, then the
village , and then maybe the clan.
Devi Jankowicz
andy...@zetnet.co.uk (andy roberts) wrote:
>Paul Carpenter van "A Good Idea(tm)" heeft geschreven in bericht
><notice-uk.local.bors...@usenet.org.uk> :
>
>>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>
>>
>> Notice: RFD rejected: uk.local.borsetshire
>>
<snip>
>>
>>3/ The uk.local.* hierarchy is clearly intended for areas that
>> actually exist.
>>
>
>Borsetshire is a well established locality , a place , unlike for intance
>uk.local.geordie.
I have every sympathy with anyone who wants to inject a little fantasy into
our humdrum, over-serious lives and who argues for a "Borsetshire" group
despite the fact that the term applies to a fictitious place whose
existence depends entirely on a radio programme which some find interesting
but which I myself find the pinnacle of greyness, tedium and boredom. Who
am I to seek to limit the joy which others might experience while
travelling on life's journey?
But my sympathy evaporates when Paul Carpenter detaches himself from
reality so far as to suggest that uk.local.geordie does not relate to a
place, a culture, or a people. Geordie? Real people, Paul! And real places!
Yours is wishful thinking gone mad.
Nor am I impressed by Paddy Smith's lapse into abject solipsism when he
states, in the same thread,
>Well you see, apart from anything else, this is very old and
>unfashionable epistemology. Any deconstructivist or semiologist worth
>his or her salt would point out that Borsetshire is real inasmuch as
>it exists as an idea, which is as real as anything ever is.
"Reality" is a function of the match between phenomena as modelled by the
individual and the consequences which follow when that individual seeks to
make predictions of the outcomes of such modelling, as is quite evident to
those familiar with personal construct psychology or even some of the
social- constructivist positions as represented by, say, Gergen. Abandon
that- the match between ideas and their testing in the rough-and-tumble of
life as experienced by the individual who has the idea- and you fall prey
to the _very_ old-fashioned charlatans and snake-oil merchants who have
crept into the deconstructionist fold. Is that what you really seek of
existence?
But that, as they say, is another narrative.
Howay noo, me bonny lads and lasses, gan canny wi thi ontology and thu
epistemologies will tyake careiv themselves leyk.
Devi Jankowicz
(usually in uk.local.geordie)
Dave Mayall
roberts) wrote:
>>It is not fictitious.
>No, but I suspect this 'committee' might be. Where is it ever referred to
>outside of the virtual world of usenet? In the Radio Times, the Guardian, on
>the national news - no never.
.net magazine
--
Dave Mayall
This posting is made in a personal capacity, the views expressed
may not be those of the UK Usenet Committee.
Blade Runner
Jankowicz) wrote:
>I have every sympathy with anyone who wants to inject a little fantasy into
>our humdrum, over-serious lives and who argues for a "Borsetshire" group
>despite the fact that the term applies to a fictitious place whose
>existence depends entirely on a radio programme which some find interesting
>but which I myself find the pinnacle of greyness, tedium and boredom. Who
>am I to seek to limit the joy which others might experience while
>travelling on life's journey?
Notwithstanding your later comments (the majority of which I did not
understand anyway) I agree. Since when has reality been a
prerequisite for group creation. Take uk.religion.* for instance
You cannot have more than one because, by definition, there can only
be one 'truth'.
Surely the main test is where there is a demand for the groups and
whether it they be used. What's that line about newsgroup names being
inclusive not definitive for anyway if not cases like this?
Might I remind the committee that there are some very successful
groups (eg uk.rec.sheds) whose popularity was not immediately
apparent.
--
Geoff (Blade Runner)
Newsgroups: alt.uk.virgin-net.oldbies, uk.local.north-staffs
North Staffs Oatcakes Homepage http://www.geocities.com/NapaValley/2333
You may have to put the cat out to reply via e-mail
Charles Norrie
<EdEgR...@softhome.net> writes
>On Tue, 24 Nov 1998 02:53:12 GMT, andy...@zetnet.co.uk (andy
>roberts) wrote:
>
>>Paul Carpenter van "A Good Idea(tm)" heeft geschreven in bericht
>><notice-uk.local.bors...@usenet.org.uk> :
>>
>>>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>>
>>>
>>>
>This is an excellent idea. Please can the new borsetshire group
>be fastracked for creation before Christmas, I reckon I might be
>able to shift a few of my turkeys through it.
>
>And by the way, please stop calling my friend Charles a hobbit
>when you know he isn't here to defend himself.
>Bloomin cheek!
>
>
>Cheers luv,
>
>Eddy <mailto:EdEgRundie AT Softhome dot net>
I'd like to support that post.
--
Charles Norrie
Paul Carpenter
"Devi Jankowicz" wrote:
-andy...@zetnet.co.uk (andy roberts) wrote:
->Paul Carpenter van "A Good Idea(tm)" heeft geschreven in bericht
-><notice-uk.local.bors...@usenet.org.uk> :
->
->>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
....
->>3/ The uk.local.* hierarchy is clearly intended for areas that
->> actually exist.
->
->Borsetshire is a well established locality , a place , unlike for intance
->uk.local.geordie.
-
-I have every sympathy with anyone who wants to inject a little fantasy into
-our humdrum, over-serious lives and who argues for a "Borsetshire" group
-despite the fact that the term applies to a fictitious place whose
-existence depends entirely on a radio programme which some find interesting
-but which I myself find the pinnacle of greyness, tedium and boredom. Who
-am I to seek to limit the joy which others might experience while
-travelling on life's journey?
-
-But my sympathy evaporates when Paul Carpenter detaches himself from
-reality so far as to suggest that uk.local.geordie does not relate to a
-place, a culture, or a people. Geordie? Real people, Paul! And real places!
That is not what the committee announcement said, my name is on there as the
one who finalised the agreed text. Check the attributions and the original.
-Yours is wishful thinking gone mad.
You are confusing who said what. Especially as I personally gave you a lot
of help in the RFD stages for uk.local.geordie !
--
Paul Carpenter | pa...@pcserv.demon.co.uk
Consulting for General, Scientific, Industrial Computing & more..
email: list...@pcserv.demon.co.uk - how to _use_ UK Consultants listings
http://www.pcserv.demon.co.uk/
George Nimmo
<david....@ukonline.co.uk> writes
>On Tue, 24 Nov 1998 22:24:55 GMT, andy...@zetnet.co.uk (andy
>roberts) wrote:
>
>>>It is not fictitious.
>>No, but I suspect this 'committee' might be. Where is it ever referred to
>>outside of the virtual world of usenet? In the Radio Times, the Guardian, on
>>the national news - no never.
>
>.net magazine
Quite
--
George Nimmo
George Nimmo
> Notice: RFD rejected: uk.local.borsetshire
>
>The Committee's attention has been drawn to correspondence
>between Charles Hankel and control with regard to a proposed newsgroup
>uk.local.borsetshire. The Committee wishes to make the following
>observations:
>
>1/ Group(s)
>already exist to discuss the area, under the subject
> of the programme.
From this it looks like you accept "the area" as a place that exists.
>The proposal would be a duplication of the
> existing newsgroup - uk.media.radio.archers."
Could you post the RFD so this assumption of yours can be discussed,
please?
>
>2/ The name is confusing to anybody who knows nothing about the
> programmes that refer to the fictitious area.
> (See Naming guidelines)
Now you are saying the area is fictitious, yet in 1/ above you
acknowledged "the area".
>3/ The uk.local.* hierarchy is clearly intended for areas that
> actually exist.
Ah, yes. Like uk.local.geordie you mean?
>
>4/ Any further groups to discuss a subject or in particular a
> specific aspect of it belong, by usenet hierarchy conventions,
> underneath the main newsgroup, e.g. uk.media.radio.archers.xxx.
Then please explain
uk.local.midlands
uk.local.warwickshire and
uk.local.birmingham
Surely they should be
uk.local.midlands
uk.local.midlands.warwickshire
uk.local.midlands.warwickshire.birmingham (maybe Birmingham is no longer
in Warwickshire?)
and
uk.local nw-england and
uk.local.cumbria should be
uk.local.nw-england and
uk.local.nw-england.cumbria
So far the reasons you give for rejecting uk.local.borsetshire don't
come across as very solid. Indeed, it would appear that your decision to
reject uk.local.borsetshire is because *you* don't like the concept.
This isn't a good enough for the rejection, surely?
Please post the RFD and allow the usual discussion.
--
George Nimmo
--
George Nimmo
Andy Mabbett
<ni...@iofw.demon.co.uk> writes
>uk.local.midlands.warwickshire.birmingham (maybe Birmingham is no longer
>in Warwickshire?)
Not since 1974 (though the Archers is recorded here).
--
Andy Mabbett, Development Manager, Birmingham Assist
Birmingham City Council - http://www.birmingham.gov.uk
!*!*!*! See our *new* web site, at the above address !*!*!*!
Andrew John Roberts
from blac...@geocities.com (Blade Runner) contains these words:
> On Wed, 25 Nov 1998 00:25:00 +0000, an...@devi.demon.co.uk (Devi
> Jankowicz) wrote:
> >I have every sympathy with anyone who wants to inject a little fantasy into
> >our humdrum, over-serious lives and who argues for a "Borsetshire" group
> >despite the fact that the term applies to a fictitious place whose
> >existence depends entirely on a radio programme which some find interesting
> >but which I myself find the pinnacle of greyness, tedium and boredom. Who
> >am I to seek to limit the joy which others might experience while
> >travelling on life's journey?
> Notwithstanding your later comments (the majority of which I did not
> understand anyway) I agree. Since when has reality been a
> prerequisite for group creation. Take uk.religion.* for instance
> You cannot have more than one because, by definition, there can only
> be one 'truth'.
> Surely the main test is where there is a demand for the groups and
> whether it they be used. What's that line about newsgroup names being
> inclusive not definitive for anyway if not cases like this?
> Might I remind the committee that there are some very successful
> groups (eg uk.rec.sheds) whose popularity was not immediately
> apparent.
Thankyou for your support.
Now if control had simply posted the RFD we could have had a
perfectly sensible debate as to the amount of demand for the new
group, the limits of it's scope, examining what overlap may or may
not exist with other groups etc. Instead, existential questions are being
examined that strike right at the core of the legitimacy of the committee.
See how unnecessarily complex a poor decision can make these things.
--
Andy R.
Simon Gray
~ >>No, but I suspect this 'committee' might be. Where is it ever referred to
~ >>outside of the virtual world of usenet? In the Radio Times, the Guardian, on
~ >>the national news - no never.
~ >
~ >.net magazine
~
~ Quite
If you wish to be insulted i'd be happy to oblige.
--
Extremists are what keep moderates moderate.
http://www.mahayana.demon.co.uk/
Simon Gray
~ >>2/ The name is confusing to anybody who knows nothing about the
~ >> programmes that refer to the fictitious area.
~ >> (See Naming guidelines)
~
~ what programmes? and what is fictitious about borsetshire?
Feel free to provide the os grid references, as recognised by an
authoritative source. Followups set.
Simon Gray
Down on uk.net.news.config street, the vibe from Blade Runner is:
~ Surely the main test is where there is a demand for the groups and
~ whether it they be used. What's that line about newsgroup names being
~ inclusive not definitive for anyway if not cases like this?
The point is, though, that uk.local.* is for discussion about various
real places, usually by the people in those real places; & uk.media.* is
for discussion of 'programmes', usually fictitious ones.
It is precisely the same situation as digitiser.
If we're going to wee all over the concept of ordered hierarchical
naming, then we might as well not bother at all. & we might as well let
uk.* turn from the respected well-managed hierarchy it is now into the
sewer that alt.* is now.
Iain Bowen
Blade Runner <blac...@geocities.com> wrote:
>Notwithstanding your later comments (the majority of which I did not
>understand anyway) I agree. Since when has reality been a
>prerequisite for group creation. Take uk.religion.* for instance
>You cannot have more than one because, by definition, there can only
>be one 'truth'.
A pedantic argument :-)
>Surely the main test is where there is a demand for the groups and
>whether it they be used. What's that line about newsgroup names being
>inclusive not definitive for anyway if not cases like this?
I have nothing against the idea of a borsetshire group, however, I find
it taking a direct position in uk.local.* somewhat unfitting. Other
suggestions would be welcomed.
>Might I remind the committee that there are some very successful
>groups (eg uk.rec.sheds) whose popularity was not immediately
>apparent.
It was pretty apparent as soon as the votes were counted.
Iain "a quasi-regular listener" Bowen
James Coupe
>> actually exist.
>
>Ah, yes. Like uk.local.geordie you mean?
It's *for* an area that actually exists.
They didn't say it had to be named *after* an area that actually exists.
--
James Coupe "Well, I can't do you that but I can do you
Annie Lennox *singing the song* 'Walking on Broken Glass'"
Irregular Verbs #3: I am erotic, You are kinky, He/She is perverse
Dave Mayall
Jankowicz) wrote:
>But my sympathy evaporates when Paul Carpenter detaches himself from
>reality so far as to suggest that uk.local.geordie does not relate to a
>place, a culture, or a people.
He didn't, andy roberts did.
martin
>In article <YFnujAA0...@iofw.demon.co.uk>, George Nimmo
><ni...@iofw.demon.co.uk> writes
>>
>>>3/ The uk.local.* hierarchy is clearly intended for areas that
>>> actually exist.
>>
>>Ah, yes. Like uk.local.geordie you mean?
>
>It's *for* an area that actually exists.
>
>They didn't say it had to be named *after* an area that actually exists.
>
different plane but which coincides in many respects to much of the
geographical area "uk".
What is all this talk of radio programmes?
--
"maz" Martin up in't Pennines
The lights are on but there's no-one at home.
Philip Powell
an...@devi.demon.co.uk (Devi Jankowicz) wrote:
>In article <365c1f0e...@news.zetnet.co.uk>,
>andy...@zetnet.co.uk (andy roberts) wrote:
>
>>Paul Carpenter van "A Good Idea(tm)" heeft geschreven in bericht
>><notice-uk.local.bors...@usenet.org.uk> :
>>
>>>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>>
>>>
>>> Notice: RFD rejected: uk.local.borsetshire
>>>
><snip>
>>>
>>>3/ The uk.local.* hierarchy is clearly intended for areas that
>>> actually exist.
>>>
>>
>>Borsetshire is a well established locality , a place , unlike for
>>intance uk.local.geordie.
>
> I have every sympathy with anyone who wants to inject a little
> fantasy into our humdrum, over-serious lives and who argues for a
> "Borsetshire" group despite the fact that the term applies to a
> fictitious place whose existence depends entirely on a radio
> programme which some find interesting but which I myself find the
> pinnacle of greyness, tedium and boredom. Who am I to seek to limit
> the joy which others might experience while travelling on life's
> journey?
>
> But my sympathy evaporates when Paul Carpenter detaches himself from
> reality so far as to suggest that uk.local.geordie does not relate
> to a place, a culture, or a people. Geordie? Real people, Paul! And
> real places! Yours is wishful thinking gone mad.
It's that vodka again Devi - it's Andy not Paul!
Mind you, you're right enough as I can see a fair bit of geordieland
if I look down out of my windows. The lights look really bonny from up
here.
--
Philip Powell
Looking north across the Derwent Valley and Northumberland
to The Cheviot
PGP Key available on request
Blade Runner
wrote:
>>Might I remind the committee that there are some very successful
>>groups (eg uk.rec.sheds) whose popularity was not immediately
>>apparent.
>
>It was pretty apparent as soon as the votes were counted.
Exactly.
Simon Gray
~ Instead, existential questions are being
~ examined that strike right at the core of the legitimacy of the committee.
Feel free to draft an rfd for procedures on how to conduct no-confidence
motions, if you feel the committee is illegitimate.
In the meanwhile, perhaps you might care to read (a) the naming
guidelines for uk.*, & (b) the document 'the uk usenet committee', both
posted regularly to uk.net.news.announce & available at
www.usenet.org.uk; followups set.
harry....@nospamzetnet.co.uk
<36647355...@news.demon.co.uk> :
>Down on uk.net.news.config street, the vibe from JerseyLil is:
>
>~ >>2/ The name is confusing to anybody who knows nothing about the
>~ >> programmes that refer to the fictitious area.
>~ >> (See Naming guidelines)
>~
>~ what programmes? and what is fictitious about borsetshire?
>
>Feel free to provide the os grid references, as recognised by an
>authoritative source. Followups set.
Don't talk to me about 'Feel free' young man, it's a bit of a sore point
around these parts. But anyway.....
Pages 23 and 24, 1995 OS Motoring Atlas - price UKP4.99, Underwoods.
--
Uncle Harry
( remove NOSPAM to reply )
andy roberts
<366959df...@news.ukonline.co.uk> :
>On Wed, 25 Nov 1998 00:25:00 +0000, an...@devi.demon.co.uk (Devi
>Jankowicz) wrote:
>
>>But my sympathy evaporates when Paul Carpenter detaches himself from
>>reality so far as to suggest that uk.local.geordie does not relate to a
>>place, a culture, or a people.
>
>He didn't, andy roberts did.
No, those are not my words, as you will be aware, having checked back.
It is my understanding that the word Geordie does indeed refer to a culture,
a people , a language even but the word is not normally used in exactly thta
form to refer to a geographical locality. Perhaps I will be corrected, but
anyway I used this merely as an example to demonstrate that
the naming conventions have not been applied fairly in reason number 3 for
rejecting this RFD. Other examples of uk.local.* groups not being named
after existant demarcations have also been given.
Andy R
--
Dave Mayall
<andy...@zetnet.co.uk> wrote:
>Now if control had simply posted the RFD we could have had a
>perfectly sensible debate as to the amount of demand for the new
>group, the limits of it's scope, examining what overlap may or may
> not exist with other groups etc. Instead, existential questions are being
>examined that strike right at the core of the legitimacy of the committee.
>
>See how unnecessarily complex a poor decision can make these things.
Control and the Committee has a remit. That remit is to manage the
hierarchy. Allowing fictitious places into uk.local.* is not sound
management.
Devi Jankowicz
blac...@geocities.com (Blade Runner) wrote:
> Since when has reality been a
>prerequisite for group creation. Take uk.religion.* for instance
>You cannot have more than one because, by definition, there can only
>be one 'truth'.
Er, well, no. The position from which I was making my tounge-in-cheek
comments, (and one to which I'm inclined to subscribe personally, BTW),
states precisely that there is _not_ one truth.
Because truth does not exist out there, engraved in blocks of stone which
we set out to "discover"; rather, we each of us try, in our fallible way,
to work out a sensible truth for ourselves. Whether we succeed or not is
indicated by just two things:
a) whether other people find our understanding of "the truth" sensible
b) whether our personal definition allows us to make predictions which
appear to us to work.
That's what I meant by a "constructivist" position.
Kind regards,
Devi
Devi Jankowicz
Andrew John Roberts <andy...@zetnet.co.uk> wrote:
>Now if control had simply posted the RFD we could have had a
>perfectly sensible debate as to the amount of demand for the new
>group, the limits of it's scope, examining what overlap may or may
> not exist with other groups etc. Instead, existential questions are being
>examined that strike right at the core of the legitimacy of the committee.
Well, my own and Paddy Smith's comments were intended to provide a
light-hearted aspect to the debate: in my case, based on the humourous side
which I see to the proposal for a fictitious group taking its place among
the groups which relate to very real places (e.g. uk.local.geordie!).
It would say a lot for our general joie-de-vivre if there _was_ a
Borsetshire group in among all those really real ones. English self-parody
at its best, IIMSS.
Having said that, I also sympathise with the Committee members who would,
probably rightly, see this as the thin end of a wedge: allow one, and
before you know where you are, you'd have to allow others.
And there's nothing "existential" about their right to moderate what
happens on the uk newsnet: they're a very real support against the
commercial advertisers, spammers, binary-posters, cross-posters, crooks,
carpetbaggers, rapscallions and other assorted ne'er-do-wells who would
make a dog's breakfast out of our hierarchy given half a chance.
There again, it _would_ have been nice to have this present debate in front
of a live proposal rather than a dead one.
Difficult, isn't it?
Kind regards,
Devi
Claire Speed
>Notwithstanding your later comments (the majority of which I did not
>understand anyway) I agree. Since when has reality been a
>prerequisite for group creation. Take uk.religion.* for instance
>You cannot have more than one because, by definition, there can only
>be one 'truth'.
My dictionariy's definition of "religion" is "system of beliefs" not "truth",
but as yours may well vary it's probably not worth arguing the toss here.
Certainly when presented with any proposals for uk.religion.* groups I have
assumed that they were intended to discuss a system of beliefs, of which
there may be many.
>Surely the main test is where there is a demand for the groups and
>whether it they be used. What's that line about newsgroup names being
>inclusive not definitive for anyway if not cases like this?
They are also supposed to be descriptive and help users to find the
information they are looking for. There is no locality in the uk called
"borsetshire" so to have a group uk.local.borsetshire would be misleading.
>Might I remind the committee that there are some very successful
>groups (eg uk.rec.sheds) whose popularity was not immediately
>apparent.
Actually, there was ample evidence of the popularity of uk.rec.sheds long
before it was even proposed. I think maybe what you are saying is not that
it was created despite a lack of popularity (because we wouldn't refuse to
issue an RFD because we didn't think the group was going to be popular;
that's for you lot to decide) but rather that we allowed a non-serious group
proposal to proceed. Which is correct, and I have no problem with
non-serious group proposals (and positively encouraged Dave to go for
uk.rec.sheds at the outset). I do have a problem with misleading and
inaccurate names, though, and "cute" though uk.local.borsetshire is, it isn't
accurate and it is misleading.
Claire
--
******************************************************************************
* Claire Speed * PGP KeyID: 1024/72329329 http://www.mcc.ac.uk/Claire/ *
* C.S...@mcc.ac.uk * A9 C4 1B 74 67 CC 59 2D F2 2F 06 9F 91 6A B1 69 *
******************************************************************************
Charles Norrie
<ala...@harlech.demon.co.uk> writes
>
>I have nothing against the idea of a borsetshire group, however, I find
>it taking a direct position in uk.local.* somewhat unfitting. Other
>suggestions would be welcomed.
>
Since when has the position of newsgroup had to be 'somewhat fitting'.
You make it sound like Jeeves upon one of Bertie's ties.
--
Charles Norrie
Charles Norrie
<an...@devi.demon.co.uk> writes
>
>And there's nothing "existential" about their right to moderate what
>happens on the uk newsnet: they're a very real support against the
>commercial advertisers, spammers, binary-posters, cross-posters, crooks,
>carpetbaggers, rapscallions and other assorted ne'er-do-wells who would
>make a dog's breakfast out of our hierarchy given half a chance.
>
business groups, trading standards officers and night-watchmen
(rapscallions).
--
Charles Norrie
Charles Norrie
<david....@ukonline.co.uk> writes
>
>Control and the Committee has a remit. That remit is to manage the
>hierarchy. Allowing fictitious places into uk.local.* is not sound
>management.
>
Please point to these issues in the Committee's remit.
--
Charles Norrie
Charles Norrie
<an...@devi.demon.co.uk> writes
>
>Because truth does not exist out there, engraved in blocks of stone which
>we set out to "discover"; rather, we each of us try, in our fallible way,
>to work out a sensible truth for ourselves. Whether we succeed or not is
>indicated by just two things:
>a) whether other people find our understanding of "the truth" sensible
>b) whether our personal definition allows us to make predictions which
>appear to us to work.
>
on Radio 4. Their contribution on the philosophy of religion would be
most welcome.
--
Charles Norrie
JerseyLil
>There is no locality in the uk called
>"borsetshire" so to have a group uk.local.borsetshire would be
>misleading.
<sigh>
there is no locality in the uk called 'geordie' but many people are
familiar with the concept of geordieland. there are many people equally
familiar with the concept of borsetshire.
lil
harry....@nospamzetnet.co.uk
<yQRzowCJ...@geodeon.demon.co.uk> :
>In article <365f37f...@news.thefree.net>, Eddy
><EdEgR...@softhome.net> writes
>>On Tue, 24 Nov 1998 02:53:12 GMT, andy...@zetnet.co.uk (andy
>>roberts) wrote:
>>
>>>Paul Carpenter van "A Good Idea(tm)" heeft geschreven in bericht
>>><notice-uk.local.bors...@usenet.org.uk> :
>>>
>>>>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Notice: RFD : uk.local.borsetshire
>>>>
>>This is an excellent idea. Please can the new borsetshire group
>>be fastracked for creation before Christmas, I reckon I might be
>>able to shift a few of my turkeys through it.
>>
>
>I'd like to support that post.
I also support the motion and would urge all fair minded people to vote YES.
--
Uncle Harry
( delete NOSPAM to reply )
David Damerell
><an...@devi.demon.co.uk> writes
>>And there's nothing "existential" about their right to moderate what
>>happens on the uk newsnet: they're a very real support against the
>>commercial advertisers, spammers, binary-posters, cross-posters, crooks,
>>carpetbaggers, rapscallions and other assorted ne'er-do-wells who would
>>make a dog's breakfast out of our hierarchy given half a chance.
>In what ways? Do they have the powers of the ASA, the police, good
>business groups, trading standards officers and night-watchmen
>(rapscallions).
They (the group, not the individuals; the methods for choosing the
individuals are documented) are who the major UK ISPs have chosen to make
these decisions. As long as those ISPs are happy the Committee can do what
they like; if they exceed their remit, the ISPs will respond as they see
fit.
--
David/Kirsty Damerell. dame...@chiark.greenend.org.uk
CUWoCS President. http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~damerell/ Hail Eris!
|___| I was wrong. I was wrong to ever doubt. I can get along without. |___|
| | | I can love my fellow man. But I'm damned if I'll love yours.[AE] | | |
Mary Gentle
an...@devi.demon.co.uk (Devi Jankowicz) wrote:
<snip>
> Having said that, I also sympathise with the Committee
>members who would, probably rightly, see this as the thin
>end of a wedge: allow one, and before you know where you
>are, you'd have to allow others.
Perhaps if we restricted it to allowing groups for locales
which have been available for discussion for 40+ years?
Borchester would qualify, but fairly few similar counties.
Therefore, few groups like uk.local.borsetshire would ever
exist. I think I'm safe in saying the latter, certainly.
<snip>
> There again, it _would_ have been nice to have this present
>debate in front of a live proposal rather than a dead one.
<snip>
Wouldn't it, though?
Mary
andy roberts
>On Wed, 25 Nov 1998 22:28:57 GMT, Andrew John Roberts
><andy...@zetnet.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>Now if control had simply posted the RFD we could have had a
>>perfectly sensible debate as to the amount of demand for the new
>>group, the limits of it's scope, examining what overlap may or may
>> not exist with other groups etc. Instead, existential questions are being
>>examined that strike right at the core of the legitimacy of the committee.
>>
>>See how unnecessarily complex a poor decision can make these things.
>
>Control and the Committee has a remit. That remit is to manage the
>hierarchy. Allowing fictitious places into uk.local.* is not sound
>management.
If you believe that uk.local.* is not the best place for the proposed group
then you should make that point as strongly as you like during the due
discussion period following posting the official RFD , you could do this
either as individuals or as a committee.
Weilding a VETO is an action that should never be taken lightly, it can be
a double-edged sword and would sensibly be held in reserve for a desperate
or seriously threatening situation. I find it hard to conceive that someone
proposing a group with a suggested name uk.local.borsetshire constitutes a
dire emergency?
Andy R
--
Tracey
>In article <365f37f...@news.thefree.net>, Eddy
><EdEgR...@softhome.net> writes
>>On Tue, 24 Nov 1998 02:53:12 GMT, andy...@zetnet.co.uk (andy
>>roberts) wrote:
>>
>>>Paul Carpenter van "A Good Idea(tm)" heeft geschreven in bericht
>>><notice-uk.local.bors...@usenet.org.uk> :
>>>
>>>>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Notice: RFD : uk.local.borsetshire
>>>>
>>This is an excellent idea. Please can the new borsetshire group
>>be fastracked for creation before Christmas, I reckon I might be
>>able to shift a few of my turkeys through it.
>>
>>when you know he isn't here to defend himself.
>>Bloomin cheek!
>>
>>
>>Cheers luv,
>>
>>Eddy <mailto:EdEgRundie AT Softhome dot net>
>
>I'd like to support that post.
Me too!
Tracey
Rebecca and Rowland
[snip]
> But my sympathy evaporates when Paul Carpenter detaches himself from
> reality so far as to suggest that uk.local.geordie does not relate to a
> place, a culture, or a people. Geordie? Real people, Paul! And real places!
> Yours is wishful thinking gone mad.
`Geordie' is not a place, nor are Geordies geographically limited. I
have met many Geordies who have made it as far south as Manchester, and
still consider themselves Geordies (anything's better than being
mistaken for one of the locals...)
I think that's the basis for the objection.
Whether or not Geordie `culture' is an elaborate practical joke played
on the rest of the English speaking world is a different question
entirely.
[snip]
> Howay noo, me bonny lads and lasses, gan canny wi thi ontology and thu
> epistemologies will tyake careiv themselves leyk.
Although, in the face of evidence like this, it's hard to take the idea
of Geordies seriously. I bet the whole of Newcastle-upon-Tyne reverts
to received pronunciation when no-one else is listening...
Rowland.
--
Remove the animal for my email address: reb...@astrid.dog.u-net.com
Sorry - the spam got to me. PGP pub key A680B89D
UK biker? Join MAG and help keep bureaucracy at bay
http://dredd.meng.ucl.ac.uk/www/mag/mag.html
Rebecca and Rowland
> On Wed, 25 Nov 1998 22:28:57 GMT, Andrew John Roberts
> <andy...@zetnet.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >Now if control had simply posted the RFD we could have had a
> >perfectly sensible debate as to the amount of demand for the new
> >group, the limits of it's scope, examining what overlap may or may
> > not exist with other groups etc. Instead, existential questions are being
> >examined that strike right at the core of the legitimacy of the committee.
> >
> >See how unnecessarily complex a poor decision can make these things.
>
> Control and the Committee has a remit. That remit is to manage the
> hierarchy. Allowing fictitious places into uk.local.* is not sound
> management.
Is there perhaps an argument for putting this up for discussion in a
small number of cases? In the case of Borsetshire, it's `existed' for a
*very* long time (in broadcast media terms at least). Would it be
completely unacceptable to allow a small number of ficticious high-level
places (no smaller than county-sized) places into uk.local?
Obviously, allowing every ficticious place a home in the uk.local
hierarchy would be daft, but is it really essential to have a blanket
ban on this sort of thing, to the extent that even discussion of an RFD
is forbidden?
Andrew R. Gillett
<73js2h$4h1$1...@newsreader4.core.theplanet.net>, JerseyLil
I don't listen to The Archers. When I first saw this thread, my first
reaction was that it must be a mistype of 'Dorsetshire'. Many other
people would think the same thing. Almost everyone knows what Geordie
means.
--
Andrew Gillett http://argnet.fatal-design.com/ ICQ: See homepage
"Green! We're going to die! Help! Run away!" - Bonecrusher, Starship Losers
George Nimmo
<$simon$@star-one.org.uk> writes
>Down on uk.net.news.config street, the vibe from George Nimmo is:
Attributions all wrong, but never mind...
>
>~ >>No, but I suspect this 'committee' might be. Where is it ever referred to
>~ >>outside of the virtual world of usenet? In the Radio Times, the Guardian,
>on
>~ >>the national news - no never.
>~ >
>~ >.net magazine
>~
>~ Quite
>
>If you wish to be insulted i'd be happy to oblige.
>
Ooo-errr a threat! I wonder if those two friends of Mr Hardwick are
available to assist me in this hour of need.
--
George Nimmo
George Nimmo
<david....@ukonline.co.uk> writes
>The area is fictitious. Could you provide a full NGR for any "place"
>in Borsetshire.
Sorry, I haven't managed to get into either Borchester or Felpersham
today to obtain a map.
But I don't believe I have read anywhere that any newsgroup in uk.local
has to be an exact location that has a full NGR (whatever that is) but
I'm very willing to be shewn otherwise.
I had a chat with Usha (she's awfully clever, you know) and she
suggested I reply in this vein...
The following comes from the usenet.org.uk webpage
"The hierarchy is for groups to discuss and announce local issues and
events. It is expected that most groups will be created in the form:
uk.local.<area-name> or in the form: uk.local.<area-name>.<subcategory>.
<area-name> is the area to be covered by the group (and <subcategory>
can be used or extended as necessary)".
Note "it is expected that most groups..." is not the same as "it is a
requirement that all groups..." and nor does it say anything about a
"real" place.
To use a phrase so often employed here... Feel free to change the rules
so they read the way you want them to read.
Just don't blame others for abiding by the extant rules.
All of which sounds ever so serious. Let's face it, Borsetshire clearly
exists as a concept and can be found on FM92.4-94.6 MHz, LW198 kHz,
(1515m) MW720 kHz twice each day except Saturdays.
>
>>>3/ The uk.local.* hierarchy is clearly intended for areas that
>>> actually exist.
Post the paragraph/URL that specifically states that, please. I have not
found it so far.
>>
>>Ah, yes. Like uk.local.geordie you mean?
>
>Geordieland isn't on the maps, but I could give you a NGR for a place
>in it.
<mode=surprise>
But why on earth would I want one?
</mode>
Further you have shifted the goalposts by changing the name from geordie
to Geordieland. geordie is a concept, Geordieland may be both a place
and a concept, or neither, or one but not the other.
Before this discussion goes any further you will have to confirm the
rules for drafting an RFD for the uk.local hierarchy. As I say, I can't
find any indication that NGR's or "real" places are a requirement, but
you will know these things far better than I ever will.
But first things first, I suggest we retire for a virtual pint of Shires
at The Bull.
--
George Nimmo
George Nimmo
Rowland <real-addr...@flur.bltigibbet> writes
>Devi Jankowicz <an...@devi.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>[snip]
>
>> But my sympathy evaporates when Paul Carpenter detaches himself from
>> reality so far as to suggest that uk.local.geordie does not relate to a
>> place, a culture, or a people. Geordie? Real people, Paul! And real places!
>> Yours is wishful thinking gone mad.
>
>`Geordie' is not a place, nor are Geordies geographically limited.
Nor are they geographically inclusive. One can live in the North East
and not be a Geordie.
> I
>have met many Geordies who have made it as far south as Manchester, and
>still consider themselves Geordies (anything's better than being
>mistaken for one of the locals...)
>
>I think that's the basis for the objection.
>
>Whether or not Geordie `culture' is an elaborate practical joke played
>on the rest of the English speaking world is a different question
>entirely.
>
>[snip]
>
>> Howay noo, me bonny lads and lasses, gan canny wi thi ontology and thu
>> epistemologies will tyake careiv themselves leyk.
>
>Although, in the face of evidence like this, it's hard to take the idea
>of Geordies seriously. I bet the whole of Newcastle-upon-Tyne reverts
>to received pronunciation when no-one else is listening...
>
>Rowland.
LOL
--
George Nimmo
JerseyLil
>In uk.net.news.config, article
><73js2h$4h1$1...@newsreader4.core.theplanet.net>, JerseyLil
>(l...@bredgar55.freeserve.co.yuk) wrote:
>> Claire Speed wrote in message <73jb2v$1u7$1...@yama.mcc.ac.uk>...
>>
>> >There is no locality in the uk called
>> >"borsetshire" so to have a group uk.local.borsetshire would be
>> >misleading.
>>
>> <sigh>
>>
>> there is no locality in the uk called 'geordie' but many people are
>> familiar with the concept of geordieland. there are many people
equally
>> familiar with the concept of borsetshire.
>
>I don't listen to The Archers. When I first saw this thread, my first
>reaction was that it must be a mistype of 'Dorsetshire'. Many other
>people would think the same thing. Almost everyone knows what Geordie
>means.
goodness, i'd no idea there *was* such a place as dorsetshire.
lil
Philip Powell
mary_...@cix.compulink.co.uk ("Mary Gentle") wrote:
>In article <B282D37D...@devi.demon.co.uk>,
>an...@devi.demon.co.uk (Devi Jankowicz) wrote:
>
><snip>
>> Having said that, I also sympathise with the Committee
>>members who would, probably rightly, see this as the thin
>>end of a wedge: allow one, and before you know where you
>>are, you'd have to allow others.
>
>Perhaps if we restricted it to allowing groups for locales
>which have been available for discussion for 40+ years?
>Borchester would qualify, but fairly few similar counties.
>Therefore, few groups like uk.local.borsetshire would ever
>exist. I think I'm safe in saying the latter, certainly.
Bang goes uk.local.cumbria for a start!
--
Philip Powell
Looking north across the Derwent Valley and Northumberland
to The Cheviot
PGP Key available on request
Dave Mayall
wrote:
>Don't talk to me about 'Feel free' young man, it's a bit of a sore point
>around these parts. But anyway.....
>
>Pages 23 and 24, 1995 OS Motoring Atlas - price UKP4.99, Underwoods.
OS NGR please (they look like SK 303 721)
Dave Mayall
> No, those are not my words, as you will be aware, having checked back.
Indeed not. Devi paraphrased, and attributed the words he had paraphrased
to Paul, when he had actually paraphrased your words.
> It is my understanding that the word Geordie does indeed refer to a culture,
> a people , a language even but the word is not normally used in exactly thta
> form to refer to a geographical locality. Perhaps I will be corrected, but
> anyway I used this merely as an example to demonstrate that
> the naming conventions have not been applied fairly in reason number 3 for
> rejecting this RFD. Other examples of uk.local.* groups not being named
> after existant demarcations have also been given.
Whatever the semantics, uk.local.geordie refers to a real place, Charles Hankel's
proposal did not.
--
Dave Mayall
The views expressed are mine and may not be those of my employer
Private e-mail to david....@ukonline.co.uk please
Rick Martin
>
> On Wed, 25 Nov 1998 22:28:57 GMT, Andrew John Roberts
> <andy...@zetnet.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >Now if control had simply posted the RFD we could have had a
> >perfectly sensible debate as to the amount of demand for the new
> >group, the limits of it's scope, examining what overlap may or may
> > not exist with other groups etc. Instead, existential questions are being
> >examined that strike right at the core of the legitimacy of the committee.
> >
> >See how unnecessarily complex a poor decision can make these things.
>
> Control and the Committee has a remit. That remit is to manage the
> hierarchy. Allowing fictitious places into uk.local.* is not sound
> management.
I'm torn on this one. On the one hand, the Committee was set up in
order to attempt to avoid Yet Another Anarchy. Having the procedures
we have means that uk.* gets reasonable propagation [1]. Having them
advise on *sensible* names for groups is a most valuable part of that
process. By the same token, having them reject a wrongly-named group
(and I believe this one was) means that uk.* does not fall into
disrepute [2].
Another argument against the group is that the uk.local.* bit under
http://www.usenet.org.uk says
> The hierarchy is for groups to discuss and announce
> local issues and events
Clearly no-one local to Borsetshire could actually post to Usenet (let
alone that group), nor could anyone visit Borsetshire to attend events
there which had been notified to or discussed on the group.
On the other hand, I might have preferred to have seen the UK Usenet
community given the chance to discuss it, see it fast-tracked, kicked
out, voted on, have someone cast aspersions on the parentage of the
volunteer vote-taker, have a revote and kill the group procedurally.
Rick
[1] <whinge> even if not always reasonable message retention </whinge>
[2] The day uk.* falls into disrepute is the day when it ceases to
enjoy reasonable propagation.
[3] Apologies for screwy Newsgroups: and Followup-To: lines -
Netscape 4.5 is testing me more than I'm testing it :)
[4] There is no point [4]
--
Watch for anti-spam if replying via email: replace AntiSpamHyphen with a real hyphen
Eddy
Mayall) wrote:
>On Thu, 26 Nov 1998 01:49:20 GMT, harry....@NOSPAMzetnet.co.uk
>wrote:
>
>>Don't talk to me about 'Feel free' young man, it's a bit of a sore point
>>around these parts. But anyway.....
>>
>>Pages 23 and 24, 1995 OS Motoring Atlas - price UKP4.99, Underwoods.
>
>OS NGR please (they look like SK 303 721)
Tell you what then , have a look at
http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/users/dlg10/archers.html
and work it out for yourself.
--
Hey ! I can see my house from here !
Simon Gray
~ Attributions all wrong, but never mind...
No, I think you'll find that you had indeed posted the article to which
I was responding.
Perhaps you might care to learn how netnews works before making an idiot
of yourself in future ?
Followups set.
--
Extremists are what keep moderates moderate.
http://www.mahayana.demon.co.uk/
Simon Gray
~ >I have nothing against the idea of a borsetshire group, however, I find
~ >it taking a direct position in uk.local.* somewhat unfitting. Other
~ >suggestions would be welcomed.
~
~ Since when has the position of newsgroup had to be 'somewhat fitting'.
Since uk.* became an internationally respected well-managed hierarchy.
Hope This Helps.
Simon Gray
Down on uk.net.news.config street, the vibe from Rebecca and Rowland is:
~ > Control and the Committee has a remit. That remit is to manage the
~ > hierarchy. Allowing fictitious places into uk.local.* is not sound
~ > management.
~
~ Is there perhaps an argument for putting this up for discussion in a
~ small number of cases? In the case of Borsetshire, it's `existed' for a
~ *very* long time (in broadcast media terms at least). Would it be
~ completely unacceptable to allow a small number of ficticious high-level
~ places (no smaller than county-sized) places into uk.local?
There is also the issue that, at the end of the day, this is a proposal
for an archers newsgroup.
There already exists an archers newsgroup.
Simon Gray
~ there is no locality in the uk called 'geordie' but many people are
~ familiar with the concept of geordieland. there are many people equally
~ familiar with the concept of borsetshire.
Yes - so they can talk about it in uk.media.radio.archers - the
newsgroup which already exists specifically to discuss 'things' related
to the fictional drama on the wireless.
Followups set.
Andrew John Roberts
from david....@ukonline.co.uk (Dave Mayall) contains these words:
> On Wed, 25 Nov 1998 13:12:42 +0000, George Nimmo
> <ni...@iofw.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >From this it looks like you accept "the area" as a place that exists.
> No.
> >Now you are saying the area is fictitious, yet in 1/ above you
> >acknowledged "the area".
> The area is fictitious. Could you provide a full NGR for any "place"
> in Borsetshire.
I can do even better than that, I can give you the URL for the actual map:-
http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/users/dlg10/archers.html
What more proof do you need than that?
--
Andy R.
jean...@sud.connex.fr
>Charles Norrie wrote in message ...
>>In article <365f37f...@news.thefree.net>, Eddy
>><EdEgR...@softhome.net> writes
>>>On Tue, 24 Nov 1998 02:53:12 GMT, andy...@zetnet.co.uk (andy
>>>roberts) wrote:
>>>
>>>>Paul Carpenter van "A Good Idea(tm)" heeft geschreven in bericht
>>>><notice-uk.local.bors...@usenet.org.uk> :
>>>>
>>>>>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Notice: RFD : uk.local.borsetshire
>>>>>
>>>This is an excellent idea. Please can the new borsetshire group
>>>be fastracked for creation before Christmas, I reckon I might be
>>>able to shift a few of my turkeys through it.
>>>
>>>And by the way, please stop calling my friend Charles a hobbit
>>>when you know he isn't here to defend himself.
>>>Bloomin cheek!
>>>
>>>
>>>Cheers luv,
>>>
>>>Eddy <mailto:EdEgRundie AT Softhome dot net>
>>
>>I'd like to support that post.
>
>Me too!
>
Et moi!
Je suis d'accord.
--
Jean-paul
Simon Gray
~ Tell you what then , have a look at
~ http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/users/dlg10/archers.html
~ and work it out for yourself.
I see - so you admit that this was indeed a proposal for an archers
newsgroup, then.
Mary Gentle
ni...@iofw.demon.co.uk (George Nimmo) wrote:
<snip>
> But first things first, I suggest we retire for a virtual
>pint of Shires at The Bull.
Very kind of you; ta.
Mary
Mary Gentle
phi...@blencathra.demon.co.uk (Philip Powell) wrote:
> In message <F31Ht...@cix.compulink.co.uk>
> mary_...@cix.compulink.co.uk ("Mary Gentle")
wrote:
>
> >In article <B282D37D...@devi.demon.co.uk>,
> >an...@devi.demon.co.uk (Devi Jankowicz) wrote:
> >
> ><snip>
> >> Having said that, I also sympathise with the Committee
> >>members who would, probably rightly, see this as the thin
> >>end of a wedge: allow one, and before you know where you
> >>are, you'd have to allow others.
> >
> >Perhaps if we restricted it to allowing groups for locales
> >which have been available for discussion for 40+ years?
> >Borchester would qualify, but fairly few similar counties.
> >Therefore, few groups like uk.local.borsetshire would ever
> >exist. I think I'm safe in saying the latter, certainly.
>
> Bang goes uk.local.cumbria for a start!
And that would be a bad thing? <g>
<Starts running _very_ fast>
Sorry: was once rained on in Cumbria for what seemed like
several centuries, and the experience has left a scar on my
psyche...
I do take your point, though. I rather like the idea that
Cumbria has less validity than somewhere - er - rather more
difficult to find on a map. :)
Back to the drawing-board...
Mary
George Nimmo
x.compulink.co.uk> writes
A pleasure.
--
George Nimmo
Andrew John Roberts
from $simon$@star-one.org.uk (Simon Gray) contains these words:
> Down on uk.net.news.config street, the vibe from Eddy is:
> ~ Tell you what then , have a look at
> ~ http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/users/dlg10/archers.html
> ~ and work it out for yourself.
> I see - so you admit that this was indeed a proposal for an archers
> newsgroup, then.
Whether or not there is any overlap between the proposed group, the existing
media groups, and neighbouring uk.local groups is a complex matter
which should be
resolved by posting the RFD and allowing the usual discussion.
--
Andy R.
Andrew John Roberts
from Dave Mayall <may...@postoffice.co.uk> contains these words:
> andy roberts wrote:
> >
> >
> > But we have here an example of an RFD that was REJECTED without
> > even being allowed to BEGIN being discussed through the proper procedure,
> > so "Feel free to draft an RFD" is hardly an appropriate response to
> > anything.
> The RFD was rejected by the committee acting within it's powers (IMHO)
> If you accept that the committee was acting within it's powers but wish
> that the committee had no such powers, an RFD to change the remit of
> the committee would seem appropriate.
> If you believe that the committee has acted beyond it's powers, then
> you must call for a vote of no confidence in the committee. Before you
> can do this, you need to RFD procedures for such a motion.
I have no intention of calling for a vote of no confidence over what is merely
one error of judgement which could easily be rectified.
It is hard to understand why you would seek to escalate this issue so
seriously, rather than
admit it, I can only think you must all have a liking for melodrama.
--
Andy R.
David Damerell
> Weilding a VETO is an action that should never be taken lightly, it can be
>a double-edged sword and would sensibly be held in reserve for a desperate
>or seriously threatening situation. I find it hard to conceive that someone
>proposing a group with a suggested name uk.local.borsetshire constitutes a
>dire emergency?
Where is it written that the Committee can only use their powers in
desperation? Part of their job is to throw out ridiculous proposals.
--
David/Kirsty Damerell. dame...@chiark.greenend.org.uk
http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~damerell/ w.sp.lic.#pi<largestprime>.2106
|___| NetHack players of the world unite! You have nothing |___|
| | | to lose but your blessed rustproof +2 iron chains! | | |
Mary Gentle
ni...@iofw.demon.co.uk (George Nimmo) wrote:
> In article <F32o8...@cix.compulink.co.uk>, Mary Gentle
><mary_gentle@ci
> x.compulink.co.uk> writes
> >In article <Uujdp5An...@iofw.demon.co.uk>,
> >ni...@iofw.demon.co.uk (George Nimmo) wrote:
> >
> ><snip>
> >> But first things first, I suggest we retire for a
>virtual pint of Shires at The Bull.
> >
> >Very kind of you; ta.
> >
> >Mary
>
> A pleasure.
Next round's mine, then.
Bet we miss the coach back.
Mary
George Nimmo
<$simon$@star-one.org.uk> writes
>Down on uk.net.news.config street, the vibe from George Nimmo is:
>
>~ Attributions all wrong, but never mind...
>
>No, I think you'll find that you had indeed posted the article to which
>I was responding.
>
>Perhaps you might care to learn how netnews works before making an idiot
>of yourself in future ?
We all had a good laugh down at The Bull when I read this one out! Make
no mistake, Mr Gray, when it comes to aggressive behaviour, all of us
have a great deal to learn from you! Good for you... but can you keep it
up?!
When two people of strongly held but opposing views meet up it is often
a good idea to bring in an arbiter. Who better than the lady who knows
everything about everything? I had a few words with her (actually, that
is not strictly true. No-one ever has a few words with Lynda Snell...
one just listens a great deal; she went on-and-on about the fashion
show) but eventually she explained that although the simplest thing
would be a cut-and-paste job so other readers can see for themselves, it
would be more appropriate to leave things as they are. That way they
will be able to have as good a laugh as we all did.
>Followups set.
The old "followups set" trick, eh? Frankly, we were a bit disappointed
about that. Somehow we expected better of you. Still, it shews the
contempt you hold for other people, so maybe there is something to be
admired in it after all!
So far your score with me is three attempts at humiliation in just two
postings. Not a bad start.
--
George Nimmo
harry....@nospamzetnet.co.uk
>In article <4sn2p0A0...@iofw.demon.co.uk>,
>ni...@iofw.demon.co.uk (George Nimmo) wrote:
>
>> In article <F32o8...@cix.compulink.co.uk>, Mary Gentle
>><mary_gentle@ci
>> x.compulink.co.uk> writes
>> >In article <Uujdp5An...@iofw.demon.co.uk>,
>> >ni...@iofw.demon.co.uk (George Nimmo) wrote:
>> >
>> ><snip>
>> >> But first things first, I suggest we retire for a
>>virtual pint of Shires at The Bull.
>> >
>> >Very kind of you; ta.
>> >
>> A pleasure.
>
>Next round's mine, then.
>
>Bet we miss the coach back.
>
>Mary
Hullo you two! How long have you been sitting there then?
Half the coach seem to be in here now.
I'm on the grapefruit juice and soda myself, I'm driving.
I wonder who's that grey-faced miserable git on his own standing
by the bar?
--
Uncle Harry
( delete NOSPAM to reply )
Andrew R. Gillett
<73kfug$inc$1...@newsreader5.core.theplanet.net>, JerseyLil
> Andrew R. Gillett wrote in message ...
> >In uk.net.news.config, article
> ><73js2h$4h1$1...@newsreader4.core.theplanet.net>, JerseyLil
> >(l...@bredgar55.freeserve.co.yuk) wrote:
> >> Claire Speed wrote in message <73jb2v$1u7$1...@yama.mcc.ac.uk>...
> >>
> >> >There is no locality in the uk called
> >> >"borsetshire" so to have a group uk.local.borsetshire would be
> >> >misleading.
> >>
> >> <sigh>
> >>
> equally
> >
> >reaction was that it must be a mistype of 'Dorsetshire'. Many other
> >people would think the same thing. Almost everyone knows what Geordie
> >means.
>
> goodness, i'd no idea there *was* such a place as dorsetshire.
There WAS one, but not any more, it's just called Dorset now.
--
Andrew Gillett http://argnet.fatal-design.com/ ICQ: See homepage
"Sir, sure am, sir." - Chelmer Monkton, Starship Losers
Dave Mayall
<ni...@iofw.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>But I don't believe I have read anywhere that any newsgroup in uk.local
>has to be an exact location that has a full NGR (whatever that is) but
>I'm very willing to be shewn otherwise.
Where the guidelines or charters are silent on any given matter, it is
for the committee to adjudicate what the author would have written,
had he anticipated the situation.
The committee has ruled that it is likely that the intent of the
uk.local.* charter was that only real places would count.
--
Dave Mayall
This posting is made in a personal capacity, the views expressed
may not be those of the UK Usenet Committee.
andy roberts
bericht <MPG.10c8bd25c...@news.freeserve.net> :
>In uk.net.news.config, article
><73kfug$inc$1...@newsreader5.core.theplanet.net>, JerseyLil
>(l...@bredgar55.freeserve.co.yuk) wrote:
>> goodness, i'd no idea there *was* such a place as dorsetshire.
>
>There WAS one, but not any more, it's just called Dorset now.
Sad, same happened to Hamp of course..
Another pint of 's?
Andy R
--
Charles Norrie
Gillett <arga...@fatal-design.com> writes
>
>I don't listen to The Archers. When I first saw this thread, my first
>reaction was that it must be a mistype of 'Dorsetshire'. Many other
>people would think the same thing. Almost everyone knows what Geordie
>means.
>
differences in the names of ng?
--
Charles Norrie
Philip Powell
mary_...@cix.compulink.co.uk ("Mary Gentle") wrote:
>In article <f57d36ab...@blencathra.demon.co.uk>,
>phi...@blencathra.demon.co.uk (Philip Powell) wrote:
>
>> In message <F31Ht...@cix.compulink.co.uk>
>> mary_...@cix.compulink.co.uk ("Mary Gentle")
>wrote:
[snip]
>> >Perhaps if we restricted it to allowing groups for locales
>> >which have been available for discussion for 40+ years?
>> >Borchester would qualify, but fairly few similar counties.
>
>> >Therefore, few groups like uk.local.borsetshire would ever
>> >exist. I think I'm safe in saying the latter, certainly.
>>
>> Bang goes uk.local.cumbria for a start!
>
>And that would be a bad thing? <g>
>
><Starts running _very_ fast>
I'm after you (-:
>Sorry: was once rained on in Cumbria for what seemed like
>several centuries, and the experience has left a scar on my
>psyche...
Rain? In Cumbria? Surely you jest.
Denis McMahon
The committee are elected to exercise their judgement, and have done
so. You disagree with their decision. That is your right. However, if
you wish to overturn that decision, you have a limited number of paths
to follow:
1) Convince the committee that their opinion was incorrect in this
case. This would require addressing each of the points on which they
rejected the RFD with grounds for the rebuttal of that point. Your
grounds for rebuttal must either be
1.a) based in the terms of reference of the committee (ie the
guidelines for uk group creation etc) and show how they have failed to
operate within those terms of reference; or
1.b) based on established and demonstrable fact (and not your own
supposition or belief of waht is factual).
2) RFD a revsion to the committees terms of reference that will then
allow you to create the group you want.
3) Personally call for the resignation of the committee.
4) RFD a no confidence procedure and then instigate that procedure.
To date I have seen nothing in any posts that indicates that the
proposed group would not merely duplicate in purpose and function an
existing group, nor that makes me think that committee have in any way
applied the rules incorrectly. Specifically, the mythical county of
borsetshire ios so inextricably tied to the BBC radio series "The
Archers" that if a borsetshire newsgroup were to be created I believe
that the only correct place in the current hierarchy for it would be
as uk.media.radio.archers.borsetshire.
Rgds
Denis
--
Denis McMahon Certain domains and subdomains
Tel/Fax +44 1705 698221 will have all email deleted due
Mob +44 802 468949 to the amount of UCE from or
Email de...@pickaxe.demon.co.uk apparently from their users
Denis McMahon
roberts) wrote:
>>>4/ Any further groups to discuss a subject or in particular a
>>> specific aspect of it belong, by usenet hierarchy conventions,
>>> underneath the main newsgroup, e.g. uk.media.radio.archers.xxx.
>>
>>Illogical. The archers are in borestshire, not borsetshire in the
>>archers. How do you put counties into people?
>>>
>You can't, anybody can see that the county should come first, then the
>village , and then maybe the clan.
In that case, the group should be (IMO):
uk.media.radio.radio4.series.drama.the_archers.borsetshire
I'll accept that it is arguable whether drama and series are in the
right order, radio4 also has drama that are not series and series
which are not drama.
The existing archers group is not IMO in the correct place in the
hierarchy, that in itself though is not IMO a basis for creation of a
new group. (the RFD should be for group renaming / repositioning)
Dave Mayall
<andy...@zetnet.co.uk> wrote:
>I have no intention of calling for a vote of no confidence over what is merely
>one error of judgement which could easily be rectified.
Do as you wish. I will not reverse my opinion on this matter.
Matthew Malthouse
}
} Whether or not there is any overlap between the proposed group, the existing
} media groups, and neighbouring uk.local groups is a complex matter
} which should be
} resolved by posting the RFD and allowing the usual discussion.
"Any overlap"? "Complex matter"?
If one were to posit a physical existance for Borsetshire there may be
questions to debate.
But if one accepts that Borsetshire exists solely as an element of the
Archers then the matter is far from complex: there would be an exact
congruence between uk.media.radio.archers and uk.local.borsetshire.
Matthew
--
"There is no reason for any individual to have a computer in their
home."
-- Ken Olson, President of DEC, World Future Society
Convention, 1977
http://www.calmeilles.demon.co.uk
--
Rick Martin
>
> The message <367eb6c7...@news.ukonline.co.uk>
> from david....@ukonline.co.uk (Dave Mayall) contains these words:
>
> > in Borsetshire.
>
> I can do even better than that, I can give you the URL for the actual map:-
>
> http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/users/dlg10/archers.html
>
> What more proof do you need than that?
An NGR (National Grid Reference) might help.
--
Watch for anti-spam if replying via email: replace AntiSpamHyphen with a real hyphen
Jon Rouse
>
> In article <YFnujAA0...@iofw.demon.co.uk>, George Nimmo
> <ni...@iofw.demon.co.uk> writes
> >uk.local.midlands.warwickshire.birmingham (maybe Birmingham is no longer
> >in Warwickshire?)
>
> Not since 1974 (though the Archers is recorded here).
If you read the Maud report you'll find it still is. Maud was most
adamant that the 1974 hanges would be for adminstration purposes only
and would not affect historic boundaries.
--
The views expressed are my own and may not represent those of my
employer
Dave Mayall
> I can do even better than that, I can give you the URL for the actual map:-
This doesn't appear to be an OS map. Perhaps you would oblige with the information
requested.
--
Dave Mayall
The views expressed are mine and may not be those of my employer
Private e-mail to david....@ukonline.co.uk please
Jon Rouse
>
> Is there perhaps an argument for putting this up for discussion in a
> small number of cases? In the case of Borsetshire, it's `existed' for a
> *very* long time (in broadcast media terms at least). Would it be
> completely unacceptable to allow a small number of ficticious high-level
> places (no smaller than county-sized) places into uk.local?
I don't think there is an argument, as I would think that once you had
one, every soap would want its own, not to mention comedy series, police
'action dramas' and so on, and on, and on....
uk.local.holby anyone?
Oh, grief.
JerseyLil
>
>But if one accepts that Borsetshire exists solely as an element of the
>Archers then the matter is far from complex: there would be an exact
>congruence between uk.media.radio.archers and uk.local.borsetshire.
on the contrary, very few of the current postings to
uk.media.radio.archers bear any relation to the radio programme at all.
no doubt there are those who seek out the group and are disappointed to
find such a high level of 'off topic' messages. in fact i believe there
was some complaint forthcoming from oxford university earlier in the
year on this very point.
lil
Iain Bowen
Charles Norrie <Cha...@geodeon.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <73hijf$62c$1...@harlech.demon.co.uk>, Iain Bowen
><ala...@harlech.demon.co.uk> writes
>>
>>I have nothing against the idea of a borsetshire group, however, I find
>>it taking a direct position in uk.local.* somewhat unfitting. Other
>>suggestions would be welcomed.
>>
>
>Since when has the position of newsgroup had to be 'somewhat fitting'.
Since uk.* became a hierarchy with a set of rules and good automatic
propogation. Particularly since the debacle of uk.lifts.
>You make it sound like Jeeves upon one of Bertie's ties.
Oh, good. Actually, I was trying for Bunter on a unsuitable Wimsey suit.
Iain
Iain Bowen
David Damerell <dame...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>andy roberts <andy...@zetnet.co.uk> wrote:
>> Weilding a VETO is an action that should never be taken lightly, it can be
>>a double-edged sword and would sensibly be held in reserve for a desperate
>>or seriously threatening situation. I find it hard to conceive that someone
>>proposing a group with a suggested name uk.local.borsetshire constitutes a
>>dire emergency?
>
>Where is it written that the Committee can only use their powers in
>desperation? Part of their job is to throw out ridiculous proposals.
Is it? May I proffer uk.rec.sheds, it was a "ridiculous" proposal, it was
put forward, debated and passed overwhelmingly, it has become a very popular
group.
I certainly think that the Committee have the power to block a proposal
because the name doesn't fit the namespace and proponent refuses to
compromise on this, however I don't think that they have the power to
block a taxonomically correct non-binary proposal no matter how silly.
Iain
Andrew John Roberts
from matthew....@guardian.co.uk (Matthew Malthouse) contains
these words:
> On Fri, 27 Nov 1998 12:09:17 GMT Andrew John Roberts wrote:
> }
> } Whether or not there is any overlap between the proposed group, the existing
> } media groups, and neighbouring uk.local groups is a complex matter
> } which should be
> } resolved by posting the RFD and allowing the usual discussion.
> "Any overlap"? "Complex matter"?
> If one were to posit a physical existance for Borsetshire there may be
> questions to debate.
> But if one accepts that Borsetshire exists solely as an element of the
> Archers then the matter is far from complex: there would be an exact
> congruence between uk.media.radio.archers and uk.local.borsetshire.
"Posit"? "exact congruence" ?
Why do people insist on trying to impose their inverted world view upon
a section of the usenet community that has a consistant knowlege and belief
system, one which works with just as much validity as any other?
Would you wander over to uk.legal and try to tell them they should be
a subset of uk.politics.bourgeois.the-state ?
Or tell the pagans that their new group should be under
uk.religion.christian.non-believers ?
Would you try to force Durham under uk.local.london.north-of-watford ?
I think not.
So please stop trying to put the county of borsetshire under the
archers family.
Andy R.
The world's all umop apisdn...
Andrew John Roberts
from Rick Martin <rick....@pixelAntiSpamHyphengroup.com>
contains these words:
> An NGR (National Grid Reference) might help.
I have already given the relevant page numbers for a Road Atlas and
the URL to an
electronic map.
Were all the other uk.local.* proposals subjected to a rigorous
inquisition of this nature ?
--
Andy R.
Simon Gray
~ >But if one accepts that Borsetshire exists solely as an element of the
~ >Archers then the matter is far from complex: there would be an exact
~ >congruence between uk.media.radio.archers and uk.local.borsetshire.
~
~ on the contrary, very few of the current postings to
~ uk.media.radio.archers bear any relation to the radio programme at all.
~ no doubt there are those who seek out the group and are disappointed to
~ find such a high level of 'off topic' messages. in fact i believe there
~ was some complaint forthcoming from oxford university earlier in the
~ year on this very point.
Then in that case a solution along the lines of what happenned in the
babylon 5 newsgroup is necessary - the forming of either
u.m.r.archers.social, or uk.people.archers-fans; off topic messages in
one group is not a valid reason for creating an off topic group in
another hierarchy.
--
Extremists are what keep moderates moderate.
http://www.mahayana.demon.co.uk/
George Nimmo
deafening...
>>> >> But first things first, I suggest we retire for a
>>>virtual pint of Shires at The Bull.
>>> >
>>> >Very kind of you; ta.
>>> >
>>> A pleasure.
>>
>>Next round's mine, then.
>>
>>Bet we miss the coach back.
>>
>>Mary
>
>Hullo you two! How long have you been sitting there then?
Ages and ages.
>Half the coach seem to be in here now.
There was some activity outside a couple of minutes ago. A pig had got
loose apparently; a sparky little Brummie girl together and a young lad
with a weird accent were chasing him around, rattling a bucket of pig
nuts.
>I'm on the grapefruit juice and soda myself, I'm driving.
>
>I wonder who's that grey-faced miserable git on his own standing
>by the bar?
Who, that guy over there? He's not miserable! He's a really good bloke;
a whole fund of tales and a cheery smile and a friendly word for
everyone.
--
George Nimmo
Mary Gentle
phi...@blencathra.demon.co.uk (Philip Powell) wrote:
> In message <F32s6...@cix.compulink.co.uk>
> mary_...@cix.compulink.co.uk ("Mary Gentle")
>wrote:
>
> >In article <f57d36ab...@blencathra.demon.co.uk>,
> >phi...@blencathra.demon.co.uk (Philip Powell) wrote:
> >
> >> In message <F31Ht...@cix.compulink.co.uk>
> >> mary_...@cix.compulink.co.uk ("Mary
>Gentle") wrote:
> [snip]
> >> >Perhaps if we restricted it to allowing groups for
>locales which have been available for discussion for 40+
>years? Borchester would qualify, but fairly few similar
>counties.
> >
> >> >Therefore, few groups like uk.local.borsetshire would
>ever exist. I think I'm safe in saying the latter,
>certainly.
> >>
> >> Bang goes uk.local.cumbria for a start!
> >
> >And that would be a bad thing? <g>
> >
> ><Starts running _very_ fast>
>
> I'm after you (-:
Damn!
>
> >Sorry: was once rained on in Cumbria for what seemed like
> >several centuries, and the experience has left a scar on
>my psyche...
>
> Rain? In Cumbria? Surely you jest.
There was this green lumpy bit of landscape which they
assured me was a mountain. Might well have been, most of the
underfoot of it was vertical. Couldn't _see_ mountains,
though - too much fog.
Maybe what was falling out the sky wasn't rain, maybe it was
condensed fog. :)
Come on in out of the fog, and over to The Bull; I'm sure
that nice Mr Nimmo will stand you a virtual pint of Shires...
Mary
Mary Gentle
harry....@NOSPAMzetnet.co.uk () wrote:
> "Mary Gentle" <F330C...@cix.compulink.co.uk> :
>
> >In article <4sn2p0A0...@iofw.demon.co.uk>,
> >ni...@iofw.demon.co.uk (George Nimmo) wrote:
> >
> >> In article <F32o8...@cix.compulink.co.uk>, Mary Gentle
> >><mary_gentle@ci
> >> x.compulink.co.uk> writes
> >> >In article <Uujdp5An...@iofw.demon.co.uk>,
> >> >ni...@iofw.demon.co.uk (George Nimmo) wrote:
> >> >
> >> ><snip>
> >> >> But first things first, I suggest we retire for a
> >>virtual pint of Shires at The Bull.
> >> >
> >> >Very kind of you; ta.
> >> >
> >> A pleasure.
> >
> >Next round's mine, then.
> >
> >Bet we miss the coach back.
> >
> >Mary
>
> Hullo you two! How long have you been sitting there then?
Well, first they said we couldn't have a discussion, and then
we started having the discussion we would have had if they'd
said we _could_ have a discussion, and then my head started
to hurt, so I came in here.
Then I found there was a computer game machine in the corner,
so I've been playing Mornington Crescent with it; and then
George offered me a pint...
> Half the coach seem to be in here now.
> I'm on the grapefruit juice and soda myself, I'm driving.
>
> I wonder who's that grey-faced miserable git on his own
>standing by the bar?
<lowers voice>
I haven't liked to _ask..._
Mary
Charles F Hankel
>
> [fu's set]
>
> Down on uk.net.news.config street, the vibe from Rebecca and Rowland is:
>
> ~ > Control and the Committee has a remit. That remit is to manage the
> ~ > hierarchy. Allowing fictitious places into uk.local.* is not sound
> ~ > management.
> ~
> ~ Is there perhaps an argument for putting this up for discussion in a
> ~ small number of cases? In the case of Borsetshire, it's `existed' for a
> ~ *very* long time (in broadcast media terms at least). Would it be
> ~ completely unacceptable to allow a small number of ficticious high-level
> ~ places (no smaller than county-sized) places into uk.local?
>
> There is also the issue that, at the end of the day, this is a proposal
> for an archers newsgroup.
Wrong. Had you read the RFD properly (i.e. as it was written) you would
be able to see the fallacy of your assumption. It is a proposal for the
creation of a newsgroup for and about the county of Borsetshire. That
is not the same as "an archers newsgroup", it never has been and never
will be.
--
Charles F Hankel
Charles F Hankel
>
> I'm torn on this one. On the one hand, the Committee was set up in
> order to attempt to avoid Yet Another Anarchy. Having the procedures
> we have means that uk.* gets reasonable propagation [1].
Actually uk.* does not get reasonable propagation; the alt.* hierarchy
enjoys better. It may do on certain news servers but that is certainly
not all of them by a long way (even uk-based ones). There again, in
light of your footnote, maybe it depends on what one considers
reasonable propagation to be.
> Having them
> advise on *sensible* names for groups is a most valuable part of that
> process. By the same token, having them reject a wrongly-named group
> (and I believe this one was) means that uk.* does not fall into
> disrepute [2].
It should do more to fall into repute first. The committee could
possibly advise but they did not do so. The request for the posting of
the RFD was met by blank refusal and the posting that kicked this thread
off did nothing to improve that.
> Another argument against the group is that the uk.local.* bit under
> http://www.usenet.org.uk says
> > The hierarchy is for groups to discuss and announce
> > local issues and events
> Clearly no-one local to Borsetshire could actually post to Usenet (let
> alone that group), nor could anyone visit Borsetshire to attend events
> there which had been notified to or discussed on the group.
Ah, well, you may a tad misled on this point as it would seem that there
a number of people who seem to live there and are able to contribute to
the newsgroup. Also, Borsetshire has been visited by many people,
including myself and several reasonably well-known people.
> On the other hand, I might have preferred to have seen the UK Usenet
> community given the chance to discuss it, see it fast-tracked, kicked
> out, voted on, have someone cast aspersions on the parentage of the
> volunteer vote-taker, have a revote and kill the group procedurally.
Leaving any disputation of the result that you suppose, the point is
that the RFD should have been posted, discussed, etc. The Guidelines do
in fact state that this is the procedure. If there is supposed to be
any semblance of democracy (oft touted) then this is indeed what should
happen.
--
Charles F Hankel
Charles F Hankel
>
> Down on uk.net.news.config street, the vibe from Charles Norrie is:
>
> ~ >I have nothing against the idea of a borsetshire group, however, I find
> ~ >it taking a direct position in uk.local.* somewhat unfitting. Other
> ~ >suggestions would be welcomed.
> ~
> ~ Since when has the position of newsgroup had to be 'somewhat fitting'.
>
> Since uk.* became an internationally respected well-managed hierarchy.
And you call Borsetshire "fictional"?
--
Charles F Hankel
Charles F Hankel
>
> "Mary Gentle" <F330C...@cix.compulink.co.uk> :
>
> >In article <4sn2p0A0...@iofw.demon.co.uk>,
> >ni...@iofw.demon.co.uk (George Nimmo) wrote:
> >
> >> In article <F32o8...@cix.compulink.co.uk>, Mary Gentle
> >><mary_gentle@ci
> >> x.compulink.co.uk> writes
> >> >In article <Uujdp5An...@iofw.demon.co.uk>,
> >> >ni...@iofw.demon.co.uk (George Nimmo) wrote:
> >> >
> >> ><snip>
> >> >> But first things first, I suggest we retire for a
> >>virtual pint of Shires at The Bull.
> >> >
> >> >Very kind of you; ta.
> >> >
> >> A pleasure.
> >
> >Next round's mine, then.
> >
> >Bet we miss the coach back.
> >
> >Mary
>
> Hullo you two! How long have you been sitting there then?
> I'm on the grapefruit juice and soda myself, I'm driving.
>
> I wonder who's that grey-faced miserable git on his own standing
> by the bar?
D'yer mean the one who keeps muttering N G R?
--
Charles F Hankel
Charles F Hankel
>
> On Thu, 26 Nov 1998 19:32:55 +0000, George Nimmo
> <ni...@iofw.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >But I don't believe I have read anywhere that any newsgroup in uk.local
> >has to be an exact location that has a full NGR (whatever that is) but
> >I'm very willing to be shewn otherwise.
>
> Where the guidelines or charters are silent on any given matter, it is
> for the committee to adjudicate what the author would have written,
> had he anticipated the situation.
Like the "p" in bath?
> The committee has ruled that it is likely that the intent of the
> uk.local.* charter was that only real places would count.
However, there is no mention of this in the charter and, it would seem,
that there are newsgroups that do not follow this alleged
interpretation.
--
Charles F Hankel
Charles F Hankel
>
> Andrew John Roberts wrote:
> >
> > The message <367eb6c7...@news.ukonline.co.uk>
> > from david....@ukonline.co.uk (Dave Mayall) contains these words:
> >
> > > The area is fictitious. Could you provide a full NGR for any "place"
> > > in Borsetshire.
> >
> >
I fail to see what relevance this has. As usual on unnc, diversionary
tactics are being deployed in an attempt to counter the facts.
--
Charles F Hankel
Dave Mayall
<andy...@zetnet.co.uk> wrote:
>"Posit"? "exact congruence" ?
>
>Why do people insist on trying to impose their inverted world view upon
>a section of the usenet community that has a consistant knowlege and belief
>system, one which works with just as much validity as any other?
>
>Would you wander over to uk.legal and try to tell them they should be
>a subset of uk.politics.bourgeois.the-state ?
>
>Or tell the pagans that their new group should be under
>uk.religion.christian.non-believers ?
>
>Would you try to force Durham under uk.local.london.north-of-watford ?
>
>I think not.
>
>So please stop trying to put the county of borsetshire under the
>archers family.
I take it you were absent from school on the day they taught the
difference between opinion and fact.
Borsetshire has no physical existence. FACT.
--
Dave Mayall
This posting is made in a personal capacity, the views expressed
may not be those of the UK Usenet Committee.
Dave Mayall
<andy...@zetnet.co.uk> wrote:
>The message <365E87D5...@pixel-group.com>
> from Rick Martin <rick....@pixelAntiSpamHyphengroup.com>
>contains these words:
>
>> An NGR (National Grid Reference) might help.
>
>I have already given the relevant page numbers for a Road Atlas and
>the URL to an
>electronic map.
I don't have the atlas you mention, and the map does not seem to have
been produced by any reputable cartographer.
>Were all the other uk.local.* proposals subjected to a rigorous
>inquisition of this nature ?
Usually the committee are able to verify the reality of the place
proposed by reference to their ow Readers Digest book of the road.
Since you ask, one uk.local proposal has been queried earlier this
year, upon suspicion that it might relate to a place which didn't
exist. Once the proponent had shown that it did exist, we posted the
RFD.
Charles F Hankel
>
> Notice: RFD rejected: uk.local.borsetshire
>
> The Committee's attention has been drawn to correspondence
> between Charles Hankel and control with regard to a proposed newsgroup
> uk.local.borsetshire. The Committee wishes to make the following
> observations:
>
> 1/ Group(s) already exist to discuss the area, under the subject
> of the programme. The proposal would be a duplication of the
> existing newsgroup - uk.media.radio.archers."
No group exists to discuss the area. True, there is a newsgroup where
people who hear or know of a fly-on-the-wall documentary called "The
Archers" meet to discuss things but quite what this has to do with the
whole of Borsetshire is beyond me. Perhaps the committee would care to
explain where discussions about the county-wide issues affecting
Borsetshire are raised in the radio broadcast or in which other
newsgroup they can be found already.
> 2/ The name is confusing to anybody who knows nothing about the
> programmes that refer to the fictitious area.
> (See Naming guidelines)
There was a point made some while ago about uk.people.bdsm along the
lines of, if you don't know what it is, you shouldn't be there. As to
your claims that Borchester is a "fictitious area", would the committee
care to prove that?
> 3/ The uk.local.* hierarchy is clearly intended for areas that
> actually exist.
There is no such stated intention in the charter for uk.local - either
clear or implied.
> 4/ Any further groups to discuss a subject or in particular a
> specific aspect of it belong, by usenet hierarchy conventions,
> underneath the main newsgroup, e.g. uk.media.radio.archers.xxx.
How should the county affairs be subordinate to one family that happens
to live there? It is ridiculous to assert any such thing. Under the
same assumption, uk.local.nw-england should be moved into a hierarchy
such as follows: newsgroups:
uk.people.hankel
uk.people.hankel.wirral
uk.people.hankel.nw-england
> 5/ As to the matter of uk.media.radio.archers not having a charter,
> this newsgroup DOES have a charter established circa August 1995,
> at the same time as the formulations of the committee were taking
> place. The group was formed using the evolving Fast-Track methods
> of the time.
>
> 30th July 1995 Stephen Turner (gla.ac.uk) issued the first newgroup
> 1st August 1995 Stephen Turner sent a second message.
> 10th August 1995 Richard Letts sent a booster message.
We asked on more than one occasion for this information and you, the
committee, failed to provide it. Ergo, the assumption that the charter
had been invented was reasonably safe.
See elsewhere about the uk.media.radio.archers charter.
> The Committee therefore supports the refusal by Control to publish this RFD.
Without any grounds, I would suggest. The Guidelines state :
"Control will cross post the RFD to uk.net.news.announce,
uk.net.news.config and any other groups or mailing lists related to the
proposed topic or likely to be affected. The groups to be cross posted
into should be those requested by the proponent. The proponent may also
indicate which groups the Followups should be set to. Control may, at
his discretion, add additional groups to these lists (or remove groups
where such cross posting is beyond the technical capabilities of the
news software). Uk.net.news.config shall be included in both the
original cross posting and followups. Only postings which are cross
posted to uk.net.news.config will be considered part of the definitive
discussion. "
> As you will be aware, any RFD not posted by control to uk.net.news.announce
> by control will not be considered valid by the committee, by control or by
> the users of uk.net.news.config.
Therefore, any proposal that the committee feels slightly offended by is
denied the public debate that the guidelines clearly state that it is
entitled to. Some people have accused my postings in support of common
decency elsewhere on u.n.n.c as censorship (rightly condemning
censorship) so it would also be interesting to see how the committee
justifies this act of gross censorhip, in that it denies a fair hearing
to a fair and decent proposal.
--
Charles F Hankel
Follow-ups altered to remove this discussion from uk.media.radio.archers
and from u.n.n.management, a newsgroup that is not carried by my news
server and uk.net.news.archers which, while it would be nice to have is
a newsgroup that does not exist.
Andrew John Roberts
these words:
> On Fri, 27 Nov 1998 12:50:13 GMT, <andy...@zetnet.co.uk> wrote:
> >I have no intention of calling for a vote of no confidence over what is merely
> >one error of judgement which could easily be rectified.
> Do as you wish. I will not reverse my opinion on this matter.
Not even a teeny little bit ?
--
Andy R.