2nd RFD: uk.local.berkshire
Paul Cummins
2ND REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
This is a formal Request For Discussion (RFD) for the following changes
in the uk.* Usenet hierarchy:
create unmoderated newsgroup uk.local.berkshire
Administrative note:
This RFD replaces the one withdrawn for the reasons given in the recent
"Committee Statement concerning the RFD for uk.local.berkshire". For the
avoidance of doubt, this will be the first RFD for the purposes of
Guideline 4.
Newsgroup line:
uk.local.berkshire The historical county of Berkshire
*** ALL DISCUSSION MUST TAKE PLACE IN UK.NET.NEWS.CONFIG ***
*** CROSSPOSTED TO UK.LOCAL.THAMES-VALLEY ***
This is not a Call for Votes (CFV); you cannot vote at this time.
Further procedural details are given below.
RATIONALE: uk.local.berkshire
There are many newsgroups in the uk.local hierarchy showing that there is
an obvious need for local uk specific content.
At present there is no newsgroup dedicated to or directly related
to the historical county of Berkshire, despite it being one of the most
affluent, and technology-centric regions of the UK.
Berkshire residents currently use the uk.local.thames-valley group.
'Thames Valley' is a purely political construct which exists for policing
purposes only. It does not exist for any other purpose, and indeed its
very existence is contentious, since the area claimed to be 'Thames
Valley' is neither the valley of the Thames, nor the Catchment area of the
river.
Within uk.local.thames-valley, Berkshire (and particularly Reading)
traffic is at such a high level that traffic from other places in the
so-called 'Thames Valley' - Oxfordshire, Buckinghamshire and Milton
Keynes - are virtually excluded.
On previous occasions, the suggestion has been mooted that Berkshire no
longer exists. Whether the place exists or not is not relevant to the
discussion - Berkshire is clearly defined and the area to which the name
is applied is recognised by that name by the majority people who use uk
newsgroups.
On the last occasion that this was raised and taken to a vote, a little
over 12 months ago, 33 people expressed a wish to have a Berkshire group
within the uk hierarchy. There is proven demand for the group. This is no
'create it and they will come' claim - those 33 people have demonstrated
they are ready for it to be created, and desire for it to be created.
CHARTER: uk.local.berkshire
This newsgroup is about the historical county of Berkshire in England, its
residents and those who are interested in current affairs of, and/or the
history of, Berkshire.
A forum for requesting and disseminating information and views about
living in, visiting or being a descendant from Berkshire. Contributions
are welcome from people who live, work or study in the county, or have an
interest in the county.
Since Berkshire as an administrative county no longer exists, the area
considered to be Berkshire is the area covered by the six Unitary
Authorities which form the local government of the 'Royal County of
Berkshire' namely West Berkshire, Reading, Wokingham, Bracknell Forest,
Windsor & Maidenhead and Slough. Discussions relating to former parts of
Berkshire, such as the 'Vale of White Horse' are also on-topic and
welcome.
Discussions as to the existence or otherwise of Berkshire are forbidden,
since the geographical scope of the group has been precisely defined.
Advertising
Advertising is forbidden.
Cross-Posting
Messages posted to this newsgroup must not be cross-posted to more than a
TOTAL of four uk.local.* newsgroups; these may be geographically adjacent
or overlapping, or connected by the subject of the post (e.g. "moving
house from Southampton to Newbury").
Note that the advertising of widely-available goods or services is *not*
relevant in this context, and that most uk.local.* groups have
restrictions on advertising, or prohibit it. Cross-posted adverts, where
allowed, must meet the requirements of the charters of *all* groups
involved.
Binaries & Formatting
Encoded binaries (e.g. pictures, compressed files, etc.) are forbidden.
Such material belongs on a web or FTP site to which a pointer may be
posted. Cryptographic signatures (e.g. PGP) may be used where
authentication is important and should be as short as possible.
Posts must be readable as plaintext. HTML, RTF and similarly formatted
messages are prohibited. To see how to make your newsreader comply with
this, read <http://www.usenet.org.uk/ukpost.html>.
Warning
Anyone posting contrary to this charter may be reported to their
"postmaster" and/or Service Provider.
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 February 21st) 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.local.thames-valley
Proponent:
Paul Cummins <tram...@lineone.net>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 5.0i
Charset: noconv
iQCVAwUBPkgG32OfGXkh8vHZAQHNxAP+J4bzvEoCh+mTyCRe5sDlh8+Yi5LFV1c5
TNU4GGoLJIg0e2kyXPjYGUOR+ruv8BE0A0QegB35izg3gsU6k7ywJ5J1asRTO/sr
VN+xqP8blmy05hYFclnXiMRLKJnqRzougZ5TPSjdsUb1SWj3UZFUgYRrYjsTrjBN
kSich2fdvwc=
=YxS/
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Robert Davies
> create unmoderated newsgroup uk.local.berkshire
<snip>
> At present there is no newsgroup dedicated to or directly related
> to the historical county of Berkshire, despite it being one of the
> most affluent, and technology-centric regions of the UK.
I'd say ULTV was pretty "directly related".
> Within uk.local.thames-valley, Berkshire (and particularly Reading)
> traffic is at such a high level that traffic from other places in the
> so-called 'Thames Valley' - Oxfordshire, Buckinghamshire and Milton
> Keynes - are virtually excluded.
LOL!!! I wouldn't bother subscribing to a genuinely busy group group, you'll
have a heart attack if you think there's a high volume of traffic in here.
Oh, but then Mr Cummins might not notice that, seeing as be manages to add
no input to ULTV other than the regular-as-clockwork RFD.
And everything I've had to say many a time on this debate can be hunted down
on Google, it's all been done to death before, nothing's changed. The
reasoning behind the arguement that I uphold against the creation of the
proposed group is just as strong as ever. There's just no point repeating ad
nauseum what has been said before.
Next........
MissJuggs
<tram...@lineone.net> wrote:
>Berkshire residents currently use the uk.local.thames-valley group.
>'Thames Valley' is a purely political construct which exists for policing
>purposes only. It does not exist for any other purpose, and indeed its
>very existence is contentious, since the area claimed to be 'Thames
>Valley' is neither the valley of the Thames, nor the Catchment area of the
>river.
>
>Within uk.local.thames-valley, Berkshire (and particularly Reading)
>traffic is at such a high level that traffic from other places in the
>so-called 'Thames Valley' - Oxfordshire, Buckinghamshire and Milton
>Keynes - are virtually excluded.
I will be voting against this, as I believe there is no need to
re-organize the groups. The given reasons are spurious. ULTV is not
high traffice, but is a pleasant and friendly group, open to all who
post there. There is no Reading cartel; and the internet is
infinitely expandable; _whatever_the level of Reading posts they
cannot exclude posts about other areas within the TV from ULTV.
Furthermore, as a poster from Oxfordshire, I enjoy many posts from
posters in the Reading area.
Glenys
--
Deconstruct someone who gives a shit.
chuck my first name and tgis in suggestive places
MissJuggs
<bring-on-...@robertdavies.org> wrote:
>And everything I've had to say many a time on this debate can be hunted down
>on Google, it's all been done to death before, nothing's changed. The
>reasoning behind the arguement that I uphold against the creation of the
>proposed group is just as strong as ever. There's just no point repeating ad
>nauseum what has been said before.
It probably is worth it, as the poster of this RFD is merely trying to
wear down those who oppose it. It's a long-handed way of stifling
debate and getting his proposal through in the end.
wanderer
news:rfd2-uk.local.berkshire-20030210200824$1d...@clw.cs.man.ac.uk...
<snip>
> At present there is no newsgroup dedicated to or directly related
> to the historical county of Berkshire, despite it being one of the most
> affluent, and technology-centric regions of the UK.
Err, yes there is, it's called uk.local.thames-valley.
> Berkshire residents currently use the uk.local.thames-valley group.
> 'Thames Valley' is a purely political construct which exists for policing
> purposes only. It does not exist for any other purpose, and indeed its
> very existence is contentious, since the area claimed to be 'Thames
> Valley' is neither the valley of the Thames, nor the Catchment area of the
> river.
There is no evidence to support the argument that Thames Valley is a purely
political construct. It may be argued that it is a comparatively recent
geographical construct which has become associated in many peoples' minds
with policing since Thames Valley Police were established in 1964. Many
business initiatives and enterprises associate themselves with the concept
of the Thames Valley, whilst Thames Valley University has its campuses in
Ealing and Slough. That it is a relatively recent construct should not
detract from its validity; it may be likened to East Anglia.
> Within uk.local.thames-valley, Berkshire (and particularly Reading)
> traffic is at such a high level that traffic from other places in the
> so-called 'Thames Valley' - Oxfordshire, Buckinghamshire and Milton
> Keynes - are virtually excluded.
This is blantant mis-information. The overall volume of traffic is not at a
particularly high level, equally there is no mechanism within usenet that
will exclude traffic from interested parties in other parts of Thames Valley
or areas outside TV but with an interest therein from posting to uk.l.t-v if
they were so minded. It perhaps has more to do with the manner in which some
people have conducted themselves within that NG in recent years. The
proponent himself has no record of consistent and high volume postings
within the existing NG, except perhaps in relation to his attempts to
discredit its validity.
> On previous occasions, the suggestion has been mooted that Berkshire no
> longer exists. Whether the place exists or not is not relevant to the
> discussion - Berkshire is clearly defined and the area to which the name
> is applied is recognised by that name by the majority people who use uk
> newsgroups.
>
> On the last occasion that this was raised and taken to a vote, a little
> over 12 months ago, 33 people expressed a wish to have a Berkshire group
> within the uk hierarchy. There is proven demand for the group. This is no
> 'create it and they will come' claim - those 33 people have demonstrated
> they are ready for it to be created, and desire for it to be created.
The fact that 33 people voted for the group does not in itself demonstrate
that there is a need for the group. It merely proves that 33 people voted
for its creation. This is a further example of mis-information. There is no
history of a nucleus of *approximately* 33 people being regular posters to
the group.
Nick Leverton
Paul Cummins <tram...@lineone.net> wrote:
>This is a formal Request For Discussion (RFD) for the following changes
>in the uk.* Usenet hierarchy:
>
> create unmoderated newsgroup uk.local.berkshire
"No".
Nick "Skirvin" Leverton
Dr Zoidberg
> Within uk.local.thames-valley, Berkshire (and particularly Reading)
> traffic is at such a high level that traffic from other places in the
> so-called 'Thames Valley' - Oxfordshire, Buckinghamshire and Milton
> Keynes - are virtually excluded.
Just having had a look at the UKLTV group , it has 700 current posts on
news.cis.
That can by no means be called a high volume group (10% of the number of
posts on a high traffic group and only 2 or 3% of those on a *really* busy
one.
>
> On previous occasions, the suggestion has been mooted that Berkshire
> no longer exists. Whether the place exists or not is not relevant to
> the discussion - Berkshire is clearly defined and the area to which
> the name is applied is recognised by that name by the majority people
> who use uk newsgroups.
If a place's existence is irrelevant , why do you say earlier
> 'Thames Valley' is a purely political construct which exists for
> policing purposes only. It does not exist for any other purpose, and
> indeed its very existence is contentious, since the area claimed to
> be 'Thames Valley' is neither the valley of the Thames, nor the
> Catchment area of the river.
>
> On the last occasion that this was raised and taken to a vote, a
> little over 12 months ago, 33 people expressed a wish to have a
> Berkshire group within the uk hierarchy. There is proven demand for
> the group. This is no 'create it and they will come' claim - those 33
> people have demonstrated they are ready for it to be created, and
> desire for it to be created.
Given its failure to exist , I take it 22 or more people voted no?
--
Alex
"We are now up against live, hostile targets"
"So, if Little Red Riding Hood should show up with a bazooka and a bad
attitude, I expect you to chin the bitch! "
Pete Connolly
@clw.cs.man.ac.uk>, tram...@lineone.net says...
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
> 2ND REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
>
> This is a formal Request For Discussion (RFD) for the following changes
> in the uk.* Usenet hierarchy:
>
> create unmoderated newsgroup uk.local.berkshire
>
I can't believe this is still being put forward. Every comment I've
seen on ULTV is against it, the vote has been taken before and it has
failed and the circumstances haven't changed one bit.
Firmly against - if it's not broken, don't fix it.
Pete
Alan D-W
"Paul Cummins" <tram...@lineone.net> wrote in message
news:rfd2-uk.local.berkshire-20030210200824$1d...@clw.cs.man.ac.uk...
>
> 2ND REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
>
> This is a formal Request For Discussion (RFD) for the following changes
> in the uk.* Usenet hierarchy:
>
> create unmoderated newsgroup uk.local.berkshire
>
All this does is create the usual is there, isn't there crap between
believers and non-believers in the concept of Berkshire, which constitutes
probably 25% of the annual traffic in ULTV. There is no need for a ULB
group, even though, contrary to that other bloke's opinion (his name escapes
me) there IS a Berkshire.
IMHO.
Alan.
Robert Davies
> On Mon, 10 Feb 2003 21:10:12 -0000, "Robert Davies"
> <bring-on-...@robertdavies.org> wrote:
>
>> And everything I've had to say many a time on this debate can be
>> hunted down on Google, it's all been done to death before, nothing's
>> changed. The reasoning behind the arguement that I uphold against
>> the creation of the proposed group is just as strong as ever.
>> There's just no point repeating ad nauseum what has been said before.
>
> It probably is worth it, as the poster of this RFD is merely trying to
> wear down those who oppose it. It's a long-handed way of stifling
> debate and getting his proposal through in the end.
Well, if someone else vehemently opposed would care to trawl Google Groups
for my relevent posts, please do. I wish I had the time, but this year,
right now... I don't!
Big Tone
Cogently argued Glenys, I shall also vote against.
A member of the Bracknell pnony.
--
Big Tone
daviso...@ntlworld.com
Adam Price
Paul Cummins <tram...@lineone.net> typed:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
> 2ND REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
>
>
> At present there is no newsgroup dedicated to or directly related
> to the historical county of Berkshire, despite it being one of the
> most affluent, and technology-centric regions of the UK.
Except the Thames Valley group which works just fine.
>
> Berkshire residents currently use the uk.local.thames-valley group.
See you even say so here..
> 'Thames Valley' is a purely political construct which exists for
> policing purposes only.
And as you correctly pointed out 'exists' doesn't matter, only 'is
understood'.
> It does not exist for any other purpose, and
No it exists in one other way 'as the subject of a uk local group'
This is one way in which t-v exists and Berkshire doesn't.
> indeed its very existence is contentious, since the area claimed to
> be 'Thames Valley' is neither the valley of the Thames, nor the
> Catchment area of the river.
>
And it seldom causes any discussion/dissent in the group. Unlike
Berkshire...
> Within uk.local.thames-valley, Berkshire (and particularly Reading)
> traffic is at such a high level that traffic from other places in the
> so-called 'Thames Valley' - Oxfordshire, Buckinghamshire and Milton
> Keynes - are virtually excluded.
This is simply not true.
I would suggest that you read the t-v group for a year or so and come
back with a more accurate summary ;-).
To describe the traffic on UK-L-TV as of a high level is just plain
wrong, when there are no crossposted discussions going on (Such as
the recent ones about Kellet et al) the traffic is low. The current
threads include one about a school reunion in Oxford, one about
a cafe in Oxford.
No way anyone could miss those because of the high volume of Berkshire
traffic.
Unless you count the continuous bickering about your RFD's and
the crap discussion which always follows about Berkshire not
existing, I wouldn't say that 'Berkshire' as a subject comes up
much at all. Many towns in 'Historic Berkshire' but not many
about Berkshire.
>
> On previous occasions, the suggestion has been mooted that Berkshire
> no longer exists. Whether the place exists or not is not relevant to
> the discussion - Berkshire is clearly defined and the area to which
> the name is applied is recognised by that name by the majority people
> who use uk newsgroups.
>
I agree with this statement. However it still does not mean that the
newsgroup is needed.
> On the last occasion that this was raised and taken to a vote, a
> little over 12 months ago, 33 people expressed a wish to have a
> Berkshire group within the uk hierarchy. There is proven demand for
> the group.
On the 'Last' occasion this was raised (a few weeks ago) it was screwed
up by control, the time before that it was voted down.
The numbers are not particularly important. (But for the record 25 voted
against and 14 abstained).
>This is no 'create it and they will come' claim - those 33
> people have demonstrated they are ready for it to be created, and
> desire for it to be created.
>
That is they demonstrated they were ready for it before the 149 message
thread which followed the results and was mostly bickering about the
existence if Berkshire. We will see at vote time what they think now.
> CHARTER: uk.local.berkshire
SNIP
FWIW I think most of the charter looks fine and were it not
my belief that this group will destroy the T-V group I would
use it with this charter. Except for....
> Discussions as to the existence or otherwise of Berkshire are
> forbidden, since the geographical scope of the group has been
> precisely defined.
>
This discussion should not be stifled in the charter, the Proponent
may well feel that it is not appropriate for the RFD (I happen to
agree) but it is appropriate for the group should it be created.
SNIP Rest of document.
Good luck with this Paul although I still think you are doing this
the wrong way.
Adam
Adam Price
Dr Zoidberg <AlexNOOOOOO!!!!!@Drzoidberg.co.uk> typed:
>
> Given its failure to exist , I take it 22 or more people voted no?
Adam Price
Paul Harper
Well, if there is a ulb group, at least those who think it does exist
have somewhere to go, and can stop bothering those who don't think it
exists.
It'll be a good litmus test to see if ultv people have anything *else*
to talk about.
Paul.
--
A .sig is all well and good, but it's no substitute for a personality
JMS: "SFX is a fairly useless publication on just about every imaginable front.
Never have so many jumped-up fanboys done so little, with so much, for so long."
Clive D. W. Feather
<rfd2-uk.local.berkshire-20030210200824$1d...@clw.cs.man.ac.uk>, Paul
Cummins <tram...@lineone.net> writes
>This newsgroup is about the historical county of Berkshire in England,
>the area
>considered to be Berkshire is the area covered by the six Unitary
>Authorities which form the local government of the 'Royal County of
>Berkshire'
Since these two areas are different, the RFC is self-contradictory and
thus fatally flawed.
--
Clive D.W. Feather | Internet Expert | Work: <cl...@demon.net>
Tel: +44 20 8371 1138 | Demon Internet | Home: <cl...@davros.org>
Fax: +44 870 051 9937 | Thus plc | Web: <http://www.davros.org>
Written on my laptop; please observe the Reply-To address
David Betts
<firs...@relevantdomain.co.uk.invalid.> wrote:
>I will be voting against this, as I believe there is no need to
>re-organize the groups. The given reasons are spurious. ULTV is not
>high traffice, but is a pleasant and friendly group, open to all who
>post there. There is no Reading cartel; and the internet is
>infinitely expandable; _whatever_the level of Reading posts they
>cannot exclude posts about other areas within the TV from ULTV.
>Furthermore, as a poster from Oxfordshire, I enjoy many posts from
>posters in the Reading area.
Thank you Glenys. Couldn't agree more. Any attempt to fast-track
should be opposed.
David Betts
dav...@motorsport.org.uk
Derek Turner
<tram...@lineone.net> wrote:
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
> 2ND REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
>
>This is a formal Request For Discussion (RFD) for the following changes
>in the uk.* Usenet hierarchy:
>
> create unmoderated newsgroup uk.local.berkshire
what part of 'no' did you not understand?
--
Derek Turner
Outlook Express is worth precisely what you paid for it.
John M Chapman
This is not true - There is a Thames Valley Assembly made up of reps
from District and County Councils in Berks, Bucks and Oxon.
--
John M Chapman
Robert Davies
> Well, if there is a ulb group, at least those who think it does exist
> have somewhere to go, and can stop bothering those who don't think it
> exists.
No, because it will invariably end up with people simply cross-posting to
_both_ groups.
> It'll be a good litmus test to see if ultv people have anything *else*
> to talk about.
Plenty to talk about. Not always lots of traffic, but that almost sways even
further against a ULB group.
Paul Cummins
> In message
> <rfd2-uk.local.berkshire-20030210200824$1d...@clw.cs.man.ac.uk>, Paul
> Cummins <tram...@lineone.net> writes
> >This newsgroup is about the historical county of Berkshire in England,
>
> >the area
> >considered to be Berkshire is the area covered by the six Unitary
> >Authorities which form the local government of the 'Royal County of
> >Berkshire'
>
> Since these two areas are different, the RFC is self-contradictory and
> thus fatally flawed.
How are they different?
Robert Davies
The "historical county" did not follow the outline of the outer perimiter
borders of the combined present UAs. But then you, Paul, are simply being
moronic. Again.
Clive D. W. Feather
<bring-on-...@robertdavies.org> writes
>>> Since these two areas are different, the RFC is self-contradictory
>>> and thus fatally flawed.
>>
>> How are they different?
>
>The "historical county" did not follow the outline of the outer perimiter
>borders of the combined present UAs.
Exactly. As approximately 18 seconds of research would have shown. Try
www.abcounties.co.uk, for example.
>But then you, Paul, are simply being
>moronic. Again.
I'm glad that a signature of a PGP key asserts nothing more than
identity.
xphoenix
>
> 2ND REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
>
> This is a formal Request For Discussion (RFD) for the following changes
> in the uk.* Usenet hierarchy:
>
> create unmoderated newsgroup uk.local.berkshire
>
Again????
The day you join in this newsgroup is the day that you have a choice in the
matter.
Rather than flog a dead horse just create a group for yourself and Maurice
Kellet.
xphoenix
LOLOLOLOLOLOL
Paul Rooney
Men in white coats have taken him away, it seems!
--
Paul
http://www.paulrooney.connectfree.co.uk/myweb/index.htm
(Under construction)
MissJuggs
<davis...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>Cogently argued Glenys, I shall also vote against.
>
>A member of the Bracknell pnony.
And posts from the Bracknell area.
MissJuggs
<dav...@motorsport.org.uk> wrote:
>Thank you Glenys. Couldn't agree more. Any attempt to fast-track
>should be opposed.
Thank you, my friend from the Reading area.
Big Tone
<firs...@relevantdomain.co.uk.invalid.> wrote:
>On Mon, 10 Feb 2003 23:23:32 +0000, Big Tone
><davis...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
>>Cogently argued Glenys, I shall also vote against.
>>
>>A member of the Bracknell pnony.
>
>And posts from the Bracknell area.
>
What against or for?
--
Big Tone
daviso...@ntlworld.com
Brian {Hamilton Kelly}
tram...@lineone.net "Paul Cummins" writes:
> Since Berkshire as an administrative county no longer exists, the area
> considered to be Berkshire is the area covered by the six Unitary
> Authorities which form the local government of the 'Royal County of
> Berkshire' namely West Berkshire, Reading, Wokingham, Bracknell Forest,
> Windsor & Maidenhead and Slough. Discussions relating to former parts of
> Berkshire, such as the 'Vale of White Horse' are also on-topic and
> welcome.
I'm pleased to see that last sentence; as mentioned by me on previous
RFDs, I live in Faringdon (once the capital of England) which was in
Berkshire until 1974, and would welcome this group.
[snip]
> Advertising
>
> Advertising is forbidden.
Fine, but...
> Cross-Posting
>
> Messages posted to this newsgroup must not be cross-posted to more than a
> TOTAL of four uk.local.* newsgroups; these may be geographically adjacent
> or overlapping, or connected by the subject of the post (e.g. "moving
> house from Southampton to Newbury").
>
> Note that the advertising of widely-available goods or services is *not*
> relevant in this context, and that most uk.local.* groups have
> restrictions on advertising, or prohibit it. Cross-posted adverts, where
> allowed, must meet the requirements of the charters of *all* groups
> involved.
...if advertising is forbidden, then this applies equally to cross-posted
adverts. So the latter are NOT allowed. Or are they? This seems too
woolly to me.
--
Brian {Hamilton Kelly} b...@dsl.co.uk
"We can no longer stand apart from Europe if we would. Yet we are
untrained to mix with our neighbours, or even talk to them".
George Macaulay Trevelyan, 1919
MissJuggs
<davis...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>>>Cogently argued Glenys, I shall also vote against.
>>>
>>>A member of the Bracknell pnony.
>>
>>And posts from the Bracknell area.
>>
>
>What against or for?
haha! It's an addendum in support of my argument _for_ the fact that
TV is somewhat of a community, our boy.
We probably should arrange a TV meat sometime. In Reading, probably.
Not for the next couple of months.
MissJuggs
{Hamilton Kelly}) wrote:
>I'm pleased to see that last sentence; as mentioned by me on previous
>RFDs, I live in Faringdon (once the capital of England) which was in
>Berkshire until 1974, and would welcome this group.
No,no,no,n-o. _Wantage_ was once the capital of England. I have the
burnt cakes to prove it.
Big Tone
<firs...@relevantdomain.co.uk.invalid.> wrote:
>On Tue, 11 Feb 2003 20:12:49 +0000, Big Tone
><davis...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
>>>>Cogently argued Glenys, I shall also vote against.
>>>>
>>>>A member of the Bracknell pnony.
>>>
>>>And posts from the Bracknell area.
>>>
>>
>>What against or for?
>
>haha! It's an addendum in support of my argument _for_ the fact that
>TV is somewhat of a community, our boy.
>
>We probably should arrange a TV meat sometime. In Reading, probably.
>Not for the next couple of months.
>
Boy ! I'm 55 next week.
How's your whotsit gravel, mail or text me.
--
Big Tone
daviso...@ntlworld.com
Mark Gordon
MissJuggs <firs...@relevantdomain.co.uk.invalid.> wrote:
<snip>
> We probably should arrange a TV meat sometime. In Reading, probably.
> Not for the next couple of months.
You do realise you've just volunteered to arrange it, don't you ;-)
--
Mark Gordon
Paid to be a Geek & a Senior Software Developer
Currently looking for a new job commutable from Slough, Berks, U.K.
Although my email address says spamtrap, it is real and I read it.
Adam Price
Brian {Hamilton Kelly} <b...@dsl.co.uk> typed:
> In article
>
> <rfd2-uk.local.berkshire-20030210200824$1d...@clw.cs.man.ac.uk>
> tram...@lineone.net "Paul Cummins" writes:
>
>> Advertising is forbidden.
>
> Fine, but...
>
>> Cross-Posting
>>
>> Messages posted to this newsgroup must not be cross-posted to more
>> than a TOTAL of four uk.local.* newsgroups; these may be
>> geographically adjacent or overlapping, or connected by the subject
>> of the post (e.g. "moving house from Southampton to Newbury").
>>
>> Note that the advertising of widely-available goods or services is
>> *not* relevant in this context, and that most uk.local.* groups have
>> restrictions on advertising, or prohibit it. Cross-posted adverts,
>> where allowed, must meet the requirements of the charters of *all*
>> groups involved.
>
> ...if advertising is forbidden, then this applies equally to
> cross-posted adverts. So the latter are NOT allowed. Or are they?
> This seems too woolly to me.
It is wooly, but it isn't Pauls fault. Some bits of the charter come
from general practice and given the way control has been hacking his
RFD's about I can see why he would want to leave this bit alone.
It is simply a note about the fact that being allowed in another
group does not make it allowable in this proposed group.
HTH
Adam Price
Mr R@t (2.3 zulu-alpha) [comms room new build]
> create unmoderated newsgroup uk.local.berkshire
>
once again, I would suggest this idea is taken no further (and will
certainly be voting *NO*). The assertion that this group is unduly dominated
by Redingensians is erroneous; and the term Thames Valley has been in common
use for long enough (over 30 years) in the context of defining the wider
area of Berks, Oxon and Buckinghamshire for purposes *other* than policing.
There is, for example a Thames Valley Chamber of Commerce; a local
publication called Thames Valley Trader, I think there is a Thames Valley
Windows, in fact searching Companies House shows over 30+ firms with "Thames
Valley" in their business name.
Creating the new group (notwithstanding whatever debate occurs over the
definition of "Berkshire") would only cause confusion and extra work to news
admins; and serve to fragment the already existing community on ultv, which
encompasses a diverse range of people spread across the 3 counties that
loosely comprise the "Thames Valley" who take part in activities across all
these areas, not bound by arbitrary county borders.
Alex
MissJuggs
<spam...@flash-gordon.me.uk> wrote:
>> We probably should arrange a TV meat sometime. In Reading, probably.
>> Not for the next couple of months.
>
>You do realise you've just volunteered to arrange it, don't you ;-)
No, I've volunteered Big Tone ;))
Robert Davies
> On Tue, 11 Feb 2003 21:33:05 +0000
> MissJuggs <firs...@relevantdomain.co.uk.invalid.> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> We probably should arrange a TV meat sometime. In Reading, probably.
>> Not for the next couple of months.
>
> You do realise you've just volunteered to arrange it, don't you ;-)
I tried sorting one out once, but it came to nothing...
If anyone does want to try again, just make it any time this year apart from
the month of May!
MissJuggs
<bring-on-...@robertdavies.org> wrote:
>If anyone does want to try again, just make it any time this year apart from
>the month of May!
Sometime in April, probably in the pub by Bracknell railway station
for ease of travel, and so Tony can hop to the pub. Tony can set the
date that is subsequently argued about.
Best to adjust the f-ups so that unnc is left out of the meat
discussions. This stays x-posted as further proof that TV _is_ a
community.
David Betts
room new build]" <ratsn...@sovtel.su> wrote:
>There is, for example a Thames Valley Chamber of Commerce; a local
>publication called Thames Valley Trader, I think there is a Thames Valley
>Windows, in fact searching Companies House shows over 30+ firms with "Thames
>Valley" in their business name.
Not to mention a Thames Valley branch of the Jaguar Enthusiasts'
Club.....which is, I believe, the biggest one-make car club in the
world.
David Betts
dav...@motorsport.org.uk
Paul Harper
room new build]" <ratsn...@sovtel.su> wrote:
>Creating the new group (notwithstanding whatever debate occurs over the
>definition of "Berkshire") would only cause confusion and extra work to news
>admins; and serve to fragment the already existing community on ultv, which
>encompasses a diverse range of people spread across the 3 counties that
>loosely comprise the "Thames Valley" who take part in activities across all
>these areas, not bound by arbitrary county borders.
1) What extra work for newsadmins?
2) Let the voters decide. Doing as you said earlier in your post
("once again, I would suggest this idea is taken no further") is
censorship. There is no way this is going to a fast track and Mr
Cummins isn't daft enough to try that. Just let the voters decide.
That's the quickest way of making sure the this topic doesn't arise
again for at least 3 months.
Paul.
--
A .sig is all well and good, but it's no substitute for a personality
JMS: "SFX is a fairly useless publication on just about every imaginable front.
Never have so many jumped-up fanboys done so little, with so much, for so long."
MissJuggs
<pa...@harper.netNOSPAM> wrote:
>Just let the voters decide.
>That's the quickest way of making sure the this topic doesn't arise
>again for at least 3 months.
I'm wondering about rfd-ing a notion that any rfd that is brought up
successively at three months interval, or whatever the current wait
time now is, for, say, three bringings up, be forced to wait a year
for the next one. Something like that.
Dave J.
uk.net.news.config, 'MissJuggs' wrote:
>On Wed, 12 Feb 2003 15:40:51 +0000, Paul Harper
><pa...@harper.netNOSPAM> wrote:
>
>>Just let the voters decide.
>>That's the quickest way of making sure the this topic doesn't arise
>>again for at least 3 months.
>
>I'm wondering about rfd-ing a notion that any rfd that is brought up
>successively at three months interval, or whatever the current wait
>time now is, for, say, three bringings up, be forced to wait a year
>for the next one. Something like that.
An extra month's delay for each time it's been (re)re-issued?
3 month, 4 month , 5 month..
Would add up quickly enough, without being too restrictive.
Would probably eventually produce a barrack room lawyer style argument
over just *how* identical a 'new' rfd is to a previous one, but it
would deal nicely enough with the bark-shire reruns.
--
Dave Johnson : req...@freeuk.com
Robert Davies
> On Wed, 12 Feb 2003 09:00:47 -0000, "Robert Davies"
> <bring-on-...@robertdavies.org> wrote:
>
>> If anyone does want to try again, just make it any time this year
>> apart from the month of May!
>
> Sometime in April, probably in the pub by Bracknell railway station
> for ease of travel, and so Tony can hop to the pub. Tony can set the
> date that is subsequently argued about.
Oooooh... Time for a group arguement then. I say have it in Reading so I
don't have even less distance to stumble home afterwards ;-) And if anyone
get's round to organising it, and there are arguements over _which_ pub ot
go to. Do the fair thing, and make sure you go to them all that same evening
:-)
> Best to adjust the f-ups so that unnc is left out of the meat
> discussions. This stays x-posted as further proof that TV _is_ a
> community.
< This one also stays x-posted, just to re-inforce the point >
< FU set to uk.local.thames-valley >
Paul Cummins
Kelly}) wrote:
> ...if advertising is forbidden, then this applies equally to
> cross-posted
> adverts. So the latter are NOT allowed. Or are they? This seems too
> woolly to me.
Boilerplate, sorry.
Adverts would not be welcome.
--
Paul Cummins - Always a NetHead
Wasting bandwidth since 1981
Paul Cummins
(John M Chapman) wrote:
> This is not true - There is a Thames Valley Assembly made up of reps
> from District and County Councils in Berks, Bucks and Oxon.
There is no such elected body.
Paul Cummins
bring-on-...@robertdavies.org (Robert Davies) wrote:
> The "historical county" did not follow the outline of the outer
> perimiter
> borders of the combined present UAs. But then you, Paul, are simply
> being
> moronic.
And discussions as to the existence or otherwise are not welcome within
the proposed group, nor relevant to the formation. I do not intend to
discuss them.
Clive D. W. Feather
Cummins <agree2...@cummins.ie.eu.org> writes
>> This is not true - There is a Thames Valley Assembly made up of reps
>> from District and County Councils in Berks, Bucks and Oxon.
>There is no such elected body.
Who said it was an elected body?
Paul Cummins
> In message <memo.2003021...@0007148297.gst-group.co.uk>, Paul
> Cummins <agree2...@cummins.ie.eu.org> writes
> >> This is not true - There is a Thames Valley Assembly made up of reps
> >> from District and County Councils in Berks, Bucks and Oxon.
> >There is no such elected body.
>
> Who said it was an elected body?
I'll rephrase. There is no such body. Google does not know of it.
The South East Regional assembly, another QUANGO, covers part of the
'Thames Valley' but also covers Hants, Surrey, Wight, Kent and Sussex
and does not cover Milton Keynes, which many people insist is within
'Thames Valley'
At least Berkshie used to have a single co-ordinating body. 'the
mythical county of 'Thames Valley,' like borsetShire, does not, and
never will.
Adam Price
Paul Cummins <agree2...@cummins.ie.eu.org> typed:
>
> At least Berkshie used to have a single co-ordinating body. 'the
> mythical county of 'Thames Valley,' like borsetShire, does not, and
> never will.
whether or not 'berkshire' is a mythical place is also appropriate.
If it doesn't then your argument fails.
Can you explain why you believe that thames valley is mythical whereas
Berkshire isn't?
I think that you missed the most important definition of a place
as far as an RFD for a uk.local group is concerned.
A place exists if a uk.local group about it exists.
In this regard T-V exists Berkshire doesn't.
We should all Vote no on this proposal.
Adam
Lt. Cmdr. Jim
> In news:89092dab.03021...@posting.google.com,
> Paul Cummins <agree2...@cummins.ie.eu.org> typed:
<snip>
> I think that you missed the most important definition of a place
> as far as an RFD for a uk.local group is concerned.
> A place exists if a uk.local group about it exists.
> In this regard T-V exists Berkshire doesn't.
>
> We should all Vote no on this proposal.
Let me grt this straight.... you don't want the creation of a
ul.berkshire group, because a ul.berkshire group doesn't already exist?
I'm no particular fan of this proposal, but that has to be some of the
strangest logic I've seen.
--
=/\= Lt. Cmdr. Jim =/\=
It's only Usenent, everyone dies.
Adam Price
Lt. Cmdr. Jim <ltcm...@hotmail.com> typed:
I meant to point out (and probably failed) that mythical places don't
get u.l. groups.
From this I then wanted to say that until the group was created
the status of Berkshire was undecided.
A schrodingers Berkshire if you will ;-)
I was intending to point out flaws in his argument but probably
failed.
Adam
Mark Gordon
miknik <nos...@mitsi.co.uk> wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Feb 2003 20:08:24 +0000, Paul Cummins
> <tram...@lineone.net> wrote:
>
> >Within uk.local.thames-valley, Berkshire (and particularly Reading)
> >traffic is at such a high level
>
> ...That it barely manages to hit double figures in a day. Gimme a
> break!
What do you want broken? :-)
I agree that there does not seem to be enough traffic to warrant
splitting off a chunk into a separate group.
Paul
<adam+...@pappnase.co.uk> writes
have got through the procedure (although the posters to it ar few and
far-between).
--
Paul B
Paul
<adam+...@pappnase.co.uk> writes
>In news:b2gmv8$1c2etg$1...@ID-171289.news.dfncis.de,
>Lt. Cmdr. Jim <ltcm...@hotmail.com> typed:
>> Adam Price wrote:
>>> In news:89092dab.03021...@posting.google.com,
>>> Paul Cummins <agree2...@cummins.ie.eu.org> typed:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>> I think that you missed the most important definition of a place
>>> as far as an RFD for a uk.local group is concerned.
>>> A place exists if a uk.local group about it exists.
>>> In this regard T-V exists Berkshire doesn't.
>>>
>>> We should all Vote no on this proposal.
>>
>> Let me grt this straight.... you don't want the creation of a
>> ul.berkshire group, because a ul.berkshire group doesn't already
>> exist? I'm no particular fan of this proposal, but that has to be
>> some of the strangest logic I've seen.
>No Paul described the thames valley as 'the mythical Thames Valley'.
>I meant to point out (and probably failed) that mythical places don't
>get u.l. groups.
See my post in another thread re. Borsetshire.
--
Paul B
Adam D. Barratt
[...]
> Hmmm, how about another "mythical" county, Borsetshire? That appears to
> have got through the procedure (although the posters to it ar few and
> far-between).
No, it didn't, hence the fact that it does not appear on
<URL:http://www.usenet.org.uk/newsgroups.html>. The only servers that
carry ul.borsetshire are those that are poorly managed and/or pay no
attention to PGP signed control messages.
There was an attempt to create a group of that name through the uk.*
process. That attempt is the reason for the current wording of the
uk.local hierarchy charter, specifically the section on what constitutes
a "locality".
Adam
--
Goda's Truism:
By the time you get to the point where you can make ends meet,
somebody moves the ends.
Paul
<usene...@adam-barratt.org.uk> writes
>In article <2xmnLZEs...@clara.co.uk>, pa...@streetka.biz wrote:
>[...]
>> Hmmm, how about another "mythical" county, Borsetshire? That appears to
>> have got through the procedure (although the posters to it ar few and
>> far-between).
>
>No, it didn't, hence the fact that it does not appear on
><URL:http://www.usenet.org.uk/newsgroups.html>. The only servers that
>carry ul.borsetshire are those that are poorly managed and/or pay no
>attention to PGP signed control messages.
>
I'm surprised that clara is "poorly managed", though.
--
Paul B
Don Aitken
There are good things and bad things about clara. One of the bad ones
is that they carry a vast number of empty spam-traps. How else do you
suppose that they manage to offer 57,783 groups? As I understand it,
they carry everything for which a validly formatted control message
has been issued, irrespective of the source.
--
Don Aitken
Lt. Cmdr. Jim
My apparently excessive algebra, the Committee's new and exciting
geometry, and now quantum mechanics! Who said Usenet management wasn't
educational.
Chris Croughton
<pa...@streetka.biz> wrote:
>Hmmm, how about another "mythical" county, Borsetshire? That appears to
>have got through the procedure (although the posters to it ar few and
>far-between).
The newsgroup only exists on a few servers with incompetant sysadmins,
and doesn't get propagated anywhere (except possibly between those few
servers). It did not "get through the procedure", and is the reason why
the charter for uk.local.* bans 'unreal' places.
Chris C
Chris Croughton
<adam+...@pappnase.co.uk> wrote:
>I think that you missed the most important definition of a place
>as far as an RFD for a uk.local group is concerned.
>A place exists if a uk.local group about it exists.
>In this regard T-V exists Berkshire doesn't.
By that reasoning Cambridgeshire and Northamptonshire (to name but two)
don't exist either, and it should not be possible to create uk.local
groups for them. But Devon and Cornwall exist twice (with their own
names and in uk.local.southwest, which also includes Somerset and
Bristol which have their own groups as well).
Also there is another "nonexistent" area, uk.local.merseyside, which
doesn't have any single ruling body.
If you are going by existing examples, u.l.berkshire is just as valid as
any of the others -- it is a fairly clearly defined area (just look for
the signposts on major roads) which is well-known by that name both in
and out of that area, and certainly 'exists' in the Real World(tm) as
much as Merseyside does.
Chris C
Dave Williams
: I get it on news.clara.net, though dfn doesn't carry it.
: I'm surprised that clara is "poorly managed", though.
Cough. Must've overlooked that when I came in the door.
*clickety click*
Dave
sparhawk
> If you are going by existing examples, u.l.berkshire is just as valid
> as any of the others -- it is a fairly clearly defined area (just
> look for the signposts on major roads) which is well-known by that
> name both in and out of that area, and certainly 'exists' in the Real
> World(tm) as much as Merseyside does.
>
> Chris C
Merseyside exists? I thought it was just something to threaten children with
if they were misbehaving...
Molly Mockford
2003, Paul <pa...@streetka.biz> wrote:
>I get it on news.clara.net, though dfn doesn't carry it.
>
>I'm surprised that clara is "poorly managed", though.
Steve Rawlinson said some months ago that he was going to get the news
set up on a proper basis (I forget the technical term for it) so that it
didn't accept cmsgs which weren't signed by Control - but, when I asked
how he was getting on with it, he said it was trickier than he had
thought. Clara still, for instances, carries the set of
uk.people.hero.worship.* groups which some idiot thought was a funny
idea about a year ago.
--
Molly
I don't speak for UKVoting. Hey, half the time I don't even speak for myself.
Dave Williams
: In article <6Bpk3mGT...@clara.co.uk> at 22:24:19 on Thu, 13 Feb
: 2003, Paul <pa...@streetka.biz> wrote:
:>I get it on news.clara.net, though dfn doesn't carry it.
:>
:>I'm surprised that clara is "poorly managed", though.
: Steve Rawlinson said some months ago that he was going to get the news
: set up on a proper basis (I forget the technical term for it) so that it
: didn't accept cmsgs which weren't signed by Control - but, when I asked
: how he was getting on with it, he said it was trickier than he had
: thought. Clara still, for instances, carries the set of
: uk.people.hero.worship.* groups which some idiot thought was a funny
: idea about a year ago.
The mechanism for doing newgroups is sorted. I did that last week.
Given Clara's architecture there's still a bit of work to do on
removing stuff.
Various round tuits are involved. There's quite a bit of tidying to do.
Dave
Paul Rooney
Firth) wrote:
>Paul Cummins <tram...@lineone.net> wrote:
>
>> create unmoderated newsgroup uk.local.berkshire
>
>Surprisingly[1], having you fuck about like a screaming drama queen the
>first RFD hasn't improved this RFD one bit.
>
Stop whining. It could'e been Andy Mablett!
--
Paul
http://www.paulrooney.connectfree.co.uk/myweb/index.htm
(Under construction)
SteelSea
"Steve Firth" <usene...@malloc.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1fqeajx.a0ebwu1rtse9zN%%steve%@malloc.co.uk...
> Paul Cummins <tram...@lineone.net> wrote:
>
> > create unmoderated newsgroup uk.local.berkshire
>
> Surprisingly[1], having you fuck about like a screaming drama queen the
> first RFD hasn't improved this RFD one bit.
Steve,
Please don't cross-post your foul-mouthed comments into uklt-v. I was going
to ask if you were forgetting your manners, then I remembered you never
acquired any.
Keep your crudeness for Hampshire please.
S
Eto Demerzel
output was...
> Brian {Hamilton Kelly} <b...@dsl.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > I live in Faringdon (once the capital of England) which was in
> > Berkshire until 1974
>
> Hell, that's some boundary realignment, it's currently in Mid Hampshire.
>
>
I thought it was near Barbican in London?
Dave Mayall
Faringdon is Berkshire
Farringdon is London
Count the "r"s
--
Dave Mayall
wanderer
news:jgur4v09cr5d0agsc...@news.ukonline.co.uk...
<snip>
> Faringdon is Berkshire
Err, no it ain't! It's Oxfordshire.
Molly Mockford
2003, Dave Williams <da...@clues.com> wrote:
>Molly Mockford <nos...@mockfords.clara.co.uk> wrote:
>: In article <6Bpk3mGT...@clara.co.uk> at 22:24:19 on Thu, 13 Feb
>: 2003, Paul <pa...@streetka.biz> wrote:
>: Steve Rawlinson said some months ago that he was going to get the news
>: set up on a proper basis (I forget the technical term for it) so that it
>: didn't accept cmsgs which weren't signed by Control - but, when I asked
>: how he was getting on with it, he said it was trickier than he had
>: thought. Clara still, for instances, carries the set of
>: uk.people.hero.worship.* groups which some idiot thought was a funny
>: idea about a year ago.
>
>The mechanism for doing newgroups is sorted. I did that last week.
Great, Dave! When you took up the job there, I did have hopes of that -
but I realised you also had a great deal of other stuff to get sorted
out.
>Given Clara's architecture there's still a bit of work to do on
>removing stuff.
>
>Various round tuits are involved. There's quite a bit of tidying to do.
Indeed. But it will be great when it's all done.
SteelSea
"Steve Firth" <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1fqedrv.1fp6k1z1n7rndiN%%steve%@malloc.co.uk...
> SteelSea <inte...@americanmeat.btopenworld.com> wrote:
>
> > Steve,
> >
> > Please don't cross-post your foul-mouthed comments into uklt-v.
>
>
No one, but I wish you would.
MissJuggs
Firth) wrote:
>> Not to mention a Thames Valley branch of the Jaguar Enthusiasts'
>> Club.....which is, I believe, the biggest one-make car club in the
>> world.
>
>Has the best magazine as well IMO, except for the sodding pselling
>mistakes and topys, they are almost as bad as my own.
We really should have a meat so that you two can, er, meet.
Glenys
--
Deconstruct someone who gives a shit.
chuck my first name and tgis in suggestive places
Paul Cummins
In article <l91l4vsi2tsbn70ch...@4ax.com>,
firs...@relevantdomain.co.uk.invalid. (MissJuggs) wrote:
> I'm wondering about rfd-ing a notion that any rfd that is brought up
> successively at three months interval, or whatever the current wait
> time now is, for, say, three bringings up, be forced to wait a year
> for the next one.
I did, almost.
--
Paul Cummins - Always a NetHead
Wasting bandwidth since 1981
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
*** Usenet.com - The #1 Usenet Newsgroup Service on The Planet! ***
http://www.usenet.com
Unlimited Download - 19 Seperate Servers - 90,000 groups - Uncensored
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Paul Cummins
ratsn...@sovtel.su (a\) [comms room new build]) wrote:
> and the term Thames Valley has been in common
> use for long enough (over 30 years) in the context of defining the wider
> area of Berks, Oxon and Buckinghamshire for purposes *other* than
> policing.
Some examples that refer to the 'thames valley' as defined for police
purposes?
> There is, for example a Thames Valley Chamber of Commerce;
Which has no presence in Milton Keynes, or East Bucks. Or in any
significant way in Oxfordshire, Windsor or Maidenhead, but does apparently
include parts of North Hampshire!
> a local publication called Thames Valley Trader,
Thames Valley Auto Trader - Covers Berkshire, North Hampshire, South
Oxfordshire. No presence in Buckinghamshire at all.
> I think there is a Thames Valley Windows,
Covering Berkshire, North Surrey, and West London.
> in fact searching Companies House shows over 30+ firms with
> "Thames Valley" in their business name.
Your point being?
The 'Thames Valley' is an ill-defined policing convenience. ukltv is the
only one of the original 'regional' group that has resisted infill of
other more local groups. this would not kill ukltv, it would enhance it.
wanderer
news:memo.2003021...@0007148297.gst-group.co.uk...
<snip>
> The 'Thames Valley' is an ill-defined policing convenience.
Thames Valley Police came into existence in 1964. Are you suggesting that
the term 'Thames Valley' was unknown before that time?
You're not very good at this, are you? Please engage brain before attempting
a response.
Paul Cummins
In article <b2lprc$1e7g7d$1...@ID-168920.news.dfncis.de>, wand...@tesco.net
(wanderer) wrote:
>
> Thames Valley Police came into existence in 1964. Are you suggesting
> that
> the term 'Thames Valley' was unknown before that time?
No, I am suggesting that the area known as the 'Thames Valley' is not that
covered by the body known as 'Thames Valley Police' and moreover that this
has no relevance to the need for uk.local.berkshire
--
Paul Cummins - Always a NetHead
Wasting bandwidth since 1981
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Paul Harper
<frder...@cesmail.dot.com> wrote:
>On Mon, 10 Feb 2003 20:08:24 +0000, Paul Cummins
><tram...@lineone.net> wrote:
>
>>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>
>> 2ND REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
>>
>>This is a formal Request For Discussion (RFD) for the following changes
>>in the uk.* Usenet hierarchy:
>>
>> create unmoderated newsgroup uk.local.berkshire
>what part of 'no' did you not understand?
The sad thing is how few people have cottoned onto the fact that the
quickest way to shut this whole boring series of RFDs up is to
actually let one succeed.
If it's then not used and gets Dr Death'd then that's it. If it does
succeed then he was right all the time. If it takes traffic away from
the Thames Valley group then that also demonstrates a need for it.
Give him what he wants and move on, FFS.
Oh yeah - enter left foolish pride...
Paul.
--
A .sig is all well and good, but it's no substitute for a personality
JMS: "SFX is a fairly useless publication on just about every imaginable front.
Never have so many jumped-up fanboys done so little, with so much, for so long."
Denis McMahon
<tram...@lineone.net> wrote:
>At present there is no newsgroup dedicated to or directly related
>to the historical county of Berkshire, despite it being one of the most
>affluent, and technology-centric regions of the UK.
Bullshit. u.l.t-v covers the area admirably. There are many
administrative districts which have no dedicated local newsgroup but
which fall within the areas covered by groups created for larger
geographic areas.
>Berkshire residents currently use the uk.local.thames-valley group.
This shows surely that there is adequate provision for people in
Berkshire.
>'Thames Valley' is a purely political construct which exists for policing
>purposes only. It does not exist for any other purpose, and indeed its
>very existence is contentious, since the area claimed to be 'Thames
>Valley' is neither the valley of the Thames, nor the Catchment area of the
>river.
So you wish to decry the existence of the Thames Valley .... [1]
>Within uk.local.thames-valley, Berkshire (and particularly Reading)
>traffic is at such a high level that traffic from other places in the
>so-called 'Thames Valley' - Oxfordshire, Buckinghamshire and Milton
>Keynes - are virtually excluded.
The absence of non-Berkshire traffic from the existing newsgroup for
Berkshire and adjacent areas is not grounds for creating a separate
Berkshire newsgroup.
>On previous occasions, the suggestion has been mooted that Berkshire no
>longer exists. Whether the place exists or not is not relevant to the
>discussion - Berkshire is clearly defined and the area to which the name
>is applied is recognised by that name by the majority people who use uk
>newsgroups.
[1] ..... whilst preventing discussion about the existence of
Berkshire.
>On the last occasion that this was raised and taken to a vote, a little
>over 12 months ago, 33 people expressed a wish to have a Berkshire group
>within the uk hierarchy. There is proven demand for the group. This is no
>'create it and they will come' claim - those 33 people have demonstrated
>they are ready for it to be created, and desire for it to be created.
You have repeatedly brought proposals for a Berkshire group to the
table, and they have been repeatedly defeated. This suggests that the
proposal is flawed, unwanted, or both.
I shall object to any fast track on the basis that a substantially
identical proposal has been defeated in a vote previously, and that it
should not therefore be adopted by fast track.
Rgds
Denis
--
Denis McMahon / de...@pickaxe.net / www.pickaxe.net
Top-posters, posters of adverts & binaries are scum. Killfile!
If you get an email that says "send this to lots of people", it's
probably some sort of hoax. Check www.hoaxbusters.org
Adam Price
>
> The sad thing is how few people have cottoned onto the fact that the
> quickest way to shut this whole boring series of RFDs up is to
> actually let one succeed.
>
> If it's then not used and gets Dr Death'd then that's it. If it does
> succeed then he was right all the time. If it takes traffic away from
> the Thames Valley group then that also demonstrates a need for it.
>
> Give him what he wants and move on, FFS.
would also be on-topic in the 't-v' group.
This could well lead to neither group being viable as the 'new-posters'
go to the Berkshire group and the 'old-hands' go to the t-v group.
When both are below the Dr Death stats and get removed then there is
nowhere.
If he were proposing to rename the t-v group then I would have more
sympathy, although the many of the rest of the t-v group would not.
If you push Paul C hard enough you will soon see that this is about
removing the t-v group which annoys him, rather than about creating
something new.
Vote NO.
Adam
Brian {Hamilton Kelly}
usene...@malloc.co.uk "Steve Firth" writes:
> Brian {Hamilton Kelly} <b...@dsl.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > I live in Faringdon (once the capital of England) which was in
> > Berkshire until 1974
>
> Hell, that's some boundary realignment, it's currently in Mid Hampshire.
I think you must have knowledge of some other Faringdon: the one I'm in
at this instant is in Oxfordshire.
I was aware of another Faringdon somewhere near Exeter, but not of one in
Hants.
--
Brian {Hamilton Kelly} b...@dsl.co.uk
"We can no longer stand apart from Europe if we would. Yet we are
untrained to mix with our neighbours, or even talk to them".
George Macaulay Trevelyan, 1919
Brian {Hamilton Kelly}
eto.de...@fijivillage.com "Eto Demerzel" writes:
No, that's Farringdon (with two Rs).
Dave Mayall
wrote:
I believe that in former times it was Berkshire.
Faringdon was a Poor law union, which covered places in Berkshire,
Gloucestershire, Oxfordshire and Wiltshire.
--
Dave Mayall
wanderer
> On Sat, 15 Feb 2003 09:11:32 -0000, "wanderer" <wand...@tesco.net>
> wrote:
>
> >"Dave Mayall" <david....@ukonline.co.uk> wrote in message
> >news:jgur4v09cr5d0agsc...@news.ukonline.co.uk...
> >
> ><snip>
> >
> >> Faringdon is Berkshire
> >
> >Err, no it ain't! It's Oxfordshire.
>
> I believe that in former times it was Berkshire.
It was until 1974. Sorry, but your assertion that Faringdon 'is' Berkshire
struck me as amusing, especially coz we still get the old argument about the
existence of Berkshire bubbling up to the surface from time to time.
I'll get me coat.......
Dave
>I think you must have knowledge of some other Faringdon: the one I'm in
>at this instant is in Oxfordshire.
>
Its public services are administered by an organisation misleadingly
calling itself Oxfordshire County Council.
See: Survey Act 1841, Local Government Acts 1889 to 1997 and the OS
interpretation of its statutory duty regarding boundary information made
in 1955. [1]
Dave.
[1] Which can be paraphrased as "We'll turn the requirements of the
Survey Act upside-down and ask the local Council where it thinks the
boundary is."
The original Act directed that the OS should determine *and preserve*
extant, but piecemeal, boundary information. All the LG Acts have stated
that those boundaries still exist.
--
uk.sci.astronomy: 53 deg 47 min N, 2 deg 24 min W, 425' above OS datum
uk.rec.motorcycles: MotorcycleCommute% RIP (1980-2001) Best - 1990 @ 98.64
Important announcements about uk.* net news are on the low-volume newsgroup
uk.net.news.announce - Anti-UCE: Use the usual UK abbreviation for company.
Brian {Hamilton Kelly}
Da...@community-spirit.demon.company.uk "Dave" writes:
> Brian {Hamilton Kelly} <b...@dsl.co.uk> wrote on Sun, 16 Feb 2003:
> >I think you must have knowledge of some other Faringdon: the one I'm in
> >at this instant is in Oxfordshire.
> >
> No it isn't.
>
> Its public services are administered by an organisation misleadingly
> calling itself Oxfordshire County Council.
:-) [I think]
> The original Act directed that the OS should determine *and preserve*
> extant, but piecemeal, boundary information. All the LG Acts have stated
> that those boundaries still exist.
What, ALL of them? Including those [alluded to in an earlier post, to
which I'd intended to reply, which has just expired off my local
newsspool] that were historically parts of other counties? If one looks
at the various C16th maps of the English counties, one finds on a number
of them small enclaves annotated "Barkshire [sic] Pars", and these were,
as previously stated[1], administered from Faringdon (historically, at
least). Yet surely all such extraterratorial enclaves were officially
abolished in, by the latest, 1974?
[1] I don;t think there existence had anything to do with the Poor Law,
however (as also previously stated).
Dave Mayall
{Hamilton Kelly}) wrote:
>What, ALL of them? Including those [alluded to in an earlier post, to
>which I'd intended to reply, which has just expired off my local
>newsspool] that were historically parts of other counties? If one looks
>at the various C16th maps of the English counties, one finds on a number
>of them small enclaves annotated "Barkshire [sic] Pars", and these were,
>as previously stated[1], administered from Faringdon (historically, at
>least). Yet surely all such extraterratorial enclaves were officially
>abolished in, by the latest, 1974?
>
>[1] I don;t think there existence had anything to do with the Poor Law,
>however (as also previously stated).
I think you may have misread my comments!
From 1834 onwards, England and Wales was divided into a number of Poor
Law Unions. These Poor Law Unions became the basis of Registration
Districts for Births, Marriages, Deaths and Censuses from 1837
onwards.
Faringdon Poor Law Union and Faringdon Registration District included
places that were outside Berkshire (as opposed to detached bits of
Berkshire in other Counties).
I don't know how long this anomaly continued there, but it certainly
continued until 31/3/1974 in some Registration Districts.
--
Dave Mayall