First CFV New Newsgroup uk.local.borders-region
Peter Parry
wrote:
>*** WARNING! DO *NOT* VOTE USING THE FORM IN CRAIG'S MESSAGE! ***
>
>By reposting the voting form, Craig is soliciting votes *by breaking UK
>Usenet Voting Regulations* [see http://www.usenet.org.uk]
>
>It is possible that he is deliberately trying to get the vote called off
>(as seen previously with uk.people.support.* votes), but I think he's just
>being clueless, rather than malicious.
Isn't Craig a propaganda official for a nationalist political party
(If I'm wrong he has my most abject apologies for insulting him by
calling him a politician)?
If this is so your assumption, while kindly, is questionable. The
aim of such a person would be furthering partisan points in the most
effective way possible. Often their role would be to conceal and
manipulate the truth or mislead the reader (as is the job of every
propaganda person).
If he does not wish to see this group created what better way than to
circumvent the usual democratic processes and throw a spanner in the
works than by carrying out an action which he has surely seen in the
past led to the suspension of a vote?
We are not talking about a naive newcomer here.
--
Peter Parry. 01442 212597 0973 269132 fax 01442 233169
http://www.wppltd.demon.co.uk
Craig Cockburn
In article <6vkq9t$g3$3...@indiekid.freeserve.co.uk>, Iain D. Kidd
<ia...@onecooldude.com> writes
>And since Craig has posted *his* side of the Borders newsgroup debate to
>these newsgroups, allow me to post a rebuttal to his nationalistic
>frothings.
>
Such strong language. Surely unnecessary from someone with a valid
argument?
>
>By setting a precedent, he means that other people will say "Why can't I
>propose a newsgroup in uk.local.*, rather than your parochial wee scot.*
>hierarchy, since there is already a uk.local.borders-region group?"
>
No I don't, and the issue of being parochial is irrelevant.
>
>I would suggest voting FOR since the proponent wants a group in uk.*, and
>the fact that Mr Cockburn is a petulant child who wants everything in his
>playground should not cause her any problems.
>
Oh dear, more of that strong language again. Are you trying to make a
point here?
>
>This has already been covered in great depth in uk.net.news.config, in a
>flame war that has been ongoing since the end of August. Readers
>interested in the debate should consult Dejanews.
>
Summary: If you look at Dejanews, you'll find there have been several
objectors.
>> 2. The UK is in a major state of change with well over half of Scots
>> voters wishing independence in the short term (source: ICM). With the
>> elections to the Scottish parliament less than 7 months away, putting a
>> new group in the uk.* hierarchy would seem to be premature and likely to
>> change in the short term.
>
>This is a political point, and one which has little relevance to the uk.*
>hierarchy.
It is extremely relevant as the UK is a political grouping likely to
change.
> In the meantime, I think it is safe to say that Scotland is
>not going to become independent in the next ten years, so any proposed
>uk.local.* newsgroup can safely be said to have a potential lifetime
>longer than (say) uk.media.tv.friends.
>
>This is, therefore, not a reason to vote against the creation of this
>group.
>
Your analysis is conjecture. My analysis is also conjecture but at least
is backed up by scientific opinion polls. Therefore my opinion is shared
by the majority of the poll sample. Your opinion appears to stand alone.
>> Even within the spirit of devolution, it would
>> seem appropriate for a group covering a Scottish area to be decided at a
>> Scottish level, rather than by a UK committee led by vocal members from
>> Birmingham.
>
>Almost nothing is decided by the UK.* Committee. They are there as a
>guiding body, and are *ELECTED* into their positions. Every group
>creation is handled *DEMOCRATICALLY*, as we can see by the need for a CFV
>on this newsgroup.
>
I thought there was supposed to be elections to this group last month?
What happened?
>
>Compare this to the scot.* hierarchy, which is a totally ramshackle
>affair, where newsgroups are apparently created on the whim of one or two
>people.
>
Hardly. What experience do you have of creating a group in Scot? None. I
have created scot.jobs through the process documented in the
soc.culture.scottish FAQ for creating scot.* newsgroups.
>> 3. Placing the group in the English dominated uk.local. area would
>> create a precedent as there are currently no Scottish groups there.
>
>That is because no-one has proposed one before (although when the
>uk.local.* hierarchy was created, certain Scottish Nationalist numptys
>were extremely vocal, discouraging others from proposing Scottish groups)
>
Not me, I wasn't reading the group then as far as I recall.
>
>> Having Scottish issues in even more places would be
>> detrimental to existing groups.
>
>HA! scot.general is one of the biggest wastes of space on the news list.
>
That's why you posted your message there? I see.
--
Craig Cockburn ("coburn") http://www.scot.demon.co.uk/
Port na Banrighinn, Alba. (Queensferry, Scotland) PGP key available.
Sgri\obh thugam 'sa Gha\idhlig ma 'se do thoil e.
Andy Mabbett
<ia...@onecooldude.com> writes
[FU overridden, then re-set]
>By reposting the voting form, Craig is soliciting votes *by breaking UK
>Usenet Voting Regulations* [see http://www.usenet.org.uk]
I wonder why he finds that necessary...
[...]
>Distributing pre-marked or otherwise edited
>>copies of this CFV is considered to be vote fraud.
Which may in turn result in a vote against the group being re- run.
That's hardly helping Craig's cause, is it?
>In article <5UF71HAu...@scot.demon.co.uk>,
> Craig Cockburn <cr...@scot.demon.co.uk> writes:
>> The first call for votes for a group for the "Scottish Borders" has been
>> posted and I have attached it for your information as the call for votes
>> was not posted here, even though this group has a significant Scottish
>> content.
"This group" seems to be five. Craig has not previously, to the best of
my knowledge, asked for some of them to be included in the debate - nor
even mentioned the existence of them.
The official CFV was posted (I believe at Craig's request) to
scot.general
>> I am in favour of the borders having their own discussion group
>> however I am against this proposal as it sets a precedent for creating
>> Scottish groups in uk.* rather than scot.*.
Not having it will not set any precedent against future uk.local.[part
of Scotland] newsgroup.
>> My preference would be for a
>> group in scot.*. Having a group in both would be unnecessary duplication
Not necessarily; given that you seem to want scot.* to be propagated
only for the benefit of people *in* Scotland, but uk.* is as widely (=
globally) propagated as possible, the readerships could be very
different. This point has been made previously, more than once.
>> and so I would suggest voting against this so that a group in scot.* can
>> progress without this duplication problem.
scot.borders (or whatever) can be created (or not) regardless of what
happens in uk.*
[...]
>> it would
>> seem appropriate for a group covering a Scottish area to be decided at a
>> Scottish level, rather than by a UK committee led by vocal members from
>> Birmingham.
That's just rubbish - the committee is not "led" by anybody, and the
majority of its members are neither from, nor in, Birmingham.
(I'm not on the committee, should anybody be wondering).
>> 3. Placing the group in the English dominated uk.local. area
The only way to stop it being "English dominated" is to redress the
balance by creating uk.local.[part of Scotland] groups.
[...]
>> This would clear the way for other Scottish areas to be created,
See above.
>> particularly
>> uk.local.lothian which conflicts with the existing Edinburgh groups
>> and to an extent with scot.general (both widely propagated
But not *well* propagated.
>> and covered by dejanews.
So?
>> Having Scottish issues in even more places would be
>> detrimental to existing groups.
In your opinion.
[...]
--
Andy Mabbett, Development Manager, Birmingham Assist
Birmingham City Council - http://www.birmingham.gov.uk
!*!*!*! See our *new* web site, at the above address !*!*!*!
Andy Mabbett
<pe...@wppltd.demon.co.uk> writes
>Isn't Craig a propaganda official for a nationalist political party
In:
<L4j3eOAc...@scot.demon.co.uk> [1]
he said "I'm the SNP Press Officer for Edinburgh Central".
One wonders what the SNP policy on democratic voting is...
[1] Transcribed manually for reasons too tiresome to go in to. Available
on Dejanews, anyway.
--
Andy Mabbett: Personal view only - *not* my employers!
Hint: Telepathy rarely functions correctly via Usenet
Iain Rae
<cr...@scot.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>The first call for votes for a group for the "Scottish Borders" has been
>posted and I have attached it for your information as the call for votes
>was not posted here, even though this group has a significant Scottish
>content.
>Please vote against this proposed group for the reasons detailed above.
If you're interested in voting then I'd advise you to seek out and
read the discussions in deja news and decide for yourselves.
In reposting the Call For Votes against the advice given in the
procedures section Craig is laying himself open to accusations of
soliciting for votes or possibly vote rigging. If you vote using the
copy of the ballot Craig posted here your vote may be declared to be
invalid and be ignored. The official sources of ballots are (as listed
in the CFV:
>OFFICIAL SOURCES OF THE CFV:
>
>* The copy which was posted to uk.net.news.announce
>
>* The copy which was posted to any other groups by the votetaker
> (uk.net.news.config, uk.local.geordie, uk.local.nw-england, scot.general)
>
>* Any copies which were sent to mailing lists by the votetaker
>
>* The votetaker
>
>
Craig, given the discussion relating to the RFD and to minimise any
post-vote vote challenges it might be wise to cancel your original
posting to ed.general et al and repost the message replacing the copy
of the call for votes with a reference to the valid sources of the
ballot. Either that or ask the votetaker to post an official ballot
form to the various groups.
>The mechanism for voting is detailed below
Yes, quite. And I'd advise everyone to read them carefully.
what's Finnish for forty-two (ok Mabbett do your worst :) )
Charles Mcgregor
from ia...@onecooldude.com (Iain D. Kidd) contains these words:
> *** WARNING! DO *NOT* VOTE USING THE FORM IN CRAIG'S MESSAGE! ***
> By reposting the voting form, Craig is soliciting votes *by breaking UK
> Usenet Voting Regulations* [see http://www.usenet.org.uk]
> It is possible that he is deliberately trying to get the vote called off
> (as seen previously with uk.people.support.* votes), but I think he's just
> being clueless, rather than malicious.
> If you wish to vote, go to uk.net.news.announce and complete the ballot
> found there.
> As the RFD says:
> >The purpose of a vote is to determine the genuine interest of persons
> >who would read a proposed newsgroup. Soliciting votes from
> >disinterested parties defeats this purpose. Please do not distribute
> >this CFV. If you must, direct people to the official CFV as posted to
> >uk.net.news.announce. Distributing pre-marked or otherwise edited
> >copies of this CFV is considered to be vote fraud. When in doubt,
> >ask the votetaker, who can also arrange for an official posting in
> >other relevant newsgroups or mailing lists if asked.
This is unbelievable. Are you the same bunch of fascists who are
proposing a local.UK group for Midlothian and banning Gaelic?
Your position is morally bankrupt.
You want to direct the franchise for your vote away from those whom
it concerns the most.
Your motives can only be described as, at best, Imperialist.
The name you have chosen is not even sensible on a simple clarity
basis, however I suspect that that is of little interest to you,
since your nasty motives are so apparent.
I urge people to vote against this in the name of decency.
> Votes made referencing a Message other than the official uk.* post *may be
> invalid*.
> In article <5UF71HAu...@scot.demon.co.uk>,
> Craig Cockburn <cr...@scot.demon.co.uk> writes:
> > The first call for votes for a group for the "Scottish Borders" has been
> > posted and I have attached it for your information as the call for votes
> > was not posted here, even though this group has a significant Scottish
> > content. I am in favour of the borders having their own discussion group
> > however I am against this proposal as it sets a precedent for creating
> > Scottish groups in uk.* rather than scot.*. My preference would be for a
> > group in scot.*. Having a group in both would be unnecessary duplication
> > and so I would suggest voting against this so that a group in scot.* can
> > progress without this duplication problem.
> >
> > My other objections are:
> > 1. The name chosen is "uk.local.borders-region". This is a throwback to
> > the Borders Region days, yet the area covered by the group is not the
> > same. The name is therefore confusing. The name is also confusing
> > because it does not specify which UK border and which side of that
> > border it covers - uk.local.scot-borders would have been far better.
> >
> > 2. The UK is in a major state of change with well over half of Scots
> > voters wishing independence in the short term (source: ICM). With the
> > elections to the Scottish parliament less than 7 months away, putting a
> > new group in the uk.* hierarchy would seem to be premature and likely to
> > change in the short term. Even within the spirit of devolution, it would
> > seem appropriate for a group covering a Scottish area to be decided at a
> > Scottish level, rather than by a UK committee led by vocal members from
> > Birmingham.
> >
> > 3. Placing the group in the English dominated uk.local. area would
> > create a precedent as there are currently no Scottish groups there. This
> > would clear the way for other Scottish areas to be created, particularly
> > uk.local.lothian which conflicts with the existing Edinburgh groups and
> > to an extent with scot.general (both widely propagated and covered by
> > dejanews). Having Scottish issues in even more places would be
> > detrimental to existing groups.
> >
> > Please vote against this proposed group for the reasons detailed above.
> > The mechanism for voting is detailed below DO NOT SEND VOTES TO ME OR TO
> > THIS NEWSGROUP.
> >
> > In article <cfv-uk.local.borders...@usenet.org.uk>,
> > Alan Ford <al...@whirlnet.demon.co.uk> writes
> >> [snip repost of RFD]
regards
chic
Charles Mcgregor
from ia...@onecooldude.com (Iain D. Kidd) contains these words:
> And since Craig has posted *his* side of the Borders newsgroup debate to
> these newsgroups, allow me to post a rebuttal to his nationalistic
> frothings.
> FWIW, these are just my views. However, if you want to see the full
> history of the Scottish Borders debate, visit uk.net.news.config. The RFD
> for this newsgroup was posted in late August.
> In article <5UF71HAu...@scot.demon.co.uk>,
> Craig Cockburn <cr...@scot.demon.co.uk> writes:
> > The first call for votes for a group for the "Scottish Borders" has been
> > posted and I have attached it for your information as the call for votes
> > was not posted here, even though this group has a significant Scottish
> > content. I am in favour of the borders having their own discussion group
> > however I am against this proposal as it sets a precedent for creating
> > Scottish groups in uk.* rather than scot.*.
> By setting a precedent, he means that other people will say "Why can't I
> propose a newsgroup in uk.local.*, rather than your parochial wee scot.*
> hierarchy, since there is already a uk.local.borders-region group?"
Your language is of the gutter racist.
> Hopefully, should this group get through, it will save us future flames
> from Mr Cockburn.
> > My preference would be for a
> > group in scot.*. Having a group in both would be unnecessary duplication
> > and so I would suggest voting against this so that a group in scot.* can
> > progress without this duplication problem.
> I would suggest voting FOR since the proponent wants a group in uk.*, and
> the fact that Mr Cockburn is a petulant child who wants everything in his
> playground should not cause her any problems.
It is your unwillingness to test the opinion of those who are most
effected by this group, i.e. Scots, especially Borderers, that is so
reprehensible.
If Mr Cockburn objects to your boorish direspect for normal
democratic processes then he simply upholds that which is right and decent.
> > My other objections are:
> > 1. The name chosen is "uk.local.borders-region". This is a throwback to
> > the Borders Region days, yet the area covered by the group is not the
> > same. The name is therefore confusing. The name is also confusing
> > because it does not specify which UK border and which side of that
> > border it covers - uk.local.scot-borders would have been far better.
> This has already been covered in great depth in uk.net.news.config, in a
> flame war that has been ongoing since the end of August. Readers
> interested in the debate should consult Dejanews.
> Summary: No-one else has any problem with the name, except Mr Cockburn.
I know that is not true.
> > 2. The UK is in a major state of change with well over half of Scots
> > voters wishing independence in the short term (source: ICM). With the
> > elections to the Scottish parliament less than 7 months away, putting a
> > new group in the uk.* hierarchy would seem to be premature and likely to
> > change in the short term.
> This is a political point, and one which has little relevance to the uk.*
> hierarchy. In the meantime, I think it is safe to say that Scotland is
> not going to become independent in the next ten years, so any proposed
> uk.local.* newsgroup can safely be said to have a potential lifetime
> longer than (say) uk.media.tv.friends.
> This is, therefore, not a reason to vote against the creation of this
> group.
Seems like a perfectly pragmatic reason to me. Anyway, it is obvious
that the proposal FOR the group is politically motivated.
> > Even within the spirit of devolution, it would
> > seem appropriate for a group covering a Scottish area to be decided at a
> > Scottish level, rather than by a UK committee led by vocal members from
> > Birmingham.
> Almost nothing is decided by the UK.* Committee. They are there as a
> guiding body, and are *ELECTED* into their positions. Every group
We've seen your recommended election ideology.
> creation is handled *DEMOCRATICALLY*, as we can see by the need for a CFV
> on this newsgroup.
You've learned to spell the word in capitals, now look it up.
> Full details of the commitee, its purpose, and its members can be found on
> http://www.usenet.org.uk
> Compare this to the scot.* hierarchy, which is a totally ramshackle
> affair, where newsgroups are apparently created on the whim of one or two
> people.
> > 3. Placing the group in the English dominated uk.local. area would
> > create a precedent as there are currently no Scottish groups there.
> That is because no-one has proposed one before (although when the
> uk.local.* hierarchy was created, certain Scottish Nationalist numptys
> were extremely vocal, discouraging others from proposing Scottish groups)
Currently, about 60% of the population support independence in Scotland, 40%
for the SNP. Your florid description betrays yet again your hidden agenda.
> > This
> > would clear the way for other Scottish areas to be created, particularly
> > uk.local.lothian which conflicts with the existing Edinburgh groups and
> > to an extent with scot.general (both widely propagated and covered by
> > dejanews).
> That's a whole seperate thread, and a whole seperate argument. At the
> same time, a concensus seems to have been reached on uk.net.news.config,
> with Craig Cockburn being the sole voice of contention on that point.
Speaking for myself, I have little interest in UK or British groups.
I suspect that few Scots do. That absence should not, however, be
interpreted as acquiescence, quite the opposite in fact.
> > Having Scottish issues in even more places would be
> > detrimental to existing groups.
> HA! scot.general is one of the biggest wastes of space on the news list.
> In the last week, there have been *three* threads that have not been cross
> posted to other groups in other hierarchies. One from an American tracing
> his heritage, one from an Austrian planning a trip to Edinburgh, and one
> thread about Laptop Phonepoints.
Well that is obviously untrue. Many groups have nothing in them for
weeks on end.
> If anything, the proposed groups would *increase* traffic in scot.*,
> albeit by increasing cross-posts.
From where? The UK newsgroups where there is hardly any scots?
What's the point of that?
regards
chic
Iain Rae
<chi...@zetnet.co.uk> wrote:
>The message <6vkq9t$g3$3...@indiekid.freeserve.co.uk>
> from ia...@onecooldude.com (Iain D. Kidd) contains these words:
>> In article <5UF71HAu...@scot.demon.co.uk>,
>> Craig Cockburn <cr...@scot.demon.co.uk> writes:
>> I would suggest voting FOR since the proponent wants a group in uk.*, and
>> the fact that Mr Cockburn is a petulant child who wants everything in his
>> playground should not cause her any problems.
>
>It is your unwillingness to test the opinion of those who are most
>effected by this group, i.e. Scots, especially Borderers, that is so
>reprehensible.
>If Mr Cockburn objects to your boorish direspect for normal
>democratic processes then he simply upholds that which is right and decent.
>
This is a call for votes (CFV) each person replying with a ballot gets
one vote, in what way is it undemocratic?
>> > 2. The UK is in a major state of change with well over half of Scots
>> > voters wishing independence in the short term (source: ICM). With the
>> > elections to the Scottish parliament less than 7 months away, putting a
>> > new group in the uk.* hierarchy would seem to be premature and likely to
>> > change in the short term.
>
>> This is a political point, and one which has little relevance to the uk.*
>> hierarchy. In the meantime, I think it is safe to say that Scotland is
>> not going to become independent in the next ten years, so any proposed
>> uk.local.* newsgroup can safely be said to have a potential lifetime
>> longer than (say) uk.media.tv.friends.
>
>> This is, therefore, not a reason to vote against the creation of this
>> group.
>
>Seems like a perfectly pragmatic reason to me. Anyway, it is obvious
>that the proposal FOR the group is politically motivated.
In what way is it politically motivated? the proponent (Heather
Colquhoun) proposed a local group for the area on both sides of the
Scotland -England Border, the group, the coverage and the charter has
been modified during the RFD stage to that listed in the CFV. I am
unaware of any posting from Heather which could be said to be
political.
Or are there some old Clan politics going on here ;-)
>
>> creation is handled *DEMOCRATICALLY*, as we can see by the need for a CFV
>> on this newsgroup.
>
>You've learned to spell the word in capitals, now look it up.
Don't have the OED to hand (or would you rate that as being biased)
but
Hypertext Webster Gateway: "democratically"
From Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913) (web1913)
Democratically \Dem`o*crat"ic*al*ly\, adv. In a democratic manner.
From WordNet (r) 1.6 (wn)
democratically adv : in a democratic manner; based on democratic
principles; "it was decided democratically"; "democratically elected
government" [ant:
{undemocratically}]
democratic leads to:
Hypertext Webster Gateway: "democracy"
From Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913) (web1913)
Democracy \De*moc"ra*cy\, n.; pl. Democracies. [F. d['e]mocratie, fr.
Gr. dhmokrati`a; dh^mos the people + kratei^n to be strong, to rule,
kra`tos strength.] 1.
Government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme
power is retained and directly exercised by the people.
2. Government by popular representation; a form of government in which
the supreme power is retained by the people, but is indirectly
exercised through a system of
representation and delegated authority periodically renewed; a
constitutional representative government; a republic.
3. Collectively, the people, regarded as the source of government.
--Milton.
4. The principles and policy of the Democratic party, so called.
[U.S.]
We have publicly available rules on group creation, we have a period
where anyone can comment on the proposal and the proposal is put to a
vote, how is that undemocratic?
The rules are
>> > 3. Placing the group in the English dominated uk.local. area would
>> > create a precedent as there are currently no Scottish groups there.
>
>> That is because no-one has proposed one before (although when the
>> uk.local.* hierarchy was created, certain Scottish Nationalist numptys
>> were extremely vocal, discouraging others from proposing Scottish groups)
>
>Currently, about 60% of the population support independence in Scotland, 40%
>for the SNP. Your florid description betrays yet again your hidden agenda.
which has what do do with someone creating a usenet group?
>
>> > This
>> > would clear the way for other Scottish areas to be created, particularly
>> > uk.local.lothian which conflicts with the existing Edinburgh groups and
>> > to an extent with scot.general (both widely propagated and covered by
>> > dejanews).
>
>> That's a whole seperate thread, and a whole seperate argument. At the
>> same time, a concensus seems to have been reached on uk.net.news.config,
>> with Craig Cockburn being the sole voice of contention on that point.
>
>Speaking for myself, I have little interest in UK or British groups.
>I suspect that few Scots do. That absence should not, however, be
>interpreted as acquiescence, quite the opposite in fact.
Then can I suggest that you ignore the vote, ignore the group if it is
created and allow those scots who wish to take part in the uk.*
community get on with it.
>
>> > Having Scottish issues in even more places would be
>> > detrimental to existing groups.
>
>> HA! scot.general is one of the biggest wastes of space on the news list.
>
>> In the last week, there have been *three* threads that have not been cross
>> posted to other groups in other hierarchies. One from an American tracing
>> his heritage, one from an Austrian planning a trip to Edinburgh, and one
>> thread about Laptop Phonepoints.
>
>Well that is obviously untrue. Many groups have nothing in them for
>weeks on end.
>
>> If anything, the proposed groups would *increase* traffic in scot.*,
>> albeit by increasing cross-posts.
>
>From where? The UK newsgroups where there is hardly any scots?
>What's the point of that?
you have statisticts proving this?
>
>regards
>chic
Ladies and Gentlemen, the call for votes has been issued, can we
please keep any further debate on the issues without either side
dropping into personal or racial insults.
Iain (who's race is also royal and has hit fourteen in Finnish and
thinking about starting to count in Inuit)
Craig Cockburn
<ia...@civ.hw.ac.uk> writes
> Either that or ask the votetaker to post an official ballot
>form to the various groups.
I will do that.
Craig Cockburn
<amab...@bham-assist.demon.co.uk> writes
>In article <361e1a0b...@news.demon.co.uk>, Peter Parry
><pe...@wppltd.demon.co.uk> writes
>>Isn't Craig a propaganda official for a nationalist political party
>
>In:
>
> <L4j3eOAc...@scot.demon.co.uk> [1]
>
>he said "I'm the SNP Press Officer for Edinburgh Central".
>
>One wonders what the SNP policy on democratic voting is...
>
Note that when I post using that position, I make it clear and do so
with the agreement of the branch office bearers. I make no mention of
that position in my signature and it is safe to assume that unless I
specify otherwise I am not writing on behalf of the SNP in any capacity.
I am also an office bearer in other non political organisations,
including one community group and two charities. It is safe to assume
I'm not writing on behalf of them too unless I specify otherwise.
Alan Ford
>In article <36295394....@news.hw.ac.uk>, Iain Rae
><ia...@civ.hw.ac.uk> writes
>
>> Either that or ask the votetaker to post an official ballot
>>form to the various groups.
>
>I will do that.
Craig has now contacted me about this. I have requested that he cancels
his original article, and then I will post the CFV officially to the
requested groups.
--
Alan Ford <al...@whirlnet.demon.co.uk>
UKVoting Votetaker
Andy Mabbett
<chi...@zetnet.co.uk> writes
[snip excessive quoting]
[...]
>You want to direct the franchise for your vote away from those whom
>it concerns the most.
Yeah, that's why the CFV was posted to uk.net.news.announce and
scot.general...
>Your motives can only be described as, at best, Imperialist.
Rot.
>The name you have chosen is not even sensible on a simple clarity
>basis,
You have had ample opportunity to suggest alternatives, during the
length and often heated RFD period.
> however I suspect that that is of little interest to you,
>since your nasty motives are so apparent.
"nasty motives"?
>I urge people to vote against this in the name of decency.
What is indecent about allowing people to have the newsgroup they want?
[Snip even more excessive quoting]
Please learn to quote properly when following- up - you might like to
read the following primer on posting to newsgroups:
www.mahayana.demon.co.uk/computer/format.htm
Andy Mabbett
[...]
>It is your unwillingness to test the opinion of those who are most
>effected by this group, i.e. Scots, especially Borderers, that is so
>reprehensible.
In what way is an open vote "not willing to test" such an opinion?
[...]
>Seems like a perfectly pragmatic reason to me. Anyway, it is obvious
>that the proposal FOR the group is politically motivated.
Really? How?
>We've seen your recommended election ideology.
Indeed - it's open, and was itself chosen by a democratic process. If
you don't like it, you are welcome to make a formal proposal to change
it.
What's your "recommended election ideology"?
[...]
>> That's a whole seperate thread, and a whole seperate argument. At the
>> same time, a concensus seems to have been reached on uk.net.news.config,
>> with Craig Cockburn being the sole voice of contention on that point.
>
>Speaking for myself, I have little interest in UK or British groups.
>I suspect that few Scots do.
Evidence from those who post in uk.* groups suggest otherwise. Besides,
uk.* Is a*global* hierarchy, for discussion of UK-related issues.
[...]
>> If anything, the proposed groups would *increase* traffic in scot.*,
>> albeit by increasing cross-posts.
>
>From where? The UK newsgroups where there is hardly any scots?
Your evidence for this is..?
Andy Mabbett
<ia...@civ.hw.ac.uk> writes
>what's Finnish for forty-two (ok Mabbett do your worst :) )
If I must...
It's the answer to life, the Universe, and pickled herrings
bogus address
ia...@civ.hw.ac.uk (Iain Rae) writes:
> In reposting the Call For Votes against the advice given in the
> procedures section Craig is laying himself open to accusations of
> soliciting for votes or possibly vote rigging.
*You* didn't post it to ed.general, despite its clear relevance to the
concerns of that group, which opens *you* to accusations of being a
sneaky little weasel trying to worm your proposal through in secret.
---> email to "jc" at this site: email to "jack" or "bogus" will bounce <---
Jack Campin: 11 Third Street, Newtongrange, Midlothian EH22 4PU; 0131 6604760
http://www.purr.demon.co.uk/purrhome.html food intolerance data and recipes,
freeware logic fonts for the Macintosh, and Scots traditional music resources
Charles Mcgregor
from ia...@civ.hw.ac.uk (Iain Rae) contains these words:
> On Fri, 9 Oct 1998 20:12:08 +0100, Charles Mcgregor
> <chi...@zetnet.co.uk> wrote:
> >The message <6vkq9t$g3$3...@indiekid.freeserve.co.uk>
> > from ia...@onecooldude.com (Iain D. Kidd) contains these words:
> >> In article <5UF71HAu...@scot.demon.co.uk>,
> >> Craig Cockburn <cr...@scot.demon.co.uk> writes:
> >> I would suggest voting FOR since the proponent wants a group in uk.*, and
> >> the fact that Mr Cockburn is a petulant child who wants everything in his
> >> playground should not cause her any problems.
> >
> >It is your unwillingness to test the opinion of those who are most
> >effected by this group, i.e. Scots, especially Borderers, that is so
> >reprehensible.
> >If Mr Cockburn objects to your boorish direspect for normal
> >democratic processes then he simply upholds that which is right and decent.
> >
> This is a call for votes (CFV) each person replying with a ballot gets
> one vote, in what way is it undemocratic?
Would it be democratic if a group in say the US decided to set up a
newsgroup for the Wirral?
> >> > 2. The UK is in a major state of change with well over half of Scots
> >> > voters wishing independence in the short term (source: ICM). With the
> >> > elections to the Scottish parliament less than 7 months away, putting a
> >> > new group in the uk.* hierarchy would seem to be premature and likely to
> >> > change in the short term.
> >
> >> This is a political point, and one which has little relevance to the uk.*
> >> hierarchy. In the meantime, I think it is safe to say that Scotland is
> >> not going to become independent in the next ten years, so any proposed
Currently the SNP look quite likely to form the Scottish government,
their policy is to hold a referendum (this is a vote on an issue held
amongst those whom it effects, just thought you'd like to know that
since it is obviously new to you) on Scottish independence which in
turn looks likely to be accepted. This may only be 2 years away.
> >> uk.local.* newsgroup can safely be said to have a potential lifetime
> >> longer than (say) uk.media.tv.friends.
> >
> >> This is, therefore, not a reason to vote against the creation of this
> >> group.
> >
> >Seems like a perfectly pragmatic reason to me. Anyway, it is obvious
> >that the proposal FOR the group is politically motivated.
> In what way is it politically motivated? the proponent (Heather
Imperialist, seemingly.
> Colquhoun) proposed a local group for the area on both sides of the
Woa!...wait a minute... you said BOTH sides. This gets crazier by
the minute. Where, in the World is ANY border region considered to
be other than two seperate entities, whether for newsgroups or anything else?
Imperialist, definitely.
> Scotland -England Border, the group, the coverage and the charter has
> been modified during the RFD stage to that listed in the CFV. I am
> unaware of any posting from Heather which could be said to be
> political.
> Or are there some old Clan politics going on here ;-)
Smoke screen.
> >
> >> creation is handled *DEMOCRATICALLY*, as we can see by the need for a CFV
> >> on this newsgroup.
> >
> >You've learned to spell the word in capitals, now look it up.
> Don't have the OED to hand (or would you rate that as being biased)
The OED was compiled by a Scot. The Oxford bit was added later.
> but
> Hypertext Webster Gateway: "democratically"
> From Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913) (web1913)
> Democratically \Dem`o*crat"ic*al*ly\, adv. In a democratic manner.
> From WordNet (r) 1.6 (wn)
> democratically adv : in a democratic manner; based on democratic
> principles; "it was decided democratically"; "democratically elected
> government" [ant:
> {undemocratically}]
> democratic leads to:
> Hypertext Webster Gateway: "democracy"
> From Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913) (web1913)
> Democracy \De*moc"ra*cy\, n.; pl. Democracies. [F. d['e]mocratie, fr.
> Gr. dhmokrati`a; dh^mos the people + kratei^n to be strong, to rule,
> kra`tos strength.] 1.
> Government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme
> power is retained and directly exercised by the people.
> 2. Government by popular representation; a form of government in which
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> the supreme power is retained by the people, but is indirectly
> exercised through a system of
> representation and delegated authority periodically renewed; a
> constitutional representative government; a republic.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> 3. Collectively, the people, regarded as the source of government.
> --Milton.
> 4. The principles and policy of the Democratic party, so called.
> [U.S.]
> We have publicly available rules on group creation, we have a period
> where anyone can comment on the proposal and the proposal is put to a
> vote, how is that undemocratic?
You excluded the main Scottish groups and when Craig posted your
proposal there had the temerity to call his action anti-democratic.
I, a Scot with relatives in the borders would have known nothing about it.
> The rules are
> >> > 3. Placing the group in the English dominated uk.local. area would
> >> > create a precedent as there are currently no Scottish groups there.
> >
> >> That is because no-one has proposed one before (although when the
> >> uk.local.* hierarchy was created, certain Scottish Nationalist numptys
> >> were extremely vocal, discouraging others from proposing Scottish groups)
> >
> >Currently, about 60% of the population support independence in Scotland, 40%
> >for the SNP. Your florid description betrays yet again your hidden agenda.
> which has what do do with someone creating a usenet group?
Emotive, if not racist, language does not help your cause or give any
other impression than that you are a group of biggotted yahoos.
I think, based on all the evidence I have seen so far, that you are a
group of little Englanders with vestigial delusions of Empire.
Of course you could prove me wrong by creating two seperate borders
groups (which could be cross-postable for anyone that wants to) and
which are sensibly named e.g. uk.scottish-borders-with-england and
uk.english-borders-with scotland.
However short lived, at least this naming convention would make sense.
Somehow I feel this solution is just not going to be viable somehow, right?
> >
> >> > This
> >> > would clear the way for other Scottish areas to be created, particularly
> >> > uk.local.lothian which conflicts with the existing Edinburgh groups and
> >> > to an extent with scot.general (both widely propagated and covered by
> >> > dejanews).
> >
> >> That's a whole seperate thread, and a whole seperate argument. At the
> >> same time, a concensus seems to have been reached on uk.net.news.config,
> >> with Craig Cockburn being the sole voice of contention on that point.
> >
> >Speaking for myself, I have little interest in UK or British groups.
> >I suspect that few Scots do. That absence should not, however, be
> >interpreted as acquiescence, quite the opposite in fact.
> Then can I suggest that you ignore the vote, ignore the group if it is
> created and allow those scots who wish to take part in the uk.*
> community get on with it.
And to hell with fairness eh?
> >
> >> > Having Scottish issues in even more places would be
> >> > detrimental to existing groups.
> >
> >> HA! scot.general is one of the biggest wastes of space on the news list.
> >
> >> In the last week, there have been *three* threads that have not been cross
> >> posted to other groups in other hierarchies. One from an American tracing
> >> his heritage, one from an Austrian planning a trip to Edinburgh, and one
> >> thread about Laptop Phonepoints.
> >
> >Well that is obviously untrue. Many groups have nothing in them for
> >weeks on end.
> >
> >> If anything, the proposed groups would *increase* traffic in scot.*,
> >> albeit by increasing cross-posts.
> >
> >From where? The UK newsgroups where there is hardly any scots?
> >What's the point of that?
> you have statisticts proving this?
soc.culture.scottish is the main scottish group and rarely even has uk groups
as a crosspost in headers.
> >
> >regards
> >chic
> Ladies and Gentlemen, the call for votes has been issued, can we
> please keep any further debate on the issues without either side
> dropping into personal or racial insults.
You are the people who have been doing both.
> Iain (who's race is also royal and has hit fourteen in Finnish and
> thinking about starting to count in Inuit)
Anything but gaelic eh?
Your a credit to your country.(whatever it is)
regards
chic
Andy Mabbett
<chi...@zetnet.co.uk> writes
>The message <362d6557....@news.hw.ac.uk>
> from ia...@civ.hw.ac.uk (Iain Rae) contains these words:
>
>
>> On Fri, 9 Oct 1998 20:12:08 +0100, Charles Mcgregor
>> <chi...@zetnet.co.uk> wrote:
>Would it be democratic if a group in say the US decided to set up a
>newsgroup for the Wirral?
Why not? I dare say (for example) soc.genealogy.briatian was set up by
(and is used by) as many people from the USA as Britain.
>Currently the SNP look quite likely to form the Scottish government,
>their policy is to hold a referendum (this is a vote on an issue held
>amongst those whom it effects, just thought you'd like to know that
>since it is obviously new to you) on Scottish independence which in
>turn looks likely to be accepted. This may only be 2 years away.
And this has what to do with newsgroup creation *today*?
>Imperialist, seemingly.
!
[Massive snip - please write after the material you quote, which should
be trimmed to the minimum necessary to set context]
>Of course you could prove me wrong by creating two seperate borders
>groups (which could be cross-postable for anyone that wants to) and
>which are sensibly named e.g. uk.scottish-borders-with-england and
>uk.english-borders-with scotland.
What a ridiculous idea.
[massive snip; ditto]
>soc.culture.scottish is the main scottish group
[...]
Charles Mcgregor
from Andy Mabbett <amab...@bham-assist.demon.co.uk> contains these words:
> In article <199810092...@zetnet.co.uk>, Charles Mcgregor
> <chi...@zetnet.co.uk> writes
> [snip excessive quoting]
> [...]
> >You want to direct the franchise for your vote away from those whom
> >it concerns the most.
> Yeah, that's why the CFV was posted to uk.net.news.announce and
> scot.general...
Is this the same scot.general which one of your proponents ridiculed
for having only three posts in a week? soc.culture.scottish gets
around 200 per DAY.
> >Your motives can only be described as, at best, Imperialist.
> Rot.
Well, no competing with satire....
> >The name you have chosen is not even sensible on a simple clarity
> >basis,
> You have had ample opportunity to suggest alternatives, during the
> length and often heated RFD period.
That's the point. I haven't because I didn't know about it.
Are we getting a clue yet?
> > however I suspect that that is of little interest to you,
> >since your nasty motives are so apparent.
> "nasty motives"?
> >I urge people to vote against this in the name of decency.
> What is indecent about allowing people to have the newsgroup they want?
'They' haven't even been told about it.
> [Snip even more excessive quoting]
<snip unnecessary advice on snipping>
regards
chic
Charles Mcgregor
from Andy Mabbett <amab...@bham-assist.demon.co.uk> contains these words:
> In article <199810092...@zetnet.co.uk>, Charles Mcgregor
> <chi...@zetnet.co.uk> writes
> [...]
> >It is your unwillingness to test the opinion of those who are most
> >effected by this group, i.e. Scots, especially Borderers, that is so
> >reprehensible.
> In what way is an open vote "not willing to test" such an opinion?
It wasn't 'open' it was 'closed' or at best 'selective'.
> [...]
> >Seems like a perfectly pragmatic reason to me. Anyway, it is obvious
> >that the proposal FOR the group is politically motivated.
> Really? How?
As in ... a waste of time...comprende?
> >We've seen your recommended election ideology.
> Indeed - it's open, and was itself chosen by a democratic process. If
> you don't like it, you are welcome to make a formal proposal to change
> it.
Change it.
> What's your "recommended election ideology"?
Consult those effected.
> [...]
> >> That's a whole seperate thread, and a whole seperate argument. At the
> >> same time, a concensus seems to have been reached on uk.net.news.config,
> >> with Craig Cockburn being the sole voice of contention on that point.
> >
> >Speaking for myself, I have little interest in UK or British groups.
> >I suspect that few Scots do.
> Evidence from those who post in uk.* groups suggest otherwise. Besides,
> uk.* Is a*global* hierarchy, for discussion of UK-related issues.
Evidence please, I see little crossposting to 'UK' groups from s.c.s
> [...]
> >> If anything, the proposed groups would *increase* traffic in scot.*,
> >> albeit by increasing cross-posts.
> >
> >From where? The UK newsgroups where there is hardly any scots?
> Your evidence for this is..?
See last
regards
chic
Andy Mabbett
<bo...@purr.demon.co.uk> writes
>*You* didn't post it to ed.general, despite its clear relevance to the
>concerns of that group,
Edinburgh is in the Borders?
> which opens *you* to accusations of being a
>sneaky little weasel trying to worm your proposal through in secret.
Absolute tosh. The vote was clearly sign-posted in a low- traffic
announce group.
Blade-Runner
uk.net.news.config. Craig Cockburn <cr...@scot.demon.co.uk> wrote some
of this :
>Note that when I post using that position, I make it clear and do so
>with the agreement of the branch office bearers. I make no mention of
>that position in my signature and it is safe to assume that unless I
>specify otherwise I am not writing on behalf of the SNP in any capacity.
>I am also an office bearer in other non political organisations,
>including one community group and two charities. It is safe to assume
>I'm not writing on behalf of them too unless I specify otherwise.
And it is also safe to assume that when I post I do so not as an
Englishman, a Scot, or a Brit, but as a plain ordinary reader of
netnews.
See, I know you have the principle, Craig, how about putting it into
practice?
--
Geoff (Blade-Runner)
Put the cat out to reply via e-mail
North Staffs Oatcakes Page http://www.geocities.com/NapaValley/2333
Go placidly amid the toys and waste (sign on kids' bedroom door) [me]
Charles Mcgregor
from {R}@sunshine.tm (Richard Ashton) contains these words:
> In article <6vkofc$g3$1...@indiekid.freeserve.co.uk>
> ia...@onecooldude.com "Iain D. Kidd" writes:
> } *** WARNING! DO *NOT* VOTE USING THE FORM IN CRAIG'S MESSAGE! ***
> } In article <5UF71HAu...@scot.demon.co.uk>,
> } Craig Cockburn <cr...@scot.demon.co.uk> writes:
> [snip multiple hidden agenda]
> } > Please vote against this proposed group for the reasons detailed above.
> I wouldn't normally vote on a matter of little concern to me.
> As I object to your politicking, I voted YES.
> I recommend others who respect uk.* do the same.
Quite right, nothing to do with those Scottish b***ards let's go for it chaps!
Charles Mcgregor
from ia...@onecooldude.com (Iain D. Kidd) contains these words:
> In article <199810092...@zetnet.co.uk>,
> Charles Mcgregor <chi...@zetnet.co.uk> writes:
> > This is unbelievable. Are you the same bunch of fascists who are
> > proposing a local.UK group for Midlothian and banning Gaelic?
> No. *One Person* proposed a group for Midlothian which banned Gaelic. He
> was remonstrated for this, and has now proposed
Glad to hear it, but to whom has he proposed?
> Why? Are you the same bunch of fascists who threatened Leah Betts's
> parents and bullied them into reconsidering moving to Scotland, due to the
> fact they are English?
I don't even know what you are talking about!
> > You want to direct the franchise for your vote away from those whom
> > it concerns the most.
> B. O. Double-L. O. C. K. S. Exclamation mark.
> It is recommended that all readers of the uk.* hierarchy subscribe to
> uk.net.news.announce. Therefore, the very people that will be affected by
> the creation of this group should see it there. In addition, the
> proponent is allowed to nominate other groups to which the Call for Votes
> should be posted. It is up to him/her to select these groups. In the
> case of this RFD, it was posted to:
> uk.net.news.announce,uk.net.news.config,uk.local.geordie,uk.local.nw-england,scot.general
And one of your supporters (if it wasn't in fact you) ridiculed the
only scottish group on that list for having only 3 posts in a week.
Or was that the reason for it's choice? soc.culture.scottish gets
about 1000 in a week.
> Since Mr Cockburn felt that this was not a suitable collection of groups,
> he could have mailed the votetaker, and requested that it be reposted to a
> wider audience. However, he took matters into his own hands, despite the
> fact that the document he was reposting *specifically states that it
> should not be reposted*.
> > The name you have chosen
> You seem to have misspelt "The name that the proponent has chosen".
Your 'proponent' seems to have required considerable 'support'
> > I urge people to vote against this in the name of decency.
> Jesus. In the past when I've used the expression "In the name of
> decency", I've been trolling. Which is what I thought you were doing.
> Until I searched for you on Dejanews, and discovered you really are as
> small-minded and out of touch as this message makes you appear.
All I want, in common with millions of other scots, is normal
government for Scotland, i.e. independence. I realise you think that
this is small minded however I can't wait for Scotland to rejoin the
international community and make it's, what I'm sure will be valued,
contribution to the world.
You are the one who is out of touch, actually I would say anachronistic.
> Thank God I'm getting the hell out of this country.
I second that.
> Iain. (Scottish born and bread)
Chic (Scottish by culture and identity, place of birth and genetics
is irrelevant.)
Charles Mcgregor
from ia...@onecooldude.com (Iain D. Kidd) contains these words:
> In article <199810092...@zetnet.co.uk>,
> Charles Mcgregor <chi...@zetnet.co.uk> writes:
> > Seems like a perfectly pragmatic reason to me. Anyway, it is obvious
> > that the proposal FOR the group is politically motivated.
> The proposal for the group is so that people living in the Borders can
> have somewhere to chat about local stuff. What the hell does this have to
> do with politics?
> > Currently, about 60% of the population support independence in Scotland, 40%
> > for the SNP. Your florid description betrays yet again your hidden agenda.
> How do you know? Have you asked them all?
> Or are you relying on some highly dubious statistical analysis carried out
> on a survey of 1,000 people? Polls also predicted that we'd get a hung
> parliament in the 1992 General Election, and Labour would just scrape in
> in the 1997 GE.
Polls also suggested that scots would not vote for tax altering
powers and that only 60% would vote for devolution as opposed to the
75% that did.
What is your point?
> > Speaking for myself, I have little interest in UK or British groups.
> > I suspect that few Scots do.
> Yes, admittedly, the percentage of Scots who are even aware of the
> existence of netnews is microscopic. However, I imagine that a large
> proportion of Scots who use netnews regularly make use of the uk.*
> hierarchy.
> Perhaps Claire Speed could supply us with a regional breakdown of her
> excellent UK Internet Usage statistics?
> >> If anything, the proposed groups would *increase* traffic in scot.*,
> >> albeit by increasing cross-posts.
> >
> > From where? The UK newsgroups where there is hardly any scots?
> How do you know? How, exactly, can you tell by looking at a newsgroup how
> many "Scots" are posting there?
You don't have header reveal facility?
regards
chic (Why are all unionists called Ian?)
Blade-Runner
uk.net.news.config. Charles Mcgregor <chi...@zetnet.co.uk> wrote some
of this :
>Of course you could prove me wrong by creating two seperate borders
>groups (which could be cross-postable for anyone that wants to) and
>which are sensibly named e.g. uk.scottish-borders-with-england and
>uk.english-borders-with scotland.
>However short lived, at least this naming convention would make sense.
>Somehow I feel this solution is just not going to be viable somehow, right?
No, too many characters.
Besides being a load of bollocks, that is.
Blade-Runner
>Consult those effected.
ITYM 'affected'
Hey, yeah, we should like, mail every Scot with a 'puter, huh?
Dave Mayall
<al...@whirlnet.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>Craig Cockburn <cr...@scot.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>In article <36295394....@news.hw.ac.uk>, Iain Rae
>><ia...@civ.hw.ac.uk> writes
>>
>>> Either that or ask the votetaker to post an official ballot
>>>form to the various groups.
>>
>>I will do that.
>
>Craig has now contacted me about this. I have requested that he cancels
>his original article, and then I will post the CFV officially to the
>requested groups.
I object to the posting of a CFV to a group which has not seen the
RFD.
1) The RFD/CFV process presumes that people vote having had the
opportunity to participate in/read the discussion, posting a CFV
outside of the list of groups to which the RFD went is improper
practice.
2) It is for the proponent to request the groups to which the RFD/CFV
is sent, not Craig Cockburn.
--
Dave Mayall
This posting is made in a personal capacity, the views expressed
may not be those of the UK Usenet Committee.
Dave Mayall
<cr...@scot.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>I thought there was supposed to be elections to this group last month?
>What happened?
The nominations just opened. Are you standing?
Dave Mayall
<cr...@scot.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>One person, one vote. Am I doing something here which contradicts that?
YES you are.
The official CFV contains the RFD, voting instructions and a ballot
paper, it does not contain an additional statement urging people to
vote in a particular way.
You have of course shot yourself in the foot, as any votes which can
be identified as coming from your repost will be invalid.
Reposting a CFV is vote fraud.
Andy Mabbett
<chi...@zetnet.co.uk> writes
>> Yeah, that's why the CFV was posted to uk.net.news.announce and
>> scot.general...
>
>Is this the same scot.general which one of your proponents ridiculed
>for having only three posts in a week? soc.culture.scottish gets
>around 200 per DAY.
No, it's the scot.general which Craig Cockburn asked to be included in
the debate
[...]
>> You have had ample opportunity to suggest alternatives, during the
>> length and often heated RFD period.
>
>That's the point. I haven't because I didn't know about it.
If you are interested in uk.* issues, you should be reading
uk.net.news.announce. If you are not, what are you doing opposing a uk.*
group?
>Are we getting a clue yet?
I don't know. Are you?
[...]
>> What is indecent about allowing people to have the newsgroup they want?
>
>'They' haven't even been told about it.
The people who *want* the newsgroup obviously do know about it. Who are
you to deny them?
><snip unnecessary advice on snipping>
Necessary, obviously.
Andy Mabbett
>> In what way is an open vote "not willing to test" such an opinion?
>
>It wasn't 'open' it was 'closed' or at best 'selective'.
It *is* (not was) open. Anyone with an interest may vote in it.
[...]
>> >We've seen your recommended election ideology.
>
>> Indeed - it's open, and was itself chosen by a democratic process. If
>> you don't like it, you are welcome to make a formal proposal to change
>> it.
>
>Change it.
A formal proposal - details of how to do this are at:
and are posted to uk.net.news.announce, regularly. You'll need to say
what you want to change it to, obviously.
>> What's your "recommended election ideology"?
>
>Consult those effected.
Done.
>> >I have little interest in UK or British groups.
>> >I suspect that few Scots do.
>> Evidence from those who post in uk.* groups suggest otherwise. Besides,
>> uk.* Is a*global* hierarchy, for discussion of UK-related issues.
>
>Evidence please, I see little crossposting to 'UK' groups from s.c.s
Oh. Only people who post in s.c.s are Scots?
I think that I've seen Scottish posters and/ or posts from people in
Scotland in every uk.* newsgroup I've ever subscribed to (and *about*
Scotland, in most of them).
>> >> If anything, the proposed groups would *increase* traffic in scot.*,
>> >> albeit by increasing cross-posts.
>> >
>> >From where? The UK newsgroups where there is hardly any scots?
>
>> Your evidence for this is..?
>
>See last
Your evidence is to ask me for evidence?
Craig Cockburn
<{R}@sunshine.tm> writes
>I recommend others who respect uk.* do the same.
>
not respect uk.* to vote against the proposal.
Does the uk.* committee respect a vote of no confidence?
Craig Cockburn
<david....@ukonline.co.uk> writes
>On Fri, 9 Oct 1998 16:20:33 +0100, Craig Cockburn
><cr...@scot.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>I thought there was supposed to be elections to this group last month?
>>What happened?
>
>The nominations just opened. Are you standing?
>
disagree strongly with the policies of the Conservative party, I'm not
necessarily sure that becoming an office bearer there would be the most
productive way forward to change them.
What is the nomination procedure?
Craig Cockburn
<david....@ukonline.co.uk> writes
>On Fri, 9 Oct 1998 22:30:00 +0100, Craig Cockburn
><cr...@scot.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>One person, one vote. Am I doing something here which contradicts that?
>
>YES you are.
>
>The official CFV contains the RFD, voting instructions and a ballot
>paper, it does not contain an additional statement urging people to
>vote in a particular way.
>
>You have of course shot yourself in the foot, as any votes which can
>be identified as coming from your repost will be invalid.
>
No, in fact I've gained more publicity for the vote by having it
officially posted there.
>Reposting a CFV is vote fraud.
>
Your definition. It's still one person one vote and in fact it's
perfectly OK to inform interested parties of the vote. The vote taker
has agreed to post the CFV to the additional groups I mentioned. They
evidently agree those groups are interested parties. No vote fraud.
Andy Mabbett
>Path: news.demon.co.uk!demon!dispose.news.demon.net!demon!peer.news.zetnet.net!z
>etnet.co.uk!user-10000806.zetnet.co.uk!not-for-mail
>From: Charles Mcgregor <chi...@zetnet.co.uk>
>Newsgroups: uk.net.news.config
>Subject: Re: First CFV New Newsgroup uk.local.borders-region
>Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1998 02:13:22 +0100
>Message-ID: <199810100...@zetnet.co.uk>
>References: <cfv-uk.local.borders...@usenet.org.uk> <6vm26a$ej
>$4...@indiekid.freeserve.co.uk>
>NNTP-Posting-Host: user-10000806.zetnet.co.uk
>X-Mailer: ZIMACS Version 1.20c 10000806
>Lines: 57
[all headers quoted]
>> > The UK newsgroups where there is hardly any scots?
>
>> How do you know? How, exactly, can you tell by looking at a newsgroup how
>> many "Scots" are posting there?
>
>You don't have header reveal facility?
Where in the above does it say you're a Scot?
Even if you chose to add
X-nationality: Scottish
as a header, there is nothing to say all other Scots would do the same.
James Coupe
<cr...@scot.demon.co.uk> writes
>>
>Your definition. It's still one person one vote and in fact it's
>perfectly OK to inform interested parties of the vote.
Unfortunately, by not quoting the ENTIRE post (as I understood you did,
though I cannot read it since it would appear the cancel took effect
before I downloaded it), you influence people by not providing them with
all the argument one way or the other.
--
James Coupe
'I said, "Kyle, if you do not give me back my triangle, I will kick you in the
nuts." So I kicked him square in the nuts and he cried, like Nancy Kerrigan.'
James Coupe
<cr...@scot.demon.co.uk> writes
>Does the uk.* committee respect a vote of no confidence?
There is no mechanic within this (any?) RFD for a vote of no confidence.
Peoples' reasons for voting one way or the other are not recorded. The
*only* things voted on in a vote are the terms of the vote.
James Coupe
<ja...@nospam.demon.co.uk> writes
>within this (any?) RFD
Oops, I meant CFV obviously.
Craig Cockburn
<david....@ukonline.co.uk> writes
>I object to the posting of a CFV to a group which has not seen the
>RFD.
>
>1) The RFD/CFV process presumes that people vote having had the
>opportunity to participate in/read the discussion, posting a CFV
>outside of the list of groups to which the RFD went is improper
>practice.
>
>2) It is for the proponent to request the groups to which the RFD/CFV
>is sent, not Craig Cockburn.
>
wishes to see the RFD and ensuing debate can do so via dejanews if they
wish.
Arguing against this is like saying the Hansard archive can't be used as
the basis of forming an opinion of what was said in the House of
Commons.
Craig Cockburn
<ja...@nospam.demon.co.uk> writes
>In article <idxt3WB8...@scot.demon.co.uk>, Craig Cockburn
><cr...@scot.demon.co.uk> writes
>>>
>>Your definition. It's still one person one vote and in fact it's
>>perfectly OK to inform interested parties of the vote.
>
>Unfortunately, by not quoting the ENTIRE post
I did quote the entire post.
Craig Cockburn
<ja...@nospam.demon.co.uk> writes
>In article <R9Nh$VAOQy...@scot.demon.co.uk>, Craig Cockburn
><cr...@scot.demon.co.uk> writes
>>Does the uk.* committee respect a vote of no confidence?
>
>There is no mechanic within this (any?) RFD for a vote of no confidence.
>Peoples' reasons for voting one way or the other are not recorded. The
>*only* things voted on in a vote are the terms of the vote.
>
should have started a new thread to make this clear.
Ian Peattie
Craig Cockburn <cr...@scot.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>Does the uk.* committee respect a vote of no confidence?
YA'dr'NFAICMFP.
--
Ian Peattie. i...@johnrich.demon.co.uk
Edinburgh, Scotland.
Charles Mcgregor
from Craig Cockburn <cr...@scot.demon.co.uk> contains these words:
> In article <3639a4cc....@news.ukonline.co.uk>, Dave Mayall
> <david....@ukonline.co.uk> writes
> >On Fri, 9 Oct 1998 22:30:00 +0100, Craig Cockburn
> ><cr...@scot.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> >>One person, one vote. Am I doing something here which contradicts that?
> >
> >YES you are.
> >
> >The official CFV contains the RFD, voting instructions and a ballot
> >paper, it does not contain an additional statement urging people to
> >vote in a particular way.
> >
> Fine.
> >You have of course shot yourself in the foot, as any votes which can
> >be identified as coming from your repost will be invalid.
> >
> No, in fact I've gained more publicity for the vote by having it
> officially posted there.
> >Reposting a CFV is vote fraud.
> >
> Your definition. It's still one person one vote and in fact it's
> perfectly OK to inform interested parties of the vote. The vote taker
> has agreed to post the CFV to the additional groups I mentioned. They
> evidently agree those groups are interested parties. No vote fraud.
How they can define informing of interested parties about an impending vote
as being 'vote fraud' defies logic. Sounds like the politics of the
rotten burgh to me. Secret elections eh? Very democratic.
Anyway you seem to have won on this issue even though it will still
be the equivalent of holding the devolution for Scotland referendum
in both Scotland AND England. Well done.
I can get out of this hell hole now. They propose groups for Scotland
which charter to ban our national languages, name them illogically,
have ridiculous at best, Imperialist probably, geography (the
Borders), propose them for a heirarchy that has no genuine
life-expectancy and which would give offense to most Scots, try to
hide the proposals from Scots THEN accuse us of being 'highly strung'
when we object to this.
Who'd have thought such flagrant disregard for natural ethics would
be possible in this day and age?
regards
chic
Craig Cockburn
<ia...@onecooldude.com> writes
>In article <R9Nh$VAOQy...@scot.demon.co.uk>,
> Craig Cockburn <cr...@scot.demon.co.uk> writes:
>> Does the uk.* committee respect a vote of no confidence?
>
>"~g(uk.net.news.announce) committee no confidence result"
>
>Short answer: They did.
>
Excellent. Can I ask that the relevant rules regarding this be placed
on-line at
http://www.usenet.org.uk/committee.html#committee
they seem to be somewhat hidden away (so much for good propagation!)
Craig Cockburn
<i...@johnrich.demon.co.uk> writes
>In article <R9Nh$VAOQy...@scot.demon.co.uk>,
>Craig Cockburn <cr...@scot.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>Does the uk.* committee respect a vote of no confidence?
>
Chan eil mi gad thuigsinn a bhalaich
Craig Cockburn
<chi...@zetnet.co.uk> writes
>
>How they can define informing of interested parties about an impending vote
>as being 'vote fraud' defies logic. Sounds like the politics of the
>rotten burgh to me. Secret elections eh? Very democratic.
>
>Anyway you seem to have won on this issue even though it will still
>be the equivalent of holding the devolution for Scotland referendum
>in both Scotland AND England. Well done.
>
>I can get out of this hell hole now. They propose groups for Scotland
>which charter to ban our national languages, name them illogically,
>have ridiculous at best, Imperialist probably, geography (the
>Borders), propose them for a heirarchy that has no genuine
>life-expectancy and which would give offense to most Scots, try to
>hide the proposals from Scots THEN accuse us of being 'highly strung'
>when we object to this.
>
the committee. These were hidden in the old dejanews archive and do not
appear to be on the uk usenet website (!)
Blade-Runner
uk.net.news.config. Craig Cockburn <cr...@scot.demon.co.uk> wrote some
of this :
>I might if I feel it would achieve something. However, although I
>disagree strongly with the policies of the Conservative party, I'm not
>necessarily sure that becoming an office bearer there would be the most
>productive way forward to change them.
<mabbett>
Eh?
</mabbett>
Andy Mabbett
<cr...@scot.demon.co.uk> writes
>http://www.usenet.org.uk/committee.html#committee
>
>they seem to be somewhat hidden away (so much for good propagation!)
Hint: propagation is an issue for newsgroups, not web sites.
Andy Mabbett
d...@thecatgeocities.com> writes
><mabbett>
^M
please!
Ian Peattie
Craig Cockburn <cr...@scot.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <F0M0...@johnrich.demon.co.uk>, Ian Peattie
><i...@johnrich.demon.co.uk> writes
>>In article <R9Nh$VAOQy...@scot.demon.co.uk>,
>>Craig Cockburn <cr...@scot.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>Does the uk.* committee respect a vote of no confidence?
>>
>>YA'dr'NFAICMFP.
>
>Chan eil mi gad thuigsinn a bhalaich
If you look up the last no confidence vote on Dejanews it will
become clear.
Heather Colquhoun
from Craig Cockburn <cr...@scot.demon.co.uk> contains these words:
> In article <363ba6c9....@news.ukonline.co.uk>, Dave Mayall
> <david....@ukonline.co.uk> writes
> >I object to the posting of a CFV to a group which has not seen the
> >RFD.
> >
> >1) The RFD/CFV process presumes that people vote having had the
> >opportunity to participate in/read the discussion, posting a CFV
> >outside of the list of groups to which the RFD went is improper
> >practice.
> >
> >2) It is for the proponent to request the groups to which the RFD/CFV
> >is sent, not Craig Cockburn.
I agree with Dave that the CFV should only go groups that have been
issued the RFD
> I object to the above objection. Anyone in the affected groups who
> wishes to see the RFD and ensuing debate can do so via dejanews if they
> wish.
If you felt that these groups needed inclusion you should have said
before this stage, you wanted scot.general included and I added it at
the RFD that was issued after I would have gladly done the same for
soc.culture.scottish and ed.general if that had been requested.
> Arguing against this is like saying the Hansard archive can't be used as
> the basis of forming an opinion of what was said in the House of
> Commons.
it is a shame that you feel the need to bring polotics into everything.
--
Heather Colquhoun :)
>colquh...@zetnet.co.uk< http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/duns/
Si Je Puis (If I Can)
Iain Rae
wrote:
>
>ia...@civ.hw.ac.uk (Iain Rae) writes:
>> In reposting the Call For Votes against the advice given in the
>> procedures section Craig is laying himself open to accusations of
>> soliciting for votes or possibly vote rigging.
>
>*You* didn't post it to ed.general, despite its clear relevance to the
>concerns of that group,
No, you're right I didn't, I don't have the right to post a valid CFV
on the uk hierarchy to any group. If you could be bothered to
actually read the CFV you'll find that it has been posted by a member
of ukvoting which is an independent body which carries out votes
acting as an uninterested third party.
In view of the heated debate that's come from both sides of this
argument I thought it would be sensible to post the message that I
did. I do not believe anybodies Interests will be served If the
outcome of the vote degenerates into a slanging match over what rules,
if any, had been broken and how this might effect the result.
>which opens *you* to accusations of being a
>sneaky little weasel trying to worm your proposal through in secret.
>
I am in this one case going to ignore my own advice.
<Iain finally loses his temper>
Look arsehole, perhaps you should engage your brain before operating
your mouth
1.It's not my proposal, I am not Heather Colquhoun, I've never met the
Lady.
2. Secret, what bloody secret, at the moment this CFV is being
discussed in seven groups by god knows how many people. As far as I'm
aware, every time someone has officially asked that another group be
informed this has happened. True it's not front page news in the
press, It's not headlining the TV/radio news questions aren't being
asked in the house but that's hardly in my power is it. I'm just
another poster on usenet.
3. This is open discussion, it's being recorder for posterity, though
I doubt historians will actually read this debate in future years I
live in the hope that they will and that someone will point to your
message and say "Even in 1998, as the Information revolution was
beginning to catch on across the globe, as virtual communities were
being set up which extended beyond international borders, when
Statesmen, Politicians, Writers and Scientists joined in equal debate
with the masses. It was still possible for one person to stand up
alone and show the world, in a strong clear voice THAT HE DIDN'T KNOW
WHAT THE F**K HE WAS TALKING ABOUT."
<sigh>
I will not argue the toss either way in this thread, my views, such as
they are, are available elsewhere along with everyone elses. Can I
just urge anyone here considering voting to read the CFV and have a
look at the debate on dejanews.
If you're going to vote on a group creation that someone has spent the
time and effort in nurturing through the various stages I think you
should at least know their name.
Oh and Mr Address (I won't call you Bogus, I don't feel we're on first
name terms) I have lurked and posted on usenet for about 8 years. In
all that time I've been in discussions/arguements/flamewars with a
number of people, Some I've won, some I've lost, I've listened to the
rantings o a number of usenet wierdos but having my integrity
questioned by a moron is the thing that's pushed me into putting the
first entry into my killfile.
Goodbye.
>---> email to "jc" at this site: email to "jack" or "bogus" will bounce <---
>Jack Campin: 11 Third Street, Newtongrange, Midlothian EH22 4PU; 0131 6604760
>http://www.purr.demon.co.uk/purrhome.html food intolerance data and recipes,
>freeware logic fonts for the Macintosh, and Scots traditional music resources
Mark Goodge
<cr...@scot.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>I have asked for the procedures on passing a vote of no confidence in
>the committee.
Oh no, not again!
This is degenerating into a farce, simply because of the narrow
political agenda of a few individuals. Why, oh why, can't people just
put up with things as they are? It's only usenet, nobody dies!
Mark
--
Visit Mark's World at http://www.good-stuff.co.uk/mark/
Mark Goodge
<colquh...@zetnet.co.uk> wrote:
>The message <SL$BSpBFM...@scot.demon.co.uk>
> from Craig Cockburn <cr...@scot.demon.co.uk> contains these words:
>
>
>> In article <363ba6c9....@news.ukonline.co.uk>, Dave Mayall
>> <david....@ukonline.co.uk> writes
>> >I object to the posting of a CFV to a group which has not seen the
>> >RFD.
>> >
>> >1) The RFD/CFV process presumes that people vote having had the
>> >opportunity to participate in/read the discussion, posting a CFV
>> >outside of the list of groups to which the RFD went is improper
>> >practice.
>> >
>> >2) It is for the proponent to request the groups to which the RFD/CFV
>> >is sent, not Craig Cockburn.
>
>I agree with Dave that the CFV should only go groups that have been
>issued the RFD
So do I. I think this is essential - the RFD/CFV cycle is part of a
continous system, it makes no sense at all if people are invited to
vote without having seen the preceding discussion.
In any case, by the time the CFV stage is reached, the groups to be
posted to is no longer a matter for discussion. The guidelines state
that:
"If the CFV is in the correct form, Control will post
it to all those newsgroups and mailing lists that the
latest RFD was posted to."
In other words, the group list is set at RFD stage, and is primarily
the choice of the proponent. As the RFD guidelines say:
"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"
Note that the votetaker has no discretion in this, under the
guidelines - once a vote has been called, the identities of groups to
be involved has already been established.
>> I object to the above objection. Anyone in the affected groups who
>> wishes to see the RFD and ensuing debate can do so via dejanews if they
>> wish.
>If you felt that these groups needed inclusion you should have said
>before this stage, you wanted scot.general included and I added it at
>the RFD that was issued after I would have gladly done the same for
>soc.culture.scottish and ed.general if that had been requested.
Very sensible. I have no idea why Craig has suddenly decided that he
wants the CFV posted to obscure groups that were never mentioned
before (other than sheer bloody-mindedness, that is).
Heather Colquhoun
from Craig Cockburn <cr...@scot.demon.co.uk> contains these words:
> The first call for votes for a group for the "Scottish Borders" has been
> posted to various groups and I have received agreement from the vote
> organiser that after reading my comments, they are now going to post the
> voting form here. I am surprised it wasn't posted here by default
> originally, even though this group has a significant Scottish
> content. This perhaps demonstrates part of the lack of understanding
> within uk.* of the Scottish community.
This was not posted default due no express request that it should be
during the RFD stage, if it had been then the CFV would also follow.
> In line with voting procedures which request that the call for votes be
> only distributed by the votetaker, I am reposting my original comments
> (as amended) to interested parties as to why I would suggest voting
> against this proposal. These comments formed part of my original posting
> which is now cancelled.
There should be two sides to every argument!!
> I am in favour of the borders having their own discussion group
> however I am against this proposal as it sets a precedent for creating
> Scottish groups in uk.* rather than scot.*. My preference would be for a
> group in scot.*. Having a group in both would be unnecessary duplication
> and so I would suggest voting against this so that a group in scot.* can
> progress without this duplication problem.
Before my RFD was first issued there were no local area groups in
scot* and at present there still are not, why is it so important now?
> My other objections are:
> 1. The name chosen is "uk.local.borders-region". This is a throwback to
> the Borders Region days, yet the area covered by the group is not the
> same. The name is therefore confusing. The name is also confusing
> because it does not specify which UK border and which side of that
> border it covers - uk.local.scot-borders would have been far better.
If you read the charter it states that this newsgroup is intended to
cover both sides of the border, so putting scot in the name would be
misleading.
The name was chosen as a descriptive of the area not what it was or
is known as by official names, this is a newsgroup name as is
uk.local.geordie, but thats not an official name either it is
descriptive of an area.
> 2. The UK is in a major state of change with well over half of Scots
> voters wishing independence in the short term (source: ICM). With the
> elections to the Scottish parliament less than 7 months away, putting a
> new group in the uk.* hierarchy would seem to be premature and likely to
> change in the short term. Even within the spirit of devolution, it would
> seem appropriate for a group covering a Scottish area to be decided at a
> Scottish level, rather than by a UK committee led by vocal members from
> Birmingham.
Scotland is still in the uk at present and there as far as I know no
official date yet set that it will cease to be. If I you can see the
future better buy your lottery ticket quick.
> 3. Placing the group in the English dominated uk.local. area would
> create a precedent as there are currently no Scottish groups there. This
> would clear the way for other Scottish areas to be created, particularly
> uk.local.lothian which conflicts with the existing Edinburgh groups and
> to an extent with scot.general (both widely propagated and covered by
> dejanews). Having Scottish issues in even more places would be
> detrimental to existing groups.
A point that there are currently no scottish groups in either uk* or
scot* only means that one must be the first in whichever.
> 4. In other countries with borders, any group discussing those areas
> would clearly be created within that country's newsgroup hierarchy. In
> this instance this would be scot.borders and eng.scot-border (when
> England gets round to having its own usenet area, including
> soc.culture.english). There is no precedent for a cross border area
> being placed in a larger political grouping. There is no na.us-canadian-
> border or eu.french-german-border or equivalent group for instance.
These areas are currently different countries at present England and
Scotland both come under the banner of UK, maybe things will be
different in the future but that could be a long way off.
> Please vote against this proposed group for the reasons detailed above.
> The mechanism for voting is detailed in the voting form on
> uk.net.news.config and soon to be posted here.
Freedom of speech and democracy allow people to make up their own minds .
Philip Powell
Charles Mcgregor <chi...@zetnet.co.uk> wrote:
>The message <6vm26a$ej$4...@indiekid.freeserve.co.uk>
> from ia...@onecooldude.com (Iain D. Kidd) contains these words:
[snip]
>> How do you know? How, exactly, can you tell by looking at a
>> newsgroup how many "Scots" are posting there?
>
>You don't have header reveal facility?
Pray tell exactly how that would reveal the poster's nationality.
Common sense dictates that when the hole is getting deep it is time to
stop digging.
--
Philip Powell
Looking north across the Derwent Valley and Northumberland
to The Cheviot
PGP Key available on request
Philip Powell
> The message <b1HCNiAF...@bham-assist.demon.co.uk>
> from Andy Mabbett <amab...@bham-assist.demon.co.uk> contains
> these words:
>
>
>> In article <199810092...@zetnet.co.uk>, Charles Mcgregor
>> <chi...@zetnet.co.uk> writes
>
>> [...]
>
>>> It is your unwillingness to test the opinion of those who are
>>> most effected by this group, i.e. Scots, especially Borderers,
>>> that is so reprehensible.
And which newsgroup(s) should we assume Scots (Borderers) are reading?
>> In what way is an open vote "not willing to test" such an opinion?
>
> It wasn't 'open' it was 'closed' or at best 'selective'.
>
Selective as in 'uk.net.news.announce' and 'scot.general' - is there
anyone in the Borders who can't get either of those newsgroups?
[snip]
>>> We've seen your recommended election ideology.
>
>> Indeed - it's open, and was itself chosen by a democratic process.
>> If you don't like it, you are welcome to make a formal proposal to
>> change it.
>
>Change it.
>
>> What's your "recommended election ideology"?
>
>Consult those effected.
>
Which is exactly what has happened.
[snip]
>>> Speaking for myself, I have little interest in UK or British
>>> groups. I suspect that few Scots do.
>
>> Evidence from those who post in uk.* groups suggest otherwise.
>> Besides, uk.* Is a*global* hierarchy, for discussion of UK-related
>> issues.
>
> Evidence please, I see little crossposting to 'UK' groups from s.c.s
>
So *everyone* who posts in scs is a scot and every *scot* posts to
scs?
>> [...]
>>>> If anything, the proposed groups would *increase* traffic in
>>>> scot.*, albeit by increasing cross-posts.
>>>
>>> From where? The UK newsgroups where there is hardly any scots?
>
>> Your evidence for this is..?
>
> See last
>
I think I'll go and post in scs - will that make me a scot?
Craig Cockburn
<ia...@onecooldude.com> writes
>In article <idxt3WB8...@scot.demon.co.uk>,
> Craig Cockburn <cr...@scot.demon.co.uk> writes:
>>>You have of course shot yourself in the foot, as any votes which can
>>>be identified as coming from your repost will be invalid.
>>>
>> No, in fact I've gained more publicity for the vote by having it
>> officially posted there.
>
>referencing it's message ID will not have their vote counted.
>
And what happens to the votes not referencing any message id?
>>>Reposting a CFV is vote fraud.
>>>
>> Your definition. It's still one person one vote and in fact it's
>> perfectly OK to inform interested parties of the vote
>
>So when you go to vote at a UK governmental election, you receive your
>ballot paper with the SNP manifesto stapled to the top of it, do you?
>
No but all political parties are entitled under the representation of
the people act 1983 to influence people's voting on the day of voting by
standing outside the polling place and talking to prospective voters.
Craig Cockburn
<amab...@bham-assist.demon.co.uk> writes
>In article <YqbTaEAX...@scot.demon.co.uk>, Craig Cockburn
><cr...@scot.demon.co.uk> writes
>>http://www.usenet.org.uk/committee.html#committee
>>
>>they seem to be somewhat hidden away (so much for good propagation!)
>
>Hint: propagation is an issue for newsgroups, not web sites.
Hint: the bottom line is accesibility to information whether that be
participating in a newsgroup or reading a web page. Or would you rather
be secretive?
Craig Cockburn
<ma...@good-stuff.co.uk> writes
>On Sat, 10 Oct 1998 16:06:41 +0100, Heather Colquhoun
><colquh...@zetnet.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>The message <SL$BSpBFM...@scot.demon.co.uk>
>> from Craig Cockburn <cr...@scot.demon.co.uk> contains these words:
>>
>>
>>> In article <363ba6c9....@news.ukonline.co.uk>, Dave Mayall
>>> <david....@ukonline.co.uk> writes
>>> >I object to the posting of a CFV to a group which has not seen the
>>> >RFD.
>>> >
>>> >1) The RFD/CFV process presumes that people vote having had the
>>> >opportunity to participate in/read the discussion, posting a CFV
>>> >outside of the list of groups to which the RFD went is improper
>>> >practice.
>>> >
>>> >2) It is for the proponent to request the groups to which the RFD/CFV
>>> >is sent, not Craig Cockburn.
>>
>>I agree with Dave that the CFV should only go groups that have been
>>issued the RFD
>
"Craig has now contacted me about this. I have requested that he cancels
his original article, and then I will post the CFV officially to the
requested groups."
By accepting he will post the CFV officially to those groups, is he
demonstrating a lack of ability in the job or just demonstrating that
the whole procedure is a mess?
Richard Letts
>
> ia...@civ.hw.ac.uk (Iain Rae) writes:
>> In reposting the Call For Votes against the advice given in the
>> procedures section Craig is laying himself open to accusations of
>> soliciting for votes or possibly vote rigging.
>
> *You* didn't post it to ed.general, despite its clear relevance to the
> sneaky little weasel trying to worm your proposal through in secret.
huh? it was posted to scot.general or are you seriously suggesting that if
someone proposes uk.local.lancashire it must be posted to london.misc
because it's clearly of relevance to londoners. (or is my geography so bad
that Edinburgh is in the borders region of scotland)
RjL
Iain Rae
<chi...@zetnet.co.uk> wrote:
>> This is a call for votes (CFV) each person replying with a ballot gets
>> one vote, in what way is it undemocratic?
>
>Would it be democratic if a group in say the US decided to set up a
>newsgroup for the Wirral?
>
If it was done in an open fashion using established democratic
procedures then yes it would be democratic.
And given that the big 8 are in effect American haven't they done
something similar with soc.culture.scottish?
>> >> This is a political point, and one which has little relevance to the uk.*
>> >> hierarchy. In the meantime, I think it is safe to say that Scotland is
>> >> not going to become independent in the next ten years, so any proposed
>
>Currently the SNP look quite likely to form the Scottish government,
I though I'd voted for a devolved parliament, not a Government, did
someone change the ballot forms after I voted?
>their policy is to hold a referendum (this is a vote on an issue held
>amongst those whom it effects, just thought you'd like to know that
>since it is obviously new to you)
No, this is a vote amongst the uk.* community, that is the subscribers
to the various uk.* groups. You can vote if you have read or posted to
a uk.* group, no other qualifications are necessary (and yes before
you ask the obvious question you can vote from a .com, .nz or .au
account and you can vote if you're Nigerian, Venesuelan or Chinese
this Internet thing is international after all)
>on Scottish independence which in
>turn looks likely to be accepted. This may only be 2 years away.
Then wait 2 years and then talk about a scottish government.
>
>> >> uk.local.* newsgroup can safely be said to have a potential lifetime
>> >> longer than (say) uk.media.tv.friends.
>> >
>> >> This is, therefore, not a reason to vote against the creation of this
>> >> group.
>> >
>> >Seems like a perfectly pragmatic reason to me. Anyway, it is obvious
>> >that the proposal FOR the group is politically motivated.
>
>
>Woa!...wait a minute... you said BOTH sides. This gets crazier by
>the minute. Where, in the World is ANY border region considered to
>be other than two seperate entities,whether for newsgroups or anything else?
Ermm... Cyprus, Korea...East/West Germany after the was hmm... not
auspicious examples....Oh wait a minute we have this EEC thing and
they've removed border controls and encourages local cross border
groups to improve relations. Gee wouldn't that be a good idea.
Haven't you heard, ther are no borders in Cyberspace (damn used the C
word again), you'll be telling me there's a country called IEEE next.
>Imperialist, definitely.
no she just wants to discuss local issues with people on both sides od
the border.
>
>> Scotland -England Border, the group, the coverage and the charter has
>> been modified during the RFD stage to that listed in the CFV. I am
>> unaware of any posting from Heather which could be said to be
>> political.
>> Or are there some old Clan politics going on here ;-)
>
>Smoke screen.
no,.... Joke, if you have difficulty distinghishing between the two it
will probably disqualify you from becoming a member of the armed
forces. ;-) (NB ;-) indicates humourous comment ).
>
>> We have publicly available rules on group creation, we have a period
>> where anyone can comment on the proposal and the proposal is put to a
>> vote, how is that undemocratic?
>
>You excluded the main Scottish groups and when Craig posted your
>proposal there had the temerity to call his action anti-democratic.
Once again I re-iterate, not MY proposal.
I called Craig's actions undemocratic, where?
or are you using the paraniod "you".
>I, a Scot with relatives in the borders would have known nothing about it.
Neither does my Mother, nor my mate Steve who lives there nor probably
90% of the population of the borders (either side) nor of Scotland nor
England. This is usenet and the proposal relates to a section of
usenet called uk.*.
>> >Currently, about 60% of the population support independence in Scotland, 40%
>> >for the SNP. Your florid description betrays yet again your hidden agenda.
>> which has what do do with someone creating a usenet group?
>
>Emotive, if not racist, language does not help your cause or give any
>other impression than that you are a group of biggotted yahoos.
>I think, based on all the evidence I have seen so far, that you are a
>group of little Englanders with vestigial delusions of Empire.
"I" am a goup...Oh you're using the paranoid "you" again. sorry
>Of course you could prove me wrong by creating two seperate borders
>groups (which could be cross-postable for anyone that wants to) and
>which are sensibly named e.g. uk.scottish-borders-with-england and
>uk.english-borders-with scotland.
No I couldn't as 1) the names aren't legal (not politics, theres's a
14 character limit for technical reasons) 2) there'll be a 3 month
moratorium on the group for the scotland side of the border after the
vote.
You could of course post an RFD to setup uk.local.sofscotborder or
whatever.
Or you could set up a scot.local.borders and let the people who might
use such groups make their own minds up.
>However short lived, at least this naming convention would make sense.
>Somehow I feel this solution is just not going to be viable somehow, right?
well the only way to find out is to suck it and see, itn't it.
>> >Speaking for myself, I have little interest in UK or British groups.
>> >I suspect that few Scots do. That absence should not, however, be
>> >interpreted as acquiescence, quite the opposite in fact.
>
>> Then can I suggest that you ignore the vote, ignore the group if it is
>> created and allow those scots who wish to take part in the uk.*
>> community get on with it.
>
>And to hell with fairness eh?
yes eh, you've stated you have little interest in uk.* groups so why
not let the scots who are interested in the uk.* hiererchy fight their
own corner.
>
>> >
>> >> > Having Scottish issues in even more places would be
>> >> > detrimental to existing groups.
>> >
>> >> HA! scot.general is one of the biggest wastes of space on the news list.
>> >
>> >> In the last week, there have been *three* threads that have not been cross
>> >> posted to other groups in other hierarchies. One from an American tracing
>> >> his heritage, one from an Austrian planning a trip to Edinburgh, and one
>> >> thread about Laptop Phonepoints.
>> >
>> >Well that is obviously untrue. Many groups have nothing in them for
>> >weeks on end.
>> >
>> >> If anything, the proposed groups would *increase* traffic in scot.*,
>> >> albeit by increasing cross-posts.
>> >
>> >From where? The UK newsgroups where there is hardly any scots?
>> >What's the point of that?
>
>> you have statisticts proving this?
>
>soc.culture.scottish is the main scottish group and rarely even has uk groups
>as a crosspost in headers.
>
That's not what I asked and it's not what you stated.
>> >
>> >regards
>> >chic
>> Ladies and Gentlemen, the call for votes has been issued, can we
>> please keep any further debate on the issues without either side
>> dropping into personal or racial insults.
>
>You are the people who have been doing both.
Well you called me English and I take that as being both.
>
>> Iain (who's race is also royal and has hit fourteen in Finnish and
>> thinking about starting to count in Inuit)
>
>Anything but gaelic eh?
sigh the whole point is to count in a language you don't understand
because it will take you longer and you will be calmer hence be more
likely to give a reasoned arguement rather than run off at the mouth.
>Your a credit to your country.(whatever it is)
I am Scots, I don't speak Gaelic because I was brought up with the
cultural background of Wallace, Bruce, Douglas, the Flemings and other
lowland Scots funnily enough I do speak French and Latin (though not
for a while).
>
>regards
>chic
>
>
Mark Goodge
<cr...@scot.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>The votetaker stated in a posting here
>
>"Craig has now contacted me about this. I have requested that he cancels
>his original article, and then I will post the CFV officially to the
>requested groups."
>
>By accepting he will post the CFV officially to those groups, is he
>demonstrating a lack of ability in the job or just demonstrating that
>the whole procedure is a mess?
I think he was just being a bit over-eager. Votetakers are only human
too, I'm not going to cry "conspiracy" purely because of a fairly
small mistake.
The procedure itself is fine, and logical. The fact that one person
didn't read the rubric properly isn't a major cause for concern -
that's why everything has to go via Control, so that these things can
be checked before being posted.
However, it *was* a mistake, and I think it demonstrates that maybe a
bit more background reading is required of those volunteering to be
votetakers :-)
Iain Rae
Mayall) wrote:
>On Fri, 9 Oct 1998 22:54:42 +0100, Alan Ford
><al...@whirlnet.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>Craig Cockburn <cr...@scot.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>In article <36295394....@news.hw.ac.uk>, Iain Rae
>>><ia...@civ.hw.ac.uk> writes
>>
>>Craig has now contacted me about this. I have requested that he cancels
>>his original article, and then I will post the CFV officially to the
>>requested groups.
>
>I object to the posting of a CFV to a group which has not seen the
>RFD.
>
>1) The RFD/CFV process presumes that people vote having had the
>opportunity to participate in/read the discussion, posting a CFV
>outside of the list of groups to which the RFD went is improper
>practice.
>
Sorry Dave, I think that bird has flown,
>2) It is for the proponent to request the groups to which the RFD/CFV
>is sent, not Craig Cockburn.
The blurb in the CFV doesn't say that:
from CFV
>The purpose of a vote is to determine the genuine interest of persons
>who would read a proposed newsgroup. Soliciting votes from
>disinterested parties defeats this purpose. Please do not distribute
>this CFV. If you must, direct people to the official CFV as posted to
>uk.net.news.announce. Distributing pre-marked or otherwise edited
>copies of this CFV is considered to be vote fraud. When in doubt,
>ask the votetaker, who can also arrange for an official posting in
>other relevant newsgroups or mailing lists if asked.
I thought it better to avoid having accusations of vote-rigging from
both sides and get Craig's posted copy out of circulation as quickly
as possible which is why I suggested he contact ukvoting and cancel
his original posting. I assume ukvoting took the same viewpoint.
Rob Felton
(Charles Mcgregor) wrote:
> How they can define informing of interested parties about an impending
> vote
> as being 'vote fraud' defies logic. Sounds like the politics of the
> rotten burgh to me. Secret elections eh? Very democratic.
The rubric of the CFV quite clearly states that reposting the CFV is
fraud:
Distributing pre-marked or otherwise edited
copies of this CFV is considered to be vote fraud.
This is not something to create secret elections or anything like this so
please do not spread ideas that UKVoting is trying anything. All matters
are considered on the facts, the guidelines vote upon my member of the UK
Usenet community, and the rubric of the CFV.
Thanks
Swinny - Rob Felton
Co-Ordinator, UKVoting (mailto:ukvo...@usenet.org.uk)
Iain Rae
<cr...@scot.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <6vni4a$3gm$9...@indiekid.freeserve.co.uk>, Iain D. Kidd
><ia...@onecooldude.com> writes
>>In article <idxt3WB8...@scot.demon.co.uk>,
>> Craig Cockburn <cr...@scot.demon.co.uk> writes:
>>>>You have of course shot yourself in the foot, as any votes which can
>>>>be identified as coming from your repost will be invalid.
>>>>
>>> No, in fact I've gained more publicity for the vote by having it
>>> officially posted there.
>>
>>But anyone who voted using the ballot paper in your original post
>>referencing it's message ID will not have their vote counted.
>>
>And what happens to the votes not referencing any message id?
>
as long as they are exact duplicates there shouldn't be a problem.
>>>>Reposting a CFV is vote fraud.
>>>>
>>> Your definition. It's still one person one vote and in fact it's
>>> perfectly OK to inform interested parties of the vote
>>
>>So when you go to vote at a UK governmental election, you receive your
>>ballot paper with the SNP manifesto stapled to the top of it, do you?
>>
>No but all political parties are entitled under the representation of
>the people act 1983 to influence people's voting on the day of voting by
>standing outside the polling place and talking to prospective voters.
yes but they're not allowed to hand out filled out ballot forms (there
you go just stick that in the ballot box) nor are they allowed to hand
out voting instructions, also (I believe) they have to stand a certain
distance from the boothes themselves.
In the past, either in uk.* or in the big 8 people have distributed
copies of the voting form which were either pre-filled (hey guy's I
want to set up a group about X, all you have to do is post this
message to...) or which contained an incorrect call for votes (change
the question round so that yes votes against rather than for).
No-one is suggesting that that's what you've done but this has been a
sticky issue in the past and is something I believe ukvoting is VERY
strict about.
Iain Rae
<cr...@scot.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <199810101...@zetnet.co.uk>, Charles Mcgregor
><chi...@zetnet.co.uk> writes
>>
>>How they can define informing of interested parties about an impending vote
>>as being 'vote fraud' defies logic. Sounds like the politics of the
>>rotten burgh to me. Secret elections eh? Very democratic.
>>
>>Anyway you seem to have won on this issue even though it will still
>>be the equivalent of holding the devolution for Scotland referendum
>>in both Scotland AND England. Well done.
>>
>>I can get out of this hell hole now. They propose groups for Scotland
>>which charter to ban our national languages, name them illogically,
>>have ridiculous at best, Imperialist probably, geography (the
>>Borders), propose them for a heirarchy that has no genuine
>>life-expectancy and which would give offense to most Scots, try to
>>hide the proposals from Scots THEN accuse us of being 'highly strung'
>>when we object to this.
>>
>I have asked for the procedures on passing a vote of no confidence in
>the committee. These were hidden in the old dejanews archive and do not
>appear to be on the uk usenet website (!)
I'm only aware of I vote, there was no formal procedure in place (is
there one for the big 8, or scot.*) It was decided to do it as a
straight yes no vote and the committee won.
In fact wasn't the proponent supposed to publish an RFD on setting up
formal procedures?
Iain Rae
wrote:
>On Sat, 10 Oct 1998 13:56:51 +0100, Craig Cockburn
><cr...@scot.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>I have asked for the procedures on passing a vote of no confidence in
>>the committee.
>
>Oh no, not again!
>
'fraid so.
>This is degenerating into a farce, simply because of the narrow
>political agenda of a few individuals. Why, oh why, can't people just
>put up with things as they are? It's only usenet, nobody dies!
<Bang>
Arghh.....................splat.
Sorry, you were saying?
>
>Mark
Iain Rae
<colquh...@zetnet.co.uk> wrote:
>The message <SL$BSpBFM...@scot.demon.co.uk>
> from Craig Cockburn <cr...@scot.demon.co.uk> contains these words:
>
>
>> In article <363ba6c9....@news.ukonline.co.uk>, Dave Mayall
>> <david....@ukonline.co.uk> writes
>> >I object to the posting of a CFV to a group which has not seen the
>> >RFD.
>> >
>> >1) The RFD/CFV process presumes that people vote having had the
>> >opportunity to participate in/read the discussion, posting a CFV
>> >outside of the list of groups to which the RFD went is improper
>> >practice.
>> >
>> >2) It is for the proponent to request the groups to which the RFD/CFV
>> >is sent, not Craig Cockburn.
>
>I agree with Dave that the CFV should only go groups that have been
>issued the RFD
>
In which case I must apologise for suggesting Craig should do this,
and I'd suggest that the section of the CFV covering rebroadcasting of
the CFV be changed to indicate that requests should go through the
proponent.
Andy Mabbett
<chi...@zetnet.co.uk> writes
>Speaking for myself, I have little interest in UK or British groups.
>I suspect that few Scots do.
Further to other answers to this pint (ad the fact that there is a
difference between a group *about* the UK and a "UK or British group"),
a quick, five- minute, trawl through some of the recent articles I
happen to have on this machine reveals:
Newsgroups: scot.general,uk.railway
Subject: Where does the Union Canal cross the Gla - Ed railway
line at Falkirk?
Followup-To: scot.general
Message-ID: <6vj9m5$uk$1...@trek.squelch.localnet>
Newsgroups: soc.culture.scottish,soc.culture.celtic,
scot.announce,,uk.food+drink.misc,scot.general
Subject: New Independent Scottish Distillery site.
Message-ID: <34151699...@clearcut.co.uk>
Newsgroups: uk.food+drink.real-ale
Subject: Re: Caley Brewery fire
Message-ID: <1usjBHAI...@st-ronan.demon.co.uk>
Newsgroups: uk.sci.weather
Subject: No sun in east Scotland
Organization: The University, Dundee, DD1 4HN, Scotland, UK.
Message-ID: <360F5219...@dundee.ac.uk>
Newsgroups: uk.rec.gardening
Subject: Re: sympathy required
Organization: Edinburgh University
Message-ID: <6ujk4v$cv4$1...@scotsman.ed.ac.uk>
Newsgroups: uk.railway
Subject: Re: Virgin want Scottish Eurotunnel service
Message-ID: <6uencp$15n$1...@trek.squelch.localnet>
Newsgroups: uk.d-i-y
Subject: Re: Digital TV (and signal strength meter question)
Message-ID: <F07266.204.0.sta...@dcs.ed.ac.uk>
Sender: <xxx>@<xxx>.ed.ac.uk (UseNet News Admin)
Organization: LFCS, Dept. of Computer Science, Edinburgh
University
(well, look who's next..!)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.scottish, scot.politics,
rec.music.celtic, uk.music.folk
Followup-To: soc.culture.scottish,rec.music.celtic
Message-ID: <Ewd4y1Al...@scot.demon.co.uk>
Author: Craig Cockburn
Furthermore, a regular poster to uk.music.folk is that well- known anti-
nationalist, Dick Gaughan. For example:
Newsgroups: uk.music.folk
Message-ID: <zvYHKAA0...@dickalba.demon.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Guy Davis
Now, I'll be the first to admit that that's not a scientific study, but
it's illuminating, nevertheless.
Andy Mabbett
>>
>Your definition. It's still one person one vote and in fact it's
Did you read the CFV before you reposted it?
Paul Womar
> How they can define informing of interested parties about an impending vote
> as being 'vote fraud' defies logic.
Informing you is fine, re-posting it in an edited form is not
acceptable.
> Sounds like the politics of the
> rotten burgh to me. Secret elections eh? Very democratic.
Not secret atall, if you are interested in the uk.* heirarchy then you
will at least be reading uk.net.news.announce where this was announced.
> Anyway you seem to have won on this issue even though it will still
> be the equivalent of holding the devolution for Scotland referendum
> in both Scotland AND England. Well done.
It's not anything so serious as devolution, neither, to the best of my
knowledge, is there any requirement that you be in either Scoltand or
England.
> I can get out of this hell hole now. They
They? Why has this become a them and us situation already? Do you know
who exactly proposed the group? Do you know where they were born or
currently reside?
> propose groups for Scotland
> which charter to ban our national languages, name them illogically,
That's your oppinion. Was there significant support for your preferred
alternative name when the RFD was published?
> have ridiculous at best, Imperialist probably, geography (the
> Borders), propose them for a heirarchy that has no genuine
> life-expectancy and which would give offense to most Scots
Care to give nay evidence for any of that?
> try to
> hide the proposals from Scots THEN accuse us of being 'highly strung'
> when we object to this.
Nothing was hidden from anyone, if some Scots choose not to read uk.*
then that is their choice. To claim that a proposal for a uk.* group
that was proposed via the uk.*'s netnews announce and discussion groups
was somehow hidden is a wholly ridiculous claim.
> Who'd have thought such flagrant disregard for natural ethics would
> be possible in this day and age?
Who'd that thought that some people are so eager to make such fuss about
a newsgroup.
--
-> The email address in this message *IS* Valid <-
Paul Womar
> The message <362d6557....@news.hw.ac.uk>
> from ia...@civ.hw.ac.uk (Iain Rae) contains these words:
>
> > This is a call for votes (CFV) each person replying with a ballot gets
> > one vote, in what way is it undemocratic?
>
> Would it be democratic if a group in say the US decided to set up a
> newsgroup for the Wirral?
Of course it would. Why wouldn't you want them to have one? It's not a
valid comparison anyway unless someone removed Scotland from the United
Kingdom whilst I wan't looking.
> > We have publicly available rules on group creation, we have a period
> > where anyone can comment on the proposal and the proposal is put to a
> > vote, how is that undemocratic?
>
> You excluded the main Scottish groups and when Craig posted your
> proposal there had the temerity to call his action anti-democratic.
It was. If your ballot paper had several reasons to vote for the
Conservatives on it, would you say that it was democratic?
> I, a Scot with relatives in the borders would have known nothing about it.
That is only because you have chosen not to carry the groups set up to
tell you about it, as is your right. You are free to read uk.*, your
geographic location should play little (if any) part in that ability.
> > >Currently, about 60% of the population support independence in
> > >Scotland, 40% for the SNP. Your florid description betrays yet again
> > >your hidden agenda.
> > which has what do do with someone creating a usenet group?
>
> Emotive, if not racist, language does not help your cause or give any
> other impression than that you are a group of biggotted yahoos.
> I think, based on all the evidence I have seen so far, that you are a
> group of little Englanders with vestigial delusions of Empire.
I think you have serious problems, I don't believe anyone here is doing
anything for that reason. I personally see no valid objections to this
group, the closest is that nobody who reads scot.* wants or can be
bothered to try and create such a group in the scot.* heirarchy and so
now someone who would like a group in uk.* is facing people who
apparently don't read uk.* groups who have now decided they wish to stop
this proposal because, errm, well it's not in a heirarchy that excludes
coverage of other parts of the UK and isn't as well propagated as uk.*.
> Of course you could prove me wrong by creating two seperate borders
> groups (which could be cross-postable for anyone that wants to) and
> which are sensibly named e.g. uk.scottish-borders-with-england and
> uk.english-borders-with scotland.
I don't see what that is supposed to acheive except separate people.
Perhaps you would like to separate those groups further, maybe by race,
gender and sexuality?
> > Then can I suggest that you ignore the vote, ignore the group if it is
> > created and allow those scots who wish to take part in the uk.*
> > community get on with it.
>
> And to hell with fairness eh?
Why is it unfair to let someone who feels they are a UK citizen create a
group to discuss the area in which they live?
> > >The UK newsgroups where there is hardly any scots?
> >
> > you have statisticts proving this?
>
> soc.culture.scottish is the main scottish group and rarely even has uk groups
> as a crosspost in headers.
That goes no way to supporting your claim. Should Scottish people
reading, for example, uk.comp.sys.mac be crossposting to
soc.culture.scottish? Does the fact that they don't bring their race
into every single post they make mean they don't read uk.*?
The vast majority of posts in uk.* are not crossposted to
soc.culture.british therefore there are hardly any British people in
uk.* newsgroups I suppose?
Paul Womar
> You don't have header reveal facility?
I've not seen many newsreaders that insert an X-Race: header.
Paul Womar
> Craig has now contacted me about this. I have requested that he cancels
> his original article, and then I will post the CFV officially to the
> requested groups.
If you have not already done so then may I suggest you include
soc.culture.british.
Dave Mayall
<chi...@zetnet.co.uk> wrote:
>The message <6vm26a$ej$4...@indiekid.freeserve.co.uk>
> from ia...@onecooldude.com (Iain D. Kidd) contains these words:
>> How do you know? How, exactly, can you tell by looking at a newsgroup how
>> many "Scots" are posting there?
>
>You don't have header reveal facility?
I do, how would that help.
I see you use zetnet, should that tell me? Nope, because I know
English people who use zetnet.
Pray tell, which header in your post shows you to be a Scot. None of
them do.
>regards
>chic (Why are all unionists called Ian?)
Even if (like Mr Kidd) they are not called Ian.
--
Dave Mayall
This posting is made in a personal capacity, the views expressed
may not be those of the UK Usenet Committee.
Dr John Stockton
10:32:13 in uk.net.news.config, Richard Letts
ISTM that it would be better if RFDs and CFVs for news:uk.* (newsgroups,
Committee, &c.) were posted only within news:uk.*. In cases where those
who do not read news:uk.* are thought to deserve to be specially
informed, a short announcement stating the one-line summary and
news:uk.* distribution of the RFDs could be posted outside news:uk.* in
parallel with each RFD; it would indicate that the definitive discussion
takes place in u.n.n.c. Those who cannot or will not get u.n.n.c should
not be enfranchised. The CFVs do not need a corresponding announcement.
Obviously this would be a change to current practice and would need to
be formalised in the usual way.
-
Is it yet possible to require that votes have a References line citing a
properly-posted CFV? or are there too many users of bad newsreaders?
news:e.g snipped; u.n.n.c only.
--
John Stockton, Surrey, UK. j...@merlyn.demon.co.uk Turnpike v4.00 MIME.
Web <URL: http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/> - FAQish topics, acronyms, & links.
Ian Stewart
responding to a Chick Coburn post wrote:
Much snipping of content
>..............................., rather than your parochial wee scot.* hierarchy,
Many of us seem to like it; if you don't, you have an alternative.
>
>....................the fact that Mr Cockburn is a petulant child who wants
> everything in his playground ....................................
I have had occasion to disagree with opinions expressed by Chic,
he is nevertheless entitled to do so. THIS is a free forum.
>
>Summary: No-one else has any problem with the name, except Mr Cockburn.
You have the proof of this statement ? I, for one, have lurked on this
subject, are there others ? Not knowing the numbers, I now claim two.
>
>Compare this to the scot.* hierarchy, which is a totally ramshackle affair,
>where newsgroups are apparently created on the whim of one or two people.
Your point, or do you have one ?
>
>..............................although when the uk.local.* hierarchy was created,
>certain Scottish Nationalist numptys were extremely vocal, discouraging
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Comments similar to the above are unnecessary and unwelcome to many,
not just Chic.
> others from proposing Scottish groups
>
C Coburn had stated in his earlier post:
>> This would clear the way for other Scottish areas to be created, particularly
>> uk.local.lothian which conflicts with the existing Edinburgh groups and
>> to an extent with scot.general (both widely propagated and covered by
>> dejanews).
>
>That's a whole seperate thread, and a whole seperate argument.
I, for one, do *not* see it that way on the basis of statements made.
>
> At the same time, a concensus seems to have been reached on
> uk.net.news.config, with Craig Cockburn being the sole voice of
>contention on that point.
Is that perhaps because many Scots totally ignore most of the uk.*.*.*
groups ?
>.........HA! scot.general is one of the biggest wastes of space on the news list.
Surely unsubstantiated opinion (again) despite the quoted "facts" ?
>
>Thank you and goodnight.
>
>Iain.
I have been following this thread but, as I do not live in "the
Borders" [and I have no wish to revive that particular point],
I have, to date, lurked. I have been tempted to respond
following some of Andy Mabbut's input, not with regard to the
content [I don't know enough about the "mechanics" of
Usenet to do so] but in response to the tone of some of those
postings.
The above finally got through my personal filters.
The tone and terms of endearment used, apparently from one
citizen of the UK to another in a different "region" is the main
reason for SNP "numpties" ever appearing in this world.
I will desist from retaliating in the
"English, imperialist, P*ss *ff and leave us in peace, etc"
mode, as it would be unseemly to treat you as you do us.
I think, perhaps, you will catch my drift.
-- Ian Stewart
If you can't convince 'em, confuse 'em.
Craig Cockburn
Felton <swi...@cix.co.uk> writes
>
>> How they can define informing of interested parties about an impending
>> vote
>
>fraud:
>
> Distributing pre-marked or otherwise edited
>copies of this CFV is considered to be vote fraud.
>
Craig Cockburn
<amab...@bham-assist.demon.co.uk> writes
>
>Furthermore, a regular poster to uk.music.folk is that well- known anti-
>nationalist, Dick Gaughan. For example:
>
As far as I know, Dick supports Scottish independence. In what way would
you describe him as anti-nationalist? I've crossposted this to
uk.music.folk incase Dick is reading it at the moment and can reply for
himself.
> Newsgroups: uk.music.folk
> Message-ID: <zvYHKAA0...@dickalba.demon.co.uk>
> Subject: Re: Guy Davis
>
Philip Powell
Craig Cockburn <cr...@scot.demon.co.uk> wrote:
[snip]
> The votetaker stated in a posting here
>
> "Craig has now contacted me about this. I have requested that he
> cancels his original article, and then I will post the CFV
> officially to the requested groups."
>
> By accepting he will post the CFV officially to those groups, is he
> demonstrating a lack of ability in the job or just demonstrating
> that the whole procedure is a mess?
And of course, if he had refused your request you wouldn't have gone
round screaming 'Foul!' would you?
Since you consider it such a mess perhaps you should detail the
scot.* procedure so that we can consider adopting that model.
jkw...@cableinet.co.uk
Craig Cockburn wrote in message ...
>
>In article <6vkq9t$g3$3...@indiekid.freeserve.co.uk>, Iain D. Kidd
><ia...@onecooldude.com> writes
>>By setting a precedent, he means that other people will say "Why can't I
>>propose a newsgroup in uk.local.*, rather than your parochial wee scot.*
>>hierarchy, since there is already a uk.local.borders-region group?"
Doesn't parochial have connatations of local? So by semantics, uk.local is
more parochial than the national hierarchy of scot.*
jkw...@cableinet.co.uk
Iain D. Kidd wrote in message <6vkq9t$g3$3...@indiekid.freeserve.co.uk>...
>And since Craig has posted *his* side of the Borders newsgroup debate to
>these newsgroups, allow me to post a rebuttal to his nationalistic
>frothings.
Are you sure it's not your unionist froth that fell on him?
Besides with Mr. Cockburn living at South Queensferry, i would have thought
that should have read Forthings...
Alan Ford
>I think he was just being a bit over-eager. Votetakers are only human
>too, I'm not going to cry "conspiracy" purely because of a fairly
>small mistake.
Yes, I appologise for my mistake. The statement in the Guidelines
prevails. It appears that I (and several other people, otherwise how did
this debate get how it is?) forgot about this statement and concentrated
on the text of the CFV (which needs some rewording, methinks).
Therefore the CFV shall not be posted to any other groups. It was posted
to the groups that the RFD was posted to and it shall remain that way.
Once again I appologise for my mistake/over-eagerness/slipup but
hopefully the situation is now sorted out and there is no need for any
more debate about it.
Regards,
Alan
--
Alan Ford
UKVoting Votetaker
Alan Ford
>Therefore the CFV shall not be posted to any other groups. It was posted
>to the groups that the RFD was posted to and it shall remain that way.
Damn, it's just not my day. I forgot:
However, if anyone wishes to post a pointer to the official CFV to other
groups that is fine.
Peter Parry
<chi...@zetnet.co.uk> wrote:
>Or was that the reason for it's choice? soc.culture.scottish gets
>about 1000 in a week.
Its going downhill fast then, an hour ago it was getting 1400 a week
according to you (or do Scottish weeks have less days than everyone
elses?).
--
Peter Parry. 01442 212597 0973 269132 fax 01442 233169
http://www.wppltd.demon.co.uk
Peter Parry
<cr...@scot.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <op4O6JA4...@bham-assist.demon.co.uk>, Andy Mabbett
><amab...@bham-assist.demon.co.uk> writes
>>In article <361e1a0b...@news.demon.co.uk>, Peter Parry
>><pe...@wppltd.demon.co.uk> writes
>>>Isn't Craig a propaganda official for a nationalist political party
>>
>>In:
>>
>> <L4j3eOAc...@scot.demon.co.uk> [1]
>>
>>he said "I'm the SNP Press Officer for Edinburgh Central".
>One person, one vote. Am I doing something here which contradicts that?
Well you are an extremely experienced user of Usenet and thoroughly
familiar with the voting procedures yet you would have us belive you
innocently set about an action which was fradulent. That action
would likely lead to a consequence you wish, that the proposed vote
be delayed. It casts considerable doubt upon your credibility and
motives when it becomes clear you are a (paid?) propaganda officer
for a political party.
Quite possibly the SNP pay neither your phone bill, internet account
bills or supply you with any other renumeration or recompense.
Equally possibly your advancement in that party might be "performance
related".
What is perfectly obvious is that once it is known that you are
indeed a propaganda official then only a fool would trust anything
you say no matter what role you claim to be playing when you say it.
>Note that when I post using that position, I make it clear
But the role of that position is surely to make things anything but
clear.
>it is safe to assume that unless I
>specify otherwise I am not writing on behalf of the SNP in any capacity.
I don't think anything of the sort is safe to assume given your role.
Or would you start suggesting we can believe everything said by
Messrs A Campbell and P Mandelson (to name but two)?
Andy Mabbett
<ian.s...@dial.pipex.com> writes
>Andy Mabbut
Who he?
Blade-Runner
uk.net.news.config. Andy Mabbett <amab...@bham-assist.demon.co.uk>
wrote some of this :
>Now, I'll be the first to admit that that's not a scientific study, but
>it's illuminating, nevertheless.
It staggers me how you have the time to read it all...
--
Geoff (Blade-Runner)
Put the cat out to reply via e-mail
North Staffs Oatcakes Page http://www.geocities.com/NapaValley/2333
Go placidly amid the toys and waste (sign on kids' bedroom door) [me]
Craig Cockburn
<pe...@wppltd.demon.co.uk> writes
>
>Well you are an extremely experienced user of Usenet and thoroughly
>familiar with the voting procedures yet you would have us belive you
>innocently set about an action which was fradulent.
Incorrect. If you read the CFV, distributing the vote paper is not
fraud. Editing it and filling it in or otherwise marking it is. I simply
distributed the paper, something which is stated in the wording is
"please do not distribute the CFV". Regarding fraud, the wording is
"Distributing pre-marked or otherwise edited
copies of this CFV is considered to be vote fraud"
The copy I reposted was not pre-marked or edited. Did you bother to
check?
>
>I don't think anything of the sort is safe to assume given your role.
>
>Or would you start suggesting we can believe everything said by
>Messrs A Campbell and P Mandelson (to name but two)?
>
Funny, I always assumed that what an Organisation: header or a sig was
for.
Dave Mayall
<cr...@scot.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <3639a4cc....@news.ukonline.co.uk>, Dave Mayall
><david....@ukonline.co.uk> writes
>>The official CFV contains the RFD, voting instructions and a ballot
>>paper, it does not contain an additional statement urging people to
>>vote in a particular way.
>>
>Fine.
>
>>You have of course shot yourself in the foot, as any votes which can
>>be identified as coming from your repost will be invalid.
>>
>No, in fact I've gained more publicity for the vote by having it
>officially posted there.
Like I said, any votes submitted on the copy ballot you sent will not
be counted.
>>Reposting a CFV is vote fraud.
>>
>Your definition. It's still one person one vote and in fact it's
>perfectly OK to inform interested parties of the vote. The vote taker
>has agreed to post the CFV to the additional groups I mentioned. They
>evidently agree those groups are interested parties. No vote fraud.
Not my definition, the CFV makes it clear that reposting the CFV is
vote fraud.
Having read the votetakers statement, I have objected to the
re-posting of the CFV anywhere. The voting procedures are quite clear
that a CFV goes to the same groups as the last RFD.
Dave Mayall
<chi...@zetnet.co.uk> wrote:
>All I want, in common with millions of other scots, is normal
>government for Scotland, i.e. independence. I realise you think that
>this is small minded however I can't wait for Scotland to rejoin the
>international community and make it's, what I'm sure will be valued,
>contribution to the world.
Good.
This has absolutely bugger all to do with newsgroup creation in uk.*
Why not go and find a group where your lunatic political rants will be
on-topic.
Dave Mayall
>On Sat, 10 Oct 1998 08:51:15 GMT, david....@ukonline.co.uk (Dave
>Mayall) wrote:
>>1) The RFD/CFV process presumes that people vote having had the
>>opportunity to participate in/read the discussion, posting a CFV
>>outside of the list of groups to which the RFD went is improper
>>practice.
>>
>
>Sorry Dave, I think that bird has flown,
Hardly, any votes which result from the repost will be invalid.
>>2) It is for the proponent to request the groups to which the RFD/CFV
>>is sent, not Craig Cockburn.
>
>The blurb in the CFV doesn't say that:
>
>from CFV
>>The purpose of a vote is to determine the genuine interest of persons
>>who would read a proposed newsgroup. Soliciting votes from
>>disinterested parties defeats this purpose. Please do not distribute
>>this CFV. If you must, direct people to the official CFV as posted to
>>uk.net.news.announce. Distributing pre-marked or otherwise edited
>>copies of this CFV is considered to be vote fraud. When in doubt,
>>ask the votetaker, who can also arrange for an official posting in
>>other relevant newsgroups or mailing lists if asked.
Unfortunately, the rubric is not compatible with the guidelines.
>I thought it better to avoid having accusations of vote-rigging from
>both sides and get Craig's posted copy out of circulation as quickly
>as possible which is why I suggested he contact ukvoting and cancel
>his original posting. I assume ukvoting took the same viewpoint.
Canceling the offending re-post was the best move.
bogus address
Craig Cockburn <cr...@scot.demon.co.uk> crossposts to uk.music.folk:
[ anent a slanging match in an entirely different set of newsgroups... ]
> Andy Mabbett <amab...@bham-assist.demon.co.uk> writes
>> Furthermore, a regular poster to uk.music.folk is that well- known
>> anti-nationalist, Dick Gaughan.
> what way would you describe him as anti-nationalist? I've crossposted
> this to uk.music.folk incase Dick is reading it at the moment
He hasn't posted here for a couple of years. Nor, as far as I can
tell, does he ever read his email any more. I think you can forget
about contacting him electronically.
I don't know him personally but his politics is clear enough from his
public work. I don't think either a simplistic "nationalist" or "anti-
nationalist" label is appropriate.
Followups to uk.music.folk.
---> email to "jc" at this site: email to "jack" or "bogus" will bounce <---
Jack Campin: 11 Third Street, Newtongrange, Midlothian EH22 4PU; 0131 6604760
http://www.purr.demon.co.uk/purrhome.html food intolerance data and recipes,
freeware logic fonts for the Macintosh, and Scots traditional music resources
Craig Cockburn
<pe...@wppltd.demon.co.uk> writes
>>about 1000 in a week.
>
>Its going downhill fast then, an hour ago it was getting 1400 a week
>according to you (or do Scottish weeks have less days than everyone
>elses?).
>
http://sunsite.unc.edu/usenetb-bin/to-group.pl?soc.culture.scottish
Readers: 5200 (0.2%) {20%} Mesgs per month/day: 2149/72 {84%}
Crossposting: 25% {69%} Megs per month/day: 2.7/0.090 {79%}
Sites reciving this Group: 31% Cost ratio ($US/month/rdr): 0.15
Andy Mabbett
<cr...@scot.demon.co.uk> writes
>As far as I know, Dick supports Scottish independence. In what way would
>you describe him as anti-nationalist?
Anyone know the Gaelic for "sarcasm" ?
Andy Mabbett
<cr...@scot.demon.co.uk> writes
>>The rubric of the CFV quite clearly states that reposting the CFV is
>>fraud:
>>
>> Distributing pre-marked or otherwise edited
>>copies of this CFV is considered to be vote fraud.
>>
In what way is adding a preamble not an act of editing?
Andy Mabbett
<blac...@thecatgeocities.com> writes
>>Now, I'll be the first to admit that that's not a scientific study, but
>>it's illuminating, nevertheless.
>
>It staggers me how you have the time to read it all...
I've just made a point of learning how to use my software effectively...
Craig Cockburn
<amab...@bham-assist.demon.co.uk> writes
>In article <LBunAZAB...@scot.demon.co.uk>, Craig Cockburn
><cr...@scot.demon.co.uk> writes
>>As far as I know, Dick supports Scottish independence. In what way would
>>you describe him as anti-nationalist?
>
>Anyone know the Gaelic for "sarcasm" ?
Does anyone know the Brummy for "troll" ?
Craig Cockburn
<amab...@bham-assist.demon.co.uk> writes
>In article <DhilIWAz...@scot.demon.co.uk>, Craig Cockburn
><cr...@scot.demon.co.uk> writes
>>>The rubric of the CFV quite clearly states that reposting the CFV is
>>>fraud:
>>>
>>> Distributing pre-marked or otherwise edited
>>>copies of this CFV is considered to be vote fraud.
>>>
>>It wasn't premarked or edited.
>
>In what way is adding a preamble not an act of editing?
If I staple one piece of paper to another, have I changed the contents
of either?