IMPORTANT (META): Please vote "No" to proposed rec.guns split
Alexander Eichener
As a long-time regular poster to rec.guns, who may have contributed one
or two grains of wheat besides my fluffy pile of chaff :-), please allow me
to add my opinion.
While I will not agree with each and every sentence and opinion which
our Esteemed Moderator has given below, I must fully support his
central plea.
Please, I also beseech you, vote NO on the currect CFV (Call for
Votes) for the newgroup proposal "rec.sports.shooting.coaching".
There are a whole lot of reasons against the group, and nary a single
one in favour of it. Please read on.
On 23 May 1996 mag...@cs.umd.edu wrote:
> A split of "rec.guns" has been proposed,
Once again. But it has even less merit than a previous proposal last year.
Now, please do not misunderstand me : it MIGHT be that - eventually - a
further hierarchical refinement of the present single newsgroup rec.guns
be inevitable. Maybe. But before attempting this, we should implement
some of the improvements which have already been proposed (more
information forthcoming soon. This includes a KEYWORDS list for future
posting contributions.)
But the proposed group is so singularly malformed, and seems surrounded
by so many dubious backdoor maneuvres, that its formal flaws should
suffice alone to vote NO. Leave alone the substantial problems...
> The charter for this proposed r.s.s.c. has been issued, and as all can see
> is of narrow focus ... all of it overlapping the mission of the existing
> group rec.guns.
Absolutely. The *idea* of using electronic means of communication in order
to discuss and further issues of copching in the shooting sports is not
a bad one. However, its scope is extremely narrow. How many rifle or
pistol coaches do you know who have Usenet access ? Or even email ?
> Is volume concerning this topic high? No. But it exists, is welcome and
> will continue to be so.
And this is the very reason againstt the "newgroup" proposal. The volume
has been and will be extremely small in future. Let me compare with the
existing Hipower mailing list (for fullbore rifle competitors). They have
bettween 2 and 10 postings a day. It would be a singularly preposterous
idea to create a mainstream (id est, "Big Eight") Usenet newsgrop just for
this purpose.
However, a focussed and easily manageable mailing list fulfills its
goal excellently.
The same is true here. What little traffic could be effected would
fit very well into a maiiling list, where the participants can ennjoy easy
access, low noise, and the benefit of list archives. Such a list, were it
to be created, could also be gatewayed into rec.guns, such as not to
bereave rec.guns of the worthy listmails within it.
> Do the people already acting as coaches in rec.guns have anything to do with
> the people who are proposing this group? No. The proponents of a new group
> have largely not tried using rec.guns as the medium for their discussion on
> coaching.
Yes.
And this aggrieves and ANGERS me most. How presumptuous a buffoon, how
preposterous a would-be must one be in order to volunteer as a moderator
for a new Usenet mainstream newsgroup without ever having contributed
much (or over an extended time) to an already existing newsgroup ?
Neither of the self-proposed moderators has been sighted regularly on
rec.guns. I invite you to search www.dejannews.com for their names.
You will hardly find them.
Moderating is a hard and challenging task. Popping out from nowhere
and shouting: "I just got my 10-hours free AOL trial account, now I want
to make up MY own newsgroup and get myself promoted as moderator" strikes
me as rather delusional and fairly vain. And clueless :-)
> Again, you are invited to check the archives, where you will find
> a whopping one post (ever) from only one of the three individuals named as
> sponsoring this split of the group.
Fully seconded. People who could hardly distinguish a newsgroup from
a mailing list ("traceroute command ? Is that a new deerfinder ?"),
but presume to take up duties of which they have no idea.
Now I doubt not that these Messrs. be good and experienced rifle
coaches. But of Usenet they have no knowledge or experience whatsoever.
As a comparison:
Hey - would you accept ME as the new Palma rifle team coach ? ;-)
> I believe that the proponents' failure to even try the existing group for
> discussion, and their failure to demonstrate any volume of traffic that
> *could* exist in a new group (different from what we are already carrying,
> with apparent satisfaction from existing readers), clearly show that a
> rec.guns split is entirely inappropriate.
Correct. A dutiful traffic analysis is considered minimum for any decent
group proposal, as recent discussions in news.groups have showed again.
The proponents have *completely* failed this requirement, in spite of
previous criticism.
> It is worth noting in passing that the proposal has gone forward to a CFV in
> apparent violation of the vote-takers' own guidelines for creating new news
> groups.
The hierarchy is malformed, there is no mother group rec.sports.shooting,
no *.misc poposal, and not a word of how it would affect the existing
mother group rec.guns.
I could as well campaign for rec.guns.collecting.rifle.carcano
(and Tom Caceci for rec.guns.shooting.revolver.webley). Evidently, such
silly micro-balkanization would not be in the common interest of the
rec.guns readership.
> I have saved some email from people who, some time ago, winked out of the
> group and started separate mailing lists,
Here I differ, in all due respect, from Jim. I do crosspost many of my
contributions to c-r-ffl to rec.guns, e.g.
But it is undeniable that there is a *need* for sharply focussed gun-
relatted mailing lists. I just think that they should not lead to
a "bleeding out" of rec.guns. But the existing Hipower list is an excellent
examolle for top-quality discussion and advice, much beyond what one can
read in "Precision Shooting", e.g.
The proponents of the dishonest group split would have done better to
set up a mailing list for their needs. Why, I would have supported such
an idea. But presently, I feel we all ought to vote NO to the CFV.
It is neither in the interest of gunowners at large, nor of the rec.guns
community, nor of the shooting sports.
> The proposers who push this say they got no negative feedback after the call
> for discussion.
They got clear and unequivocal negative feedback, describuing why the RFD
proposal was flawed "on all fours". From yours truly, for example.
To declare the contrary is not the truth. Sorry.
> explained our reservations about this and the potential implications, NRA
> agreed fully and said it would go no further. Based upon this reassurance,
> I in turn asked the vocal leaders of rec.guns to back off in opposing the
> group, since it was a "dead issue."
> no control over their people. It was with no small surprise that I found
> this proposal going forward to a vote, with the proponents advertising that
> they had received no bad feedback on the discussion.
Ah. Political tactics, uhhh ? Sounds familiar... "No, we sure won't uphold
the proposed XY ban proposal, thus no need for you to fight it; just stay
quiet and we'll let it sleep".
I cannot say that I am glad to see the NRA coaches adopt a maneuvre which
looks very similar.
> Any real change in rec.guns must come from within the group, and I have
> already promised the group a proposal for our evolution that would, we hope,
You are much in retard, Jim, and you know that. But you have had a lot of
work to do recently. Just try to bring the proposals forth, now. Please.
> For the above reasons, I ask that you consider voting NO on the proposal.
> To vote, you would need to follow directions issued in Big Brother's CFV ...
> which we cannot tell you about here since reproducing any information from
> the CFV
Please do yourselves a favour.
Do NOT just "believe" my words or Jim's. Although I hope we aren't lying
or bribed or anything (grin).
We are very concerned but you must made up *your own mind*.
So, check yourselves.
Go to news.announce.newgroups (a very low-volume Usenet group), where you
will find the CFV. Read it. Carefully.
And then decide whether Jim and I are right or wrong with our plea.
And vote accordingly, to the correct voting e-mail address.
Thank you for caring. This vote needs everybody's voice.
Yours
Alexander Eichener
c...@ix.urz.uni-heidelberg.de
h...@unity.ncsu.edu
Alexander writes:
> ...
>Please, I also beseech you, vote NO on the currect CFV (Call for
>Votes) for the newgroup proposal "rec.sports.shooting.coaching".
I emphatically agree.
The lack of discussion and support in rec.guns, and the lack of need
for this new news.group strongly support a NO vote.
> ...
>Go to news.announce.newgroups (a very low-volume Usenet group), where you
>will find the CFV. Read it. Carefully.
>
>And then decide whether Jim and I are right or wrong with our plea.
>And vote accordingly, to the correct voting e-mail address.
>
>Thank you for caring. This vote needs everybody's voice.
Please vote - remember that NO votes 'raise the bar' needed to
establish a new news.group.
--
--henry schaffer
h...@ncsu.edu