CFV: us.* hierarchy - Please vote NO
John De Armond
rdip...@qualcomm.com (Ron "Asbestos" Dippold) said
> FIRST CALL FOR VOTES (of 2)
> Proposal for the creation of a new us.* hierarchy
I urge the net to REJECT this proposal and vote NO for the following
reasons:
* There is no such thing as an issue uniquely of concern to the US.
US issues ARE world issues.
* Regional distributions have failed precisely because people elsewhere
are interested in the internal matters of the US, the states,
universities and even company distributions. I get replies from
all over the world to posts in the ga.* groups.
* Given that any us.* heirarchy will be distributed throughout the net,
all the heirarchy will do is duplicate other groups, pollute the
namespace, cause even more crossposting than now exists and
needlessly add groups that must be read in order to follow topics.
* No one has proposed ANY specific group which would merit an attempt
at a US-only distribution. The broad examples cited in this
proposal such as TV shows, politics and so on all fail because
American TV shows, politics and so on ARE of interest to the rest of
the world, as are the opinions of Americans.
* New rules are being proposed by a new defacto cabal that replaces
the voting system that has worked well for the most part, with
a system of "bosses" who control what gets created and what doesn't.
And it replaces defined criteria for passage or failure with
the "judgement" of the bosses. It replaces the will of the users
with the will of a few men sitting on high. This is the antithesis
of the net spriit.
* The proposed group creation criteria is most unsatisfactory. The
newly formed cabal proposes to replace the current vote with an
"interest poll" whereby if 100 people sorta indicate an interest
in the group it is created regardless of the number of negative
votes. This is NOT the way to create new groups.
* The makeup of the cabal has been decreed from the cabal and no
procedure for removing or replacing members is contemplated in
this proposal. The highly controversial nature of several of
the proposed cabal members combined with no mechanism for removal
almost guarantees a spoils system with no checks and balances
at all. "Piss me off and your group fails" isn't the way to
run the net.
* This vote is being conducted in a very abnormal manner, without the
usual CFD discussion period. If changes are needed in the current
group creation process, the proper way is to implement them
in accordance with the old procedures until those procedures
are formally changed. Change via fiat is again the antithesis
of the net culture.
For all those reasons and more, I urge everyone to REJECT this proposal
and vote NO. This is a BAD heirarchy and a BAD proposal and deserves to
die.
John
--
John De Armond, WD4OQC, Marietta, GA j...@dixie.com
Performance Engineering Magazine. Email to me published at my sole discretion
Respect the VietNam Vet, for he has survived every attempt by this country
to kill him.
mathew
>* There is no such thing as an issue uniquely of concern to the US.
> US issues ARE world issues.
>
>* Regional distributions have failed precisely because people elsewhere
> are interested in the internal matters of the US, the states,
> universities and even company distributions. I get replies from
> all over the world to posts in the ga.* groups.
>* No one has proposed ANY specific group which would merit an attempt
> at a US-only distribution. The broad examples cited in this
> proposal such as TV shows, politics and so on all fail because
> American TV shows, politics and so on ARE of interest to the rest of
> the world, as are the opinions of Americans.
Nice troll. A bit too obvious, though.
mathew
--
http://www.mantis.co.uk/~mathew/
Looking for: Bug-tracking systems for UNIX, DOS and Windows which aren't GNATS
Snowhare
: rdip...@qualcomm.com (Ron "Asbestos" Dippold) said
: > FIRST CALL FOR VOTES (of 2)
: > Proposal for the creation of a new us.* hierarchy
: I urge the net to REJECT this proposal and vote NO for the following
: reasons:
: * There is no such thing as an issue uniquely of concern to the US.
: US issues ARE world issues.
Oh really? I am *sure* that everyone in Europe is absolutely fascinated
by the saga of say OJ Simpson, 20 year has been player of US football?
(Hell - most people I know *in the US* wish the ridiculous LIVE news
coverage of everytime OJ sneezes would go away.) It is notable that the
European response to the endless attempts by the clueless to create
alt.OJ.* groups was "Who the hell is OJ Simpson?"
Or say the debate on US health care has some relevance to the average
reader in South Africa?
: * Regional distributions have failed precisely because people elsewhere
: are interested in the internal matters of the US, the states,
: universities and even company distributions. I get replies from
: all over the world to posts in the ga.* groups.
Strange - I have never seen a response to a utah.* group from outside the
state, except when it was cross-posted to alt.* or the Usenet.
For that matter, I have never seen a ga.* posted message at all.
: * Given that any us.* heirarchy will be distributed throughout the net,
: all the heirarchy will do is duplicate other groups, pollute the
: namespace, cause even more crossposting than now exists and
: needlessly add groups that must be read in order to follow topics.
No - it will keep the name space pollution *for non-US readers* down. US
readers have become used to having the Big 7+alt as their personal play
ground - to hell with the rest of the world. Tons of groups have been
created that non-US readers just don't care about (hint: US football
teams don't have that big of an international following).
: * No one has proposed ANY specific group which would merit an attempt
: at a US-only distribution. The broad examples cited in this
: proposal such as TV shows, politics and so on all fail because
: American TV shows, politics and so on ARE of interest to the rest of
: the world, as are the opinions of Americans.
They propose *hierarchies* and you complain that things _could_ be put in
them that have out of US relevance. This is a strawman. Sure
us.politics.lets-go-to-war will interest people out side the US. But no
one has proposed limiting the us.* to only US distribution. *If there is
actually interest outside the US* - out of US sites will carry us.*. Or
are you going to claim that the out of US sites will be interested *and
not carry*? Isn't that in contradiction to your first claim - that us.*
would leak?
Also, you are showing one hell of a arrogant attitude. Vast numbers of
people outside the US go for weeks, months or years without ever thinking
"What do the Americans think about this issue?"
: * New rules are being proposed by a new defacto cabal that replaces
: the voting system that has worked well for the most part, with
: a system of "bosses" who control what gets created and what doesn't.
: And it replaces defined criteria for passage or failure with
: the "judgement" of the bosses. It replaces the will of the users
: with the will of a few men sitting on high. This is the antithesis
: of the net spriit.
Nope. Another strawman. The proposed hierarchy clearly stated 100 votes
to pass us.* groups, after creation of the hierarchy. The only judgement
call presented was for the creation of the hierarchy itself.
And have you looked at the big 7 creation process recently? If Tale
doesn't like something, it doesn't even get proposed.
: * The proposed group creation criteria is most unsatisfactory. The
: newly formed cabal proposes to replace the current vote with an
: "interest poll" whereby if 100 people sorta indicate an interest
: in the group it is created regardless of the number of negative
: votes. This is NOT the way to create new groups.
Maybe. I already expressed my concern on this issue.
On the other hand - it addresses a different concern. The "tyranny
of the majority" where groups get voted down, not because they are bad
ideas, but because they violate some people's sensitivities. There is
much to be said for allowing free speech in a us.* hierarchy. Finally -
an argument where the US 1st amendment *might* be relevant as something
besides local ordinance (Yes, yes - i know that it still does not apply
legally. But it carries a certain moral force in a us.* hierarchy).
: * The makeup of the cabal has been decreed from the cabal and no
: procedure for removing or replacing members is contemplated in
: this proposal. The highly controversial nature of several of
: the proposed cabal members combined with no mechanism for removal
: almost guarantees a spoils system with no checks and balances
: at all. "Piss me off and your group fails" isn't the way to
: run the net.
'scuse me? Isn't that *exactly* how the big 7 are run? I haven't seen *one*
group created over David's strong objections. And last time I checked,
there wasn't a removal procedure for him either.
And it was not "the highly controversial nature of several" but only the
somewhat controversial nature of TWO of the members. I somehow doubt
that Tim and Joel will manage to stampede the other five members of the
advisory committee.
This is a strawman.
: * This vote is being conducted in a very abnormal manner, without the
: usual CFD discussion period. If changes are needed in the current
: group creation process, the proper way is to implement them
: in accordance with the old procedures until those procedures
: are formally changed. Change via fiat is again the antithesis
: of the net culture.
Something else you failed to notice: the proposal isn't for a Big 7
group. It is for a us.* hierarchy. Big 7 voting procedures aren't relevant.
The *discussion* is happening here because it affects the Big 7 in a
significant way and it is the most nearly relevant group. The hierarchy
could be newgrouped *today* and they would have violated no rules. That
they have attempted consensus building here does not make the hierarchy
creation subject to Big 7 rules.
: For all those reasons and more, I urge everyone to REJECT this proposal
: and vote NO. This is a BAD hierarchy and a BAD proposal and deserves to
: die.
I disagree. I have some reservations about issues that have been put off
until later, but the hierarchy proposal is fundamentally a good one. The
name-space pollution of the Use and Alt nets with US-centric groups is
considerable, and unwarranted.
The US is the only major player in the net *without* a national
hierarchy. It is arrogant beyond belief to assume that everyone in the
world cares about US issues. The historical accident that led to the US
lacking a national hierarchy is not justification for its continuance to
the detriment of non-US sites.
Vote YES on us.*.
--
Benjamin Franz
Alan Brown
>* There is no such thing as an issue uniquely of concern to the US.
> US issues ARE world issues.
Fuck off and die, John, you USA-centric asshole
--
Alan Brown
al...@manawatu.planet.co.nz == al...@manawatu.gen.nz ~~ bro...@kosmos.wcc.govt.nz
Manawatu Internet Services, P.O.Box 678, Palmerston North, New Zealand
+64 6 356-2814 (voice) +64 25 480-204 (voice) +64 6 357-9245/355-9270 (data)
Sean V. Kelley
[...]
|.... it will keep the name space pollution *for non-US readers* down. US
|ground - to hell with the rest of the world. Tons of groups have been
|created that non-US readers just don't care about (hint: US football
|teams don't have that big of an international following).
|--
|Benjamin Franz
So under a hypothetical us.* hierarchy, would alt.devilbunnies go
under us.pets.rabbits.rpg.devilbunnies instead, so as to prevent
internet account holders in the US from using alt as their personal
playground? :)
=============================================================================
Sean V. Kelley ________ __o B'aite liom fe/in bheith ar
Lockheed Corp. _____ _`\<,_ thaoibh mhalai/ shle/ibhe,
kel...@ede.sanders.lockheed.com ___ (*)/ (*) Agus caili/n gaelach
a bheith 'mo chomhair
Joel K. Furr
Sean V. Kelley <kel...@ede.sanders.lockheed.com> wrote:
>Snowhare (snow...@xmission.com) wrote:
> [...]
>|.... it will keep the name space pollution *for non-US readers* down. US
>|readers have become used to having the Big 7+alt as their personal play
>|ground - to hell with the rest of the world. Tons of groups have been
>|created that non-US readers just don't care about (hint: US football
>|teams don't have that big of an international following).
> [...]
>under us.pets.rabbits.rpg.devilbunnies instead, so as to prevent
>internet account holders in the US from using alt as their personal
>playground? :)
Existing groups would not be moved to the us.* hierarchy, and the
Coordinating Committee would recommend against placement in us.* of any
group which appeared to have a more worldwide scope, if one were
submitted.
----
Joel Furr(ian): Armenian crook/criminal/wacko, Big Kahuna of alt.fan.lemurs,
Moderator of alt.folklore.suburban and comp.society.folklore, Co-Moderator
of soc.history.war.world-war-ii, and purveyor of cool net.collectibles.
Will create newsgroups for food. Order your Green Card Lawyers shirt today.
Jonathan Jones
>
>> FIRST CALL FOR VOTES (of 2)
>> Proposal for the creation of a new us.* hierarchy
>
>I urge the net to REJECT this proposal and vote NO for the following
>reasons:
Just try changing a single letter...
* There is no such thing as an issue uniquely of concern to the UK.
UK issues ARE world issues.
* Regional distributions have failed precisely because people elsewhere
are interested in the internal matters of the UK, the counties,
universities and even company distributions. I get replies from
all over the world to posts in the ox.* groups.
* Given that any uk.* heirarchy will be distributed throughout the net,
all the hierarchy will do is duplicate other groups, pollute the
namespace, cause even more crossposting than now exists and
needlessly add groups that must be read in order to follow topics.
* No one has proposed ANY specific group which would merit an attempt
at a UK-only distribution. The broad examples cited in this
proposal such as TV shows, politics and so on all fail because
British TV shows, politics and so on ARE of interest to the rest of
the world, as are the opinions of Britons.
Modify to suit your own prejudices. Don't we all feel better now?
Jonathan Jones
(Oxford type temporarily resident at UCBerkeley which for some mysterious
reason doesn't subscribe to ox.*)
Tim Pierce
In article <7gq8=b=@dixie.com>, John De Armond <j...@dixie.com> wrote:
>* This vote is being conducted in a very abnormal manner, without the
> usual CFD discussion period.
Oh, John. All you could have said was, "I wasn't paying
attention," without having to go through all that blather.
--
____ Tim Pierce / Crazy isn't so bad. I could get
\ / twpi...@unix.amherst.edu / used to this.
\/ (BITnet: TWPIERCE@AMHERST) / -- Mary Campbell
Ron Newman
>I urge the net to REJECT this proposal and vote NO for the following
>reasons:
>
>* There is no such thing as an issue uniquely of concern to the US.
> US issues ARE world issues.
Excuse me, but that's the most arrogant thing I've read here in
months. How would it sound if you substituted "Bulgaria" for "US"
in the above sentence?
--
Ron Newman MIT Media Laboratory
rne...@media.mit.edu
John De Armond
>John De Armond wrote on Mon, 25 Jul 94 07:28:59 GMT:
>: rdip...@qualcomm.com (Ron "Asbestos" Dippold) said
>: > FIRST CALL FOR VOTES (of 2)
>: > Proposal for the creation of a new us.* hierarchy
>: I urge the net to REJECT this proposal and vote NO for the following
>: reasons:
>: * There is no such thing as an issue uniquely of concern to the US.
>: US issues ARE world issues.
>Oh really? I am *sure* that everyone in Europe is absolutely fascinated
>by the saga of say OJ Simpson, 20 year has been player of US football?
>(Hell - most people I know *in the US* wish the ridiculous LIVE news
>coverage of everytime OJ sneezes would go away.) It is notable that the
>European response to the endless attempts by the clueless to create
>alt.OJ.* groups was "Who the hell is OJ Simpson?"
>Or say the debate on US health care has some relevance to the average
>reader in South Africa?
Your comments can all be summarized as being ignorant of how the net
works and of being guilting of being ostentatiously presumptive of what
other people want to read. The fact of the matter is, yes, people
everywhere are interested in OJ and people are interested in the
developing US health care debacle because what happens in the US tends
to later happen elsewhere AND because the rest of the world is reliant
for the most part on U.S. medical developments. But even if my
preceeding sentence were not true, who the hell are you to try and tell
people what they can and cannot read? Particularly since you are
woefully unaware of things outside your small sphere of influence. Just
an interest of foreign interest in U.S. affairs, I run a news-over-mail
gateway to a similar site in the UK. This gateway is in place to give
the UK readers access to local and regional newsgroups that they can't
get through their restrictive, centrally controlled news feed.
The us.* heirarchiy is a BAD idea even ignoring the terrible implementation
proposal and should be voted DOWN.
David Ruggiero
>>* There is no such thing as an issue uniquely of concern to the US.
>> US issues ARE world issues.
John De Armond felt so riled by the usa.* proposal that he immediately
wrote several pages detailing in no uncertain terms why he thought it was
such a bad idea.
Well, that's good enough for me. My "yes" vote is already in the mail.
--
David Ruggiero (jda...@halcyon.com) Osiris Technical Services, Seattle WA
Nature bats last.
Scott Pallack
>In article <7gq8=b=@dixie.com> j...@dixie.com (John De Armond) writes:
>>* There is no such thing as an issue uniquely of concern to the US.
>> US issues ARE world issues.
>Excuse me, but that's the most arrogant thing I've read here in
>months. How would it sound if you substituted "Bulgaria" for "US"
>in the above sentence?
Well, not everything that goes on in the US is of concern to the world.
American Football, for example. In general, however, *most* of what happens
in the US has major repercussions throught the world. You really can't
say the same about Bulgaria, New Zealand, or even France.
Which is all rather strange considering how insulated the US actually is
from the rest of the world.
In any case, I support the creation of the us.* heirarchy.
--
INTPs of the world UNITE! Join the INTP mailing list. To subscribe email
list...@satelnet.org with body: SUBSCRIBE INTP (subject: ignored)
If you don't know what INTP means, finger sky...@satelnet.org
Scott Pallack sky...@satelnet.org
Dave Sill
ahead and respond lest it convince anyone not aware of the facts.
In article <7gq8=b=@dixie.com>, j...@dixie.com (John De Armond) writes:
>
>* There is no such thing as an issue uniquely of concern to the US.
> US issues ARE world issues.
Wrong.
>* Regional distributions have failed precisely because people elsewhere
> are interested in the internal matters of the US, the states,
> universities and even company distributions. I get replies from
> all over the world to posts in the ga.* groups.
That doesn't indicate the failure of regional distributions, it demonstrates that
people in one geographic area are often interested in what happens in another
area.
>* Given that any us.* heirarchy will be distributed throughout the net,
> all the heirarchy will do is duplicate other groups, pollute the
> namespace, cause even more crossposting than now exists and
> needlessly add groups that must be read in order to follow topics.
The us.* hierarchy won't duplicate any other groups, will potentially "pollute"
only the us.* namespace, and won't add any groups that wouldn't be added
somewhere else if us.* didn't exist.
>* No one has proposed ANY specific group which would merit an attempt
> at a US-only distribution.
That's not the point of the us.hierarchy. It *won't* be limited to US
distribution--it'll be limited to those sites that want it, wherever they may be.
> The broad examples cited in this
> proposal such as TV shows, politics and so on all fail because
> American TV shows, politics and so on ARE of interest to the rest of
> the world, as are the opinions of Americans.
Then they can carry the hierarchy.
>* New rules are being proposed by a new defacto cabal that replaces
> the voting system that has worked well for the most part, with
> a system of "bosses" who control what gets created and what doesn't.
No, we're starting from scratch, so we aren't obliged to use the same rules that
apply elsewhere. The interest polls will determine what gets created, not the
committee.
> And it replaces defined criteria for passage or failure with
> the "judgement" of the bosses.
Nope. Any proposal that gets 100 votes passes.
> It replaces the will of the users
> with the will of a few men sitting on high. This is the antithesis
> of the net spriit.
No women volunteered. What *is* "the net spirit", John? Endless debate with
little action taken? Guilty as charged. Cooperative volunteers working to
improve the net for all users? 100% guilty.
>* The proposed group creation criteria is most unsatisfactory.
Wait, I thought you just said ``it replaces defined criteria for passage or
failure with the "judgement" of the bosses''. Which is it?
> The
> newly formed cabal proposes to replace the current vote with an
> "interest poll" whereby if 100 people sorta indicate an interest
> in the group it is created regardless of the number of negative
> votes. This is NOT the way to create new groups.
Why not? Why should people be able to vote against a newsgroup? Imagine what
would happen if clubs had to pass public votes. Gun clubs would be voted down by
gun control proponents, for example.
>* The makeup of the cabal has been decreed from the cabal and no
> procedure for removing or replacing members is contemplated in
> this proposal.
The committee consists of those who volunteered to be on the committee. The
discussions were held on a public mailing list. We decided not to bog ourselves
down with pages of rules to cover every possible situation--at least until we
were sure the us.* hierarchy was going to be created.
> The highly controversial nature of several of
> the proposed cabal members combined with no mechanism for removal
> almost guarantees a spoils system with no checks and balances
> at all.
There are literally *thousands* of checks and balances: news admins and vocal
users. We aren't trying to build a sandbox that we can rule, we're trying to
build a working us.* hierarchy.
> "Piss me off and your group fails" isn't the way to
> run the net.
Agreed. Luckily we can't have that with the 100-vote creation rule.
>* This vote is being conducted in a very abnormal manner, without the
> usual CFD discussion period.
Wrong. The RFD was posted July 11.
> If changes are needed in the current
> group creation process, the proper way is to implement them
> in accordance with the old procedures until those procedures
> are formally changed.
No. The rules you refer to don't apply oustide the Big 7 (USENET) hierarchies.
National, regional, etc. hierarchies are free to follow whatever rules they want.
> Change via fiat is again the antithesis
> of the net culture.
Since when do dictators put their plans to a vote?
--
Dave Sill (d...@ornl.gov)
Martin Marietta Energy Systems, Workstation Support
URL http://www.dec.com/pub/DEC/DECinfo/html/dsill.html
Sridhar Venkataraman
| And have you looked at the big 7 creation process recently? If Tale
| doesn't like something, it doesn't even get proposed.
Speaking as someone who has dealt with tale more than a lay Usenet
reader/poster with respect to rfd/cfv for the past 2.5-3 yrs, I have
seen him more than reasonable if you are reasonable.
What is *your* personal experience to suggest that this is the case?
or is it from the experiences of Dave Hayes? Joel Furr?
Sridhar.
Snowhare
: snow...@xmission.com (Snowhare) writes:
: | And have you looked at the big 7 creation process recently? If Tale
: | doesn't like something, it doesn't even get proposed.
: Speaking as someone who has dealt with tale more than a lay Usenet
: reader/poster with respect to rfd/cfv for the past 2.5-3 yrs, I have
: seen him more than reasonable if you are reasonable.
Of course he is. I never meant to imply differently. I personally respect
him highly for his work in trying to keep the newsgroup creation process
running smoothly. Nevertheless, he has an awesome level of control
over the new group creation process.
The recent *.zoophilia controversy is a case in point. The proposers stated
bluntly that they had been told they would take the name they were
given, or they would not get a proposal at all. No other names would be
allowed for consideration.
This completely overrode the normal RFD naming discussion, and implicitly
the CFV procedures well, by fiat. The emotional charge behind the issue of
the group itself obscured this over-riding of Big 7 convention.
There have been other cases where Tale has overridden the explict
procedures (the comp.telcom.* wars for example). There is no provision I
know of for these executive procedural overides in the Big 7 group creation
guidelines - but they happen anyway.
: What is *your* personal experience to suggest that this is the case?
: or is it from the experiences of Dave Hayes? Joel Furr?
General perception. I base it on the existance of groups in Tale's
monthly bogus list with the notation "no sanctioned vote" (implying that
a vote that is not SANCTIONED is invalid), comments from miscellaneous
group proposers, and my own observations of the news.* groups over the last
year and a half.
I by no means intend to suggest that Tale's exercises his power
capriciously. He does not. But it is undeniable that he posseses, and
occasionally uses, that power.
--
Benjamin Franz
Jesus Christ on XTC
j...@dixie.com (John De Armond) writes:
>snow...@xmission.com (Snowhare) writes:
>>Or say the debate on US health care has some relevance to the average
>>reader in South Africa?
>
>Your comments can all be summarized as being ignorant of how the net
>works and of being guilting of being ostentatiously presumptive of what
>other people want to read.
Excuse me?
"Ignorant of how the net works." It is you who are ignorant, sirrah;
sites that _want_ us.* will get it. Sites that want [anything] without the
us-centric crap will be able to have it.
"presumptive of what other people want to read." It is you who are making
the presumptions in the following:
>The fact of the matter is, yes, people
>everywhere are interested in OJ and people are interested in the
>developing US health care debacle because what happens in the US tends
>to later happen elsewhere AND because the rest of the world is reliant
>for the most part on U.S. medical developments.
Aside from the sheer idiocy inherent in statements as "what happens in the US
tends to later happen elsewhere" in the context of Health care [You
really have no grasp of the issue, do you?], your examples are woefully poor.
Regional heirarchies are a Good Thing. The us is as much a region as the uk,
za, ab, etc etc etc...
joe, wondering why he's really bothering to follow this up...
--
Disclaimer: "I'm the only one foolish enough to claim these opinions as mine."
j...@gene.ummed.edu jpr...@gnu.ai.mit.edu cri...@hotblack.gweep.net
http://www.wpi.edu:8080/ webm...@wpi.edu
Russell Street UN*X Consultations
Jason Hanson
>In article <7gq8=b=@dixie.com>, John De Armond <j...@dixie.com> wrote:
>
>>* There is no such thing as an issue uniquely of concern to the US.
>> US issues ARE world issues.
>
>Fuck off and die, John, you USA-centric asshole
I never thought I'd side with JGD on anything, but here goes:
Quit your fucking whining!
--
Jason J. Hanson | 22 Langdon Street #220 | (608) 256-1004
Univ. of Wisconsin | Madison, WI 53703-1344 | Ham: N9LEA (Extra)
-- jha...@yar.cs.wisc.edu =*++*= n9lea@wd9esu.#scwi.wi.usa.noam --
Jason Hanson
>In article <7gq8=b=@dixie.com> j...@dixie.com (John De Armond) writes:
>>
>>* There is no such thing as an issue uniquely of concern to the US.
>> US issues ARE world issues.
>
>Excuse me, but that's the most arrogant thing I've read here in
>months. How would it sound if you substituted "Bulgaria" for "US"
>in the above sentence?
Ridiculous! But that's because the US plays a more significant role in world
affairs than Bulgaria... Which is why (for the most part) JGD's assertion
holds merit.
Dave Hayes
>Dave Sill replied:
>> Since when do dictators put their plans to a vote?
>actually listening to the populace.
So you are implying that you _are_ a dictator?
>We're in a similar position, but it isn't entirely the same.
Just in the level of absolute control, eh?
--
Dave Hayes - Institutional Network & Communications - JPL/NASA - Pasadena CA
da...@elxr.jpl.nasa.gov da...@jato.jpl.nasa.gov ...usc!elroy!dxh
You possess only what will not be lost in a shipwreck.
Dave Hayes
>Speaking as someone who has dealt with tale more than a lay Usenet
>reader/poster with respect to rfd/cfv for the past 2.5-3 yrs, I have
>seen him more than reasonable if you are reasonable.
That's just the point. As a "net.dictator", he needs to be reasonable
_even_ if _you_ aren't. Otherwise he's a tyrant.
--
Dave Hayes - Institutional Network & Communications - JPL/NASA - Pasadena CA
da...@elxr.jpl.nasa.gov da...@jato.jpl.nasa.gov ...usc!elroy!dxh
Truth (n.) - the most deadly weapon ever discovered by humanity. Capable
of destroying entire perceptual sets, cultures, and realities. Outlawed
by all governments everywhere. Possession is normally punishable by death.
James Alexander Chokey
Ron Newman <rne...@media.mit.edu> wrote:
>In article <7gq8=b=@dixie.com> j...@dixie.com (John De Armond) writes:
>>I urge the net to REJECT this proposal and vote NO for the following
>>reasons:
>>
>>* There is no such thing as an issue uniquely of concern to the US.
>> US issues ARE world issues.
>
>Excuse me, but that's the most arrogant thing I've read here in
>months. How would it sound if you substituted "Bulgaria" for "US"
>in the above sentence?
It would be just as true if one did. We don't live in an age
where "national" issues are just of concern to one group of people who live
in one place. And I'm not talking about some sort of touchy-feely,
"We're all big global village," stuff either. The fact is that people's
interests are not limited to the politics, culture, sports, entertainment,
etc. of their own little part of the world. This is particularly true
on Usenet, which is even more cosmopolitan than the rest of the world.
-- Jim C.
==========================================================================
| James A. Chokey jch...@leland.stanford.edu |
| |
| Alas! Coquettes are but too rare. |
| -- Disraeli |
==========================================================================
Mike Duncan
Alan Brown <al...@papaioea.manawatu.planet.co.nz> wrote:
>In article <7gq8=b=@dixie.com>, John De Armond <j...@dixie.com> wrote:
>
>>* There is no such thing as an issue uniquely of concern to the US.
>> US issues ARE world issues.
>
>Fuck off and die, John, you USA-centric asshole
Koan: What's the difference between a post that's obviously a troll,
and one which might possibly be sincere, but which is still too stupid
to bother following up?
--
mdu...@sugar.neosoft.com finger for pgp key; too long for .sig file
"I've had it up to HERE with the likes of you people!" "Gee whiz!"
Trif
Sean V. Kelley <kel...@ede.sanders.lockheed.com> wrote:
> [...]
>|.... it will keep the name space pollution *for non-US readers* down. US
>|readers have become used to having the Big 7+alt as their personal play
>|ground - to hell with the rest of the world. Tons of groups have been
>|created that non-US readers just don't care about (hint: US football
>|teams don't have that big of an international following).
> [...]
>
>|--
>|Benjamin Franz
>
>
>So under a hypothetical us.* hierarchy, would alt.devilbunnies go
>under us.pets.rabbits.rpg.devilbunnies instead, so as to prevent
>internet account holders in the US from using alt as their personal
>playground? :)
Is there something about alt.devilbunnies that is US specific? I was
under the impression that alt.devilbunnies didn't have much to do with
US specific stuff.
Sean V. Kelley
No of course not, I was just winding him up. Devilbunnies are a world-
wide concern. And don't you forget it! :)
Steinkoenig, Marc J.
>In article <1994Jul25.1...@news.media.mit.edu>,
>Ron Newman <rne...@media.mit.edu> wrote:
>>In article <7gq8=b=@dixie.com> j...@dixie.com (John De Armond) writes:
>>>I urge the net to REJECT this proposal and vote NO for the following
>>>reasons:
>>>
>>>* There is no such thing as an issue uniquely of concern to the US.
>>> US issues ARE world issues.
>>
>>Excuse me, but that's the most arrogant thing I've read here in
>>months. How would it sound if you substituted "Bulgaria" for "US"
>>in the above sentence?
>
>
> It would be just as true if one did. We don't live in an age
>where "national" issues are just of concern to one group of people who live
>in one place. And I'm not talking about some sort of touchy-feely,
>"We're all big global village," stuff either. The fact is that people's
>interests are not limited to the politics, culture, sports, entertainment,
>etc. of their own little part of the world. This is particularly true
>on Usenet, which is even more cosmopolitan than the rest of the world.
>
I agree... surprisingly.
I know what you're going to say, "Here comes that a**hole foreigner who's
going to go off insulting the USA again.", well that's NOT what I'm here for.
I support a us.* heirarchy for the reason that there is a de.* hirearchy and
so on. While Americans do dominate the net by a large majority, I think that
even you, the most obnoxious race that has ever polluted the face of the
planet with it's festering presence, deserves a forum for issues pertaining to
America. This isn't so much for the Americans, they can and do dominate
other newsgroups and post their own garbage. This is because as you leave the
U.S., an interesting thing begins to happen, PEOPLE ARE ACTUALLY INTERESTED IN
AMERICA! Don't ask me why, personally I think you people are the most borring
and inane group since The Brady Bunch, but people actually watch American T.V.
shows, read American newspapers, and listen to GOD AWFUL American music! If
they are going to do this, they might as well opt to carry the us.* heirarchy
in which, *hopefully*, these things are being discussed as a package deal.
This might actually turn out to be a viable news heirarchy in which Americans
can behave in a civilized manner as they do in other G7 heirarchies instead of
the alt. and talk. which are a haven to the lowest common denomonater of
western scum. Besides, I will confess that although America has no culture,
it does have issues and in today's world, issues are the only things which
really matter. Culture is just a formality.
Relax, at least you guys aren't as bad as the French.
M. Steinkoenig
------------------------------------------------
- One day I'll get a properly anti-american sig-
------------------------------------------------
John Stanley
Scott Pallack <sky...@satelnet.org> wrote:
>In any case, I support the creation of the us.* heirarchy.
In case nobody was looking, it already exists.
Benny Amorsen
news.admin.misc, but I assume this debate is there, too. I found this
thread in alt.config, and thought it more or less appropriate
there. soc.culture.usa deserves to see it, as most of my comments
really belong there, I think.
>>>>> "JDA" == John De Armond <j...@dixie.com> writes:
JDA> [...]
JDA> The fact of the matter is, yes, people everywhere are interested
JDA> in OJ
I have yet to meet the first person in Denmark who is interested in
OJ. Maybe all the people I meet just have a very limited horizon
*laugh*.
JDA> and people are interested in the developing US health care
JDA> debacle because what happens in the US tends to later happen
JDA> elsewhere AND because the rest of the world is reliant for the
JDA> most part on U.S. medical developments.
*sigh* I cannot believe I am reading this. I have a hard time
commenting without insulting someone personally. I will just insult
everyone living in the USA instead *smile*. - If any of you really are
offended, maybe you really should start thinking:
You people of the United States of America take yourself _way_ too
seriously. The health care system in the USA may be deteriorating, but
was there really any in the first place?
"reliant for the most part on U.S. medical developments." *shakes head
in wonder* - I guess all those European scientists are just drinking
coffee and chatting about OJ Simpson...
I am going to use the term "American", because "USAn" really does not
look like a word. I apologize to people from other parts of America.
Personally, I cannot care less for American sports, American politics
(except American foreign politics. I really wish I did not have to
worry about those.), American culture etc.
It is, of course, necessary to know something of American politics and
culture. Just as it is necessary to know something of the politics and
culture of every major part of the world. OJ is IMHO _not_ included in
that necessary knowledge, and I could say the same of a lot of other
subjects. Those few Danes who really care should get the us.*
hierachy. If us.* becomes available to me, I will tell Emacs to
pretend it does not exist. Fortunately, that is easy.
In reality, I think the "Internet community" should start looking at
FIDOnet to see how things really could be managed. The *_R23.PUB
conferences are thriving, and if someone wants a wider audience, the
international conferences are available. I just wish FIDO was not so
damned slow... - Speed is the only advantage Internet News has when
compared to FIDO echomail.
JDA> [...]
JDA> The us.* heirarchiy is a BAD idea even ignoring the terrible
JDA> implementation proposal and should be voted DOWN.
No, PLEASE! I beg you. Wander off to the us.* when you want to speak
of matters of local interest. Distribute that hierachy as much as you
want - I just want to be able to kill it all with a line in my Emacs
configuration.
[...]
--
Email: amo...@daimi.aau.dk
WWW: <A HREF="http://www.daimi.aau.dk/~u930617/">Benny's homepage</A>
David L Pinyan
: In article <3112kf$9...@sefl.satelnet.org>,
: Scott Pallack <sky...@satelnet.org> wrote:
: >In any case, I support the creation of the us.* heirarchy.
: In case nobody was looking, it already exists.
We carry 28 us.groups. Since they do exist, it seems the problem
is that some sites don't carry the us.* groups. Why not ask/persuade
these sites to carry them? Or is there something I'm missing?
Dave"its a grand ol' flag it's a ..."Pinyan
--
"I definitely agree that this generation has little appreciation
for history, but the moon landing was not a particularly important
event" Jonathon Sheir
J.D. Falk
> rdip...@qualcomm.com (Ron "Asbestos" Dippold) said
>
> > FIRST CALL FOR VOTES (of 2)
> > Proposal for the creation of a new us.* hierarchy
>
> I urge the net to REJECT this proposal and vote NO for the following
> reasons:
>
> * There is no such thing as an issue uniquely of concern to the US.
> US issues ARE world issues.
A number of foreigners (for lack of a better term) have publicly
disagreed with that, and even flamed Americans for holding that attitude.
> * Regional distributions have failed precisely because people elsewhere
> are interested in the internal matters of the US, the states,
> universities and even company distributions. I get replies from
> all over the world to posts in the ga.* groups.
Is there something wrong with this? See, the newsadmin at any site has
the option to not carry any heirarchy -- those admins who feel their
users don't have any interest in the us.* heirarchy just simply won't
carry it.
> * Given that any us.* heirarchy will be distributed throughout the net,
> all the heirarchy will do is duplicate other groups, pollute the
> namespace, cause even more crossposting than now exists and
> needlessly add groups that must be read in order to follow topics.
This was touched upon in the proposal, and discussed in depth in the
discussion following the RFD. There is currently no wish to duplicate
any other group, no matter how much it really _should_ have been in a
local heirarchy.
> * No one has proposed ANY specific group which would merit an attempt
> at a US-only distribution. The broad examples cited in this
> proposal such as TV shows, politics and so on all fail because
> American TV shows, politics and so on ARE of interest to the rest of
> the world, as are the opinions of Americans.
The cable network Comedy Central is transmitted via two of the Galaxy
satellites, which can only be received by dishes in the North American
continent (and some assorted nearby islands.) alt.tv.comedy-central was
proposed in alt.config, and I and some others were suggesting waiting a
little while so it could be put in the new heiararchy.
> * New rules are being proposed by a new defacto cabal that replaces
> the voting system that has worked well for the most part, with
> a system of "bosses" who control what gets created and what doesn't.
> And it replaces defined criteria for passage or failure with
> the "judgement" of the bosses. It replaces the will of the users
> with the will of a few men sitting on high. This is the antithesis
> of the net spriit.
The cabal does not replace voting -- go read the proposal again.
> * The proposed group creation criteria is most unsatisfactory. The
> newly formed cabal proposes to replace the current vote with an
> "interest poll" whereby if 100 people sorta indicate an interest
> in the group it is created regardless of the number of negative
> votes. This is NOT the way to create new groups.
Why not? Please explain in greater detail.
> * The makeup of the cabal has been decreed from the cabal and no
> procedure for removing or replacing members is contemplated in
> this proposal. The highly controversial nature of several of
> the proposed cabal members combined with no mechanism for removal
> almost guarantees a spoils system with no checks and balances
> at all. "Piss me off and your group fails" isn't the way to
> run the net.
The makeup of the cabal was decreed by the mailing list. I am a member
of the mailing list; I am not part of the Coordinating Committee.
> * This vote is being conducted in a very abnormal manner, without the
> usual CFD discussion period. If changes are needed in the current
> group creation process, the proper way is to implement them
> in accordance with the old procedures until those procedures
> are formally changed. Change via fiat is again the antithesis
> of the net culture.
What is the normal manner for a local heirarchy?
> For all those reasons and more, I urge everyone to REJECT this proposal
> and vote NO. This is a BAD heirarchy and a BAD proposal and deserves to
> die.
You are entitled to your opinion.
> John De Armond, WD4OQC, Marietta, GA j...@dixie.com
> Performance Engineering Magazine. Email to me published at my sole discretion
I hereby officially deny you the right to publish this message in any
for-profit publication. Contact me privately for the phone number of my
lawyer if need be.
------------------------------------<jdf...@cais.com>-------------
"The belief that enhanced understanding will necessarily stir a
nation to action is one of mankind's oldest illusions."
-Anonymous ('Hacker's Law')
Gregory M. Paris
> "Ignorant of how the net works." It is you who are ignorant, sirrah;
>sites that _want_ us.* will get it. Sites that want [anything] without the
>us-centric crap will be able to have it.
What? You say that "us-centric crap" will no longer appear anywhere
other than in us.*? WOW! Tell me, how is that guaranteed?
--
Greg Paris <pa...@merlin.dev.cdx.mot.com>
Motorola Information Systems Group, 20 Cabot Blvd, Mansfield, MA 02048-1193
"Your Plastic Pal who's fun to be with." TM Sirius Cybernetics
These posts are self-disclamatory.
Captain Nerd
Steinkoenig, Marc J. <st...@rosie.uh.edu> wrote:
>I know what you're going to say, "Here comes that a**hole foreigner who's
>going to go off insulting the USA again.", well that's NOT what I'm here for.
Who, us? Naaaaaaaaa.
>I support a us.* heirarchy for the reason that there is a de.* hirearchy and
>so on. While Americans do dominate the net by a large majority, I think that
>even you, the most obnoxious race that has ever polluted the face of the
>planet with it's festering presence, deserves a forum for issues pertaining to
>America. This isn't so much for the Americans, they can and do dominate
>other newsgroups and post their own garbage. This is because as you leave the
>U.S., an interesting thing begins to happen, PEOPLE ARE ACTUALLY INTERESTED IN
>AMERICA! Don't ask me why, personally I think you people are the most borring
>and inane group since The Brady Bunch, but people actually watch American T.V.
>shows, read American newspapers, and listen to GOD AWFUL American music! If
Oh, don't worry, it just means the subliminals are working. Just
sit back, click on the fehrsehen, and join us.... join us.... join
us....
>they are going to do this, they might as well opt to carry the us.* heirarchy
>in which, *hopefully*, these things are being discussed as a package deal.
>This might actually turn out to be a viable news heirarchy in which Americans
>can behave in a civilized manner as they do in other G7 heirarchies instead of
>the alt. and talk. which are a haven to the lowest common denomonater of
>western scum. Besides, I will confess that although America has no culture,
>it does have issues and in today's world, issues are the only things which
>really matter. Culture is just a formality.
>
>Relax, at least you guys aren't as bad as the French.
>
Damn, and here I was, all ready to shout, "We're number 1! We're
number 1! Woooooooo! Woooooooo! Woooooooo!" Scheisse.
>
>M. Steinkoenig
>
>------------------------------------------------
>- One day I'll get a properly anti-american sig-
>------------------------------------------------
>
Oh, I'm waiting with bated breath, let me tell you. When you
get one, be sure to let me know, I'll alert the Media.
Cap.
--
===============================================================================
= Internet: cpt...@access.digex.net = I am responsible for my own opinions. =
= AOL: CptNerd = Agree, disagree, ignore. I don't care.=
===============================================================================
Aaron Priven
>who the hell are you to try and tell
>people what they can and cannot read?
I think you yourself need to reread the CFV again, in which it says
that us.* groups will not be limited to U.S. sites only, but will be
available to expatriates and others interested in the U.S. Newsgroup
heirarchies are classification tools, nothing more. Many feel this
classification will be useful.
=Aaron=
--
Aaron Priven; Santa Clara, CA, USA. aar...@netcom.com, aa...@rail2000.org.
"ILLUSTRATIONS -- The scenes that illustrate this book are all about us.
For illustrations, please look closely at real cities. While you are
looking, you might as well also listen, linger, and think about what
you see." -- Jane Jacobs, _The Death and Life of Great American Cities_
Alan Coopersmith
|
|(Oxford type temporarily resident at UCBerkeley which for some mysterious
Probably because no one's asked for it. Lord knows we get almost every
other regional heirarchy on the planet here...
--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alan Coopersmith Internet: al...@ocf.berkeley.edu
U.C. Berkeley Open Computing Facility Bitnet: alanc@ucbocf
James Alexander Chokey
>snow...@xmission.com (Snowhare) writes:
>
>people are interested in the
>developing US health care debacle because what happens in the US tends
>to later happen elsewhere
How ironic. Virtually all other industrialized democracies have
had national health care programs in place for decades. The National
Health Service Act was passed in Britain in 1946. In terms of national
health care, the U.S. is about a half-century behind the times.
Fridrik Skulason
>proposal and should be voted DOWN.
Which would leave the US as the only country without a national hierarchy....
why do you want that ?
-frisk
JACOBS DRU THOMAS
on these committee members before giving them control over a
new hierarchy.
To the committee members: Let's see some resumes, your mailing
(home) address and phone number (just in case we have to hold
you accountable for your actions in person).
In just a few minutes I've already rounded up 10 NO! votes from
people at school. There will be many more from Colorado as soon
as I reach out on my vast mailing list at school and at work. This
proposal has to crash and burn. And I totally dedicate myself to
see that it does.
From the Boulder Free Zone, (Free from a bureaucratic us.* anarchy)
Tony
Ian G Batten
Snowhare <snow...@xmission.com> wrote:
> Oh really? I am *sure* that everyone in Europe is absolutely fascinated
> by the saga of say OJ Simpson, 20 year has been player of US football?
The BBC appear to be. Can't move for the bloody stuff.
ian
Lennart Regebro
>rdip...@qualcomm.com (Ron "Asbestos" Dippold) said
>> FIRST CALL FOR VOTES (of 2)
>> Proposal for the creation of a new us.* hierarchy
>I urge the net to REJECT this proposal and vote NO for the following
>reasons:
>* There is no such thing as an issue uniquely of concern to the US.
> US issues ARE world issues.
>* Regional distributions have failed precisely because people elsewhere
> are interested in the internal matters of the US,
>* No one has proposed ANY specific group which would merit an attempt
> at a US-only distribution. The broad examples cited in this
> proposal such as TV shows, politics and so on all fail because
> American TV shows, politics and so on ARE of interest to the rest of
> the world, as are the opinions of Americans.
Ooooh. This guy is FUNNY. I laughed my pants off. Perfect impersonation of
really stupid american-centric moron, who actually believes that the US of A
is a blessing to all the world, and that the president is the closest thing to
god since Jesus.
"Hey, why can't we rule the Internet too? Operation net-storm!"
John De Armond
>The recent *.zoophilia controversy is a case in point. The proposers stated
>bluntly that they had been told they would take the name they were
>given, or they would not get a proposal at all. No other names would be
>allowed for consideration.
>This completely overrode the normal RFD naming discussion, and implicitly
>the CFV procedures well, by fiat. The emotional charge behind the issue of
>the group itself obscured this over-riding of Big 7 convention.
>There have been other cases where Tale has overridden the explict
>procedures (the comp.telcom.* wars for example). There is no provision I
>know of for these executive procedural overides in the Big 7 group creation
>guidelines - but they happen anyway.
Indeed, he did the same thing regarding naming with comp.dcom.telecom.tech
which WAS the triggering event for that flamewar that ultimately lead
to him overriding the guidelines yet again and conducting another vote
in an attempt to fix his f*ckup. While I was on the "winning" side of
the c.d.t.t war, I was and continue to be greatly disturbed by the
method Lawrence used to "resolve" the problem. Had the dictator
not interefered with the democratic process of selecting a name for
that group, the whole flamefest would have been avoided.
Do we really want this to happen on EVERY us.* group?
John
--
John De Armond, WD4OQC, Marietta, GA j...@dixie.com
Performance Engineering Magazine. Email to me published at my sole discretion
Respect the VietNam Vet, for he has survived every attempt by this country
to kill him.
John De Armond
>In article <7gq8=b=@dixie.com> j...@dixie.com (John De Armond) writes:
>>I urge the net to REJECT this proposal and vote NO for the following
>>reasons:
>>
>>* There is no such thing as an issue uniquely of concern to the US.
>> US issues ARE world issues.
>Excuse me, but that's the most arrogant thing I've read here in
>months. How would it sound if you substituted "Bulgaria" for "US"
>in the above sentence?
Nope, not arrogant, just the facts. How many people in the world
do you think cares what Bulgaria is doing with regard to health care?
military actions? Elections? Internal politics? Economic matters?
If you're answer is "practically none", you would be correct.
Whether you like it or not or whether you are embarrased by it or
not, the US IS the world leader and therefore people elsewhere
are interested in what goes on here. And in case this subtlty has
escaped you, the issue is whether there are any proposed us.*
newsgroups which WOULD remain uniquely within the US distribution
because no one else is interested. I've yet to see one.
mathew
You must be watching BBC1 then. Stick to BBC2 and Channel 4, that's
my guideline.
I only found out last weekend what OJ Simpson supposedly did. I
wouldn't have found out at all, but it was mentioned in the context of a
newspaper article about capital punishment. I still don't know any of
the details, and frankly I'm completely bored by the OJ Simpson thing
even after that minimal exposure. Some American you've never heard of
killed some other American you've never heard of. That's world news?
mathew
--
http://www.mantis.co.uk/~mathew/
Looking for: Bug-tracking systems for UNIX, DOS and Windows which aren't GNATS
mathew
>rne...@media.mit.edu (Ron Newman) writes:
>>Excuse me, but that's the most arrogant thing I've read here in
>>months. How would it sound if you substituted "Bulgaria" for "US"
>>in the above sentence?
>
>Nope, not arrogant, just the facts. How many people in the world
>do you think cares what Bulgaria is doing with regard to health care?
How many people outside the USA do you think give a flying fuck what
the USA is doing with regard to health care?
>military actions? Elections? Internal politics? Economic matters?
Mmm, I'm just so keen to hear about who's running for Senator in
Indiana this year. I can't wait to hear what inflation is running at
in Kansas. Such global issues are clearly of worldwide interest.
mathew
[ "I like to watch 'Baywatch'. Not for any unpleasant reason... just
because every now and then it's nice to watch an American being
drowned." -- Jack Dee ]
Bob Sloane
[Gratuitous flame delete]
> ... The fact of the matter is, yes, people
> everywhere are interested in OJ and people are interested in the
> developing US health care debacle because what happens in the US tends
> for the most part on U.S. medical developments.
If folks elsewhere are interested, then they can get a feed of the
us.* groups. If they are not interested, then can can NOT get them,
which is the point of all this.
> But even if my
> preceeding sentence were not true, who the hell are you to try and tell
> people what they can and cannot read?
No one is proposing restricting information, they just want to classify it.
Anyone who wants one can get a us.* feed, just as many folks in the US
get de.*, fj.*, uk.*, etc.
> Just
> an interest of foreign interest in U.S. affairs, I run a news-over-mail
> gateway to a similar site in the UK. This gateway is in place to give
> the UK readers access to local and regional newsgroups that they can't
> get through their restrictive, centrally controlled news feed.
I also feed several groups to uk sites. That shows that they can get
any groups they want. Is that your point?
--
USmail: Bob Sloane, University of Kansas Computer Center, Lawrence, KS, 66045
E-mail: slo...@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu, slo...@ukanvax.bitnet, AT&T: (913)864-0444
Dave Sill
>I agree with the call to vote NO! Let have a background check
>on these committee members before giving them control over a
>new hierarchy.
Sigh. The time to ask for sure information was *two*weeks*ago* when the RFD was
posted. I, for one, would be happy to have my background explored. But to
suggest that people vote against the proposal now, pending the availability of
background information is irresponsible.
>To the committee members: Let's see some resumes, your mailing
>(home) address and phone number (just in case we have to hold
>you accountable for your actions in person).
Ooh, is that a threat?
>In just a few minutes I've already rounded up 10 NO! votes from
>people at school. There will be many more from Colorado as soon
>as I reach out on my vast mailing list at school and at work. This
>proposal has to crash and burn. And I totally dedicate myself to
>see that it does.
Some people are constructive, others are destructive.
--
Dave Sill (d...@ornl.gov)
Martin Marietta Energy Systems, Workstation Support
URL http://www.dec.com/pub/DEC/DECinfo/html/dsill.html
E...@ib.rl.ac.uk
>on these committee members before giving them control over a
>new hierarchy.
Dave Laurence? They must be some net.nobodies.
>In just a few minutes I've already rounded up 10 NO! votes from
>people at school. There will be many more from Colorado as soon
>as I reach out on my vast mailing list at school and at work. This
>proposal has to crash and burn. And I totally dedicate myself to
>see that it does.
Everyone knows that the whole world is interested in OJ Simpson
>From the Boulder Free Zone, (Free from a bureaucratic us.* anarchy)
>
>Tony
Inigo Surguy e...@ib.rl.ac.uk
Michael Rothstein
>Whether you like it or not or whether you are embarrased by it or
>not, the US IS the world leader and therefore people elsewhere
>are interested in what goes on here. And in case this subtlty has
>escaped you, the issue is whether there are any proposed us.*
>newsgroups which WOULD remain uniquely within the US distribution
>because no one else is interested. I've yet to see one.
soccer;
universal health care;
memory chip production;
teen age education (though we did win the last math olimpiad :-))
quality automobile production (though rumor has it the quality is
coming up again)
care for the environment
universal respect for minorities
employment protection
electronics production in general
fine cuisine (hamburghers beat fine french cuisine every day, that is why
they have a MacDonalds in the Camps Elysees :-) :-))
fine watch manufacture
:-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-)
As a matter of fact, every single one of the topics mentioned above is done
better or cheaper elsewhere than in the US. Please get off your arrogance
and really look at what is happening overseas.
I will grant you that the US does lead the world in some issues, but by no
means all of them; in addition, there are quite a few things which are
absolutely irrelevant overseas: here are some examples:
a) Football
b) The college greek system
c) US College life in general
d) US fascination with violence (though it is spreading)
e) US prudishness.
Y'know, if it weren't for this flamewar, I wouldn't have voted :-).
--
Michael Rothstein (Kent State U)| Any similarity between Kent State's opinions
(roth...@mcs.kent.edu) | and my opinions is strictly coincidential.
This line intentionally filled with a message which says that this line is intentionally filled with a message which says that this line is intentionally filled with a message which says that this line is intentionally filled with a HELP!! I CAN'T STOP!!
John Stanley
Fridrik Skulason <fr...@complex.is> wrote:
>Which would leave the US as the only country without a national hierarchy....
>why do you want that ?
The last time I got into a debate about "national" hierarchies, I was
told that the hierarchy existed so that people could discuss things in
their own language. That was after I pointed out the duplication of
groups that existed.
So, is we to believe that we needs a US hierarchy so us can discuss
things in our own language?
Lee Rudolph
u93...@dianthus.daimi.aau.dk (Benny Amorsen), who writes
(among much else):
>In reality, I think the "Internet community" should start looking at
>FIDOnet to see how things really could be managed.
Thanks for the suggestion! Joel, are you taking notes?
Lee Rudolph
Neil Readwin
# are interested in the internal matters of the US, the states,
# universities and even company distributions. I get replies from
# all over the world to posts in the ga.* groups.
From this I infer that events in GA are of interest to the rest of the world
and the GA groups should be abolished and such traffic should be redirected
into the big 7.
--
nrea...@micrognosis.co.uk Phone: +1 718 273 8234
Anything is a cause for sorrow that my mind or body has made
Jamie Gritton
> To the committee members: Let's see some resumes, your mailing
> (home) address and phone number (just in case we have to hold
> you accountable for your actions in person).
==========================
RESUME
James Gritton
Current Employment:
System admin.
Duties (among others): Usenet news admin
==========================
It goes on from there, but you wouldn't be interested in the
rest...
Mailing (home) address:
gri...@byu.edu (yes, I read this from home too).
Phone number:
I don't think so.
Oh, by the way... :-) :-) :-)
> From the Boulder Free Zone, (Free from a bureaucratic us.* anarchy)
Bureaucratic anarchy? Hmm...
--
James Gritton - gri...@byu.edu - I disclaim - "
HALLAM-BAKER Phillip
|>rdip...@qualcomm.com (Ron "Asbestos" Dippold) said
|>
|>> FIRST CALL FOR VOTES (of 2)
|>> Proposal for the creation of a new us.* hierarchy
|>* There is no such thing as an issue uniquely of concern to the US.
|> US issues ARE world issues.
Twaddle.
|>* No one has proposed ANY specific group which would merit an attempt
|> at a US-only distribution. The broad examples cited in this
|> proposal such as TV shows, politics and so on all fail because
|> American TV shows, politics and so on ARE of interest to the rest of
|> the world, as are the opinions of Americans.
Hmm, the opinions of some Americans may be but I'm sorry to disillusion you.
The rest of the world is not too interested by the infantile "Greatest
Country on earth" crap that many of your college undergrads tend to spend their
time on.
We are not that enamoured of your constitution either that we want to see it
posted three times a week as if spouting dogma were an argument. We couldn't
give a toss about the Federalist papers either. Few of the people spouting
them understand the arguments put forward in any case. In any case there must
always be a question mark over the judgment of a man who challenges a better
shot to a duel.
And you can most definitely keep your gun loonies to yourselves. While many
people outside the USA agree that arming them to the teeth is a very
good idea, a majority of them believe like I do that they should first be
locked in some secure instalation and only the last remaining survivor
allowed to leave. Perhaps this would be a good use for all the defunct missile
silos? Failing that the US hierarchy will do.
Ever wonder how many of the replies that C&S got told them where they can
stick their green card? I sent a gif in case they had trouble understanding
long words.
Don't think I'm being anti-US. I'm not. Its just that thinking the US to be
superior to all other countries tends to be a rare point of view outside the
US. Its actually a rare point of view inside the US, its just that a
disproportionate number of people beleiving it get elected to office. We
were watching CNN the other night and heard a member of a school board in
Florida that had just voted to teach its kids about the superiority of US
culture etc etc. The guy simply did not get the idea that there might be other
countries with equal achievements.
What is the achievement in putting a man on the moon compared to the
Greek achievements of inventing Democracy and Philosophy? Or the
building of the pyramids without the pulley wheel? Are the British
inventions of Coke Smelted Steel, the Steam Engine, Television and
Penicillin less worthy than US achievements? Is Paris less acomplished
in the arts than New York? Such questions should not be asked when the
intention is to prove the superiority of one side over another. There are
no superior countries just as there are no inferior countries or inferior
races. The poison of nationalist supremacy is as detestable as that of
the racist supremacy it often accompanies.
--
Phillip M. Hallam-Baker
Not Speaking for anyone else.
Jamie Gritton
>> In any case, I support the creation of the us.* heirarchy.
> In case nobody was looking, it already exists.
Oh, this again. Yes, it already exists after a fashion. But that
shouldn't be a reason to stop it from being dome right this time. (I
can say this, as I'm the one who did it worng last time :-).
David D Kilzer
s-ka...@ux4.cso.uiuc.edu (Kahler Stuart Glenn) writes:
[...]
>Personally, I'd rather that the US let alot of these countries fall flat on
>their ass, than keep sending american troops over to fuck with the situation.
>Hell, let north korea get the bomb and nuke the shit out of south korea. Does
>anyone here care? I'm sure south korea does.
[...]
Do you wear Nike shoes?
Dave
--
David D. Kilzer \ ST:TNG _Relics_
ddki...@iastate.edu / Capt. Montgomery Scott ("Scotty")
Computer Engineer 4 \ "I may be a captain by rank, but I never
Iowa State University, Ames / wanted to be anything but an engineer."
John De Armond
>Which would leave the US as the only country without a national hierarchy....
>why do you want that ?
Why would we want a us.* heirarchy when we already have the rest of
the net?
Bertil Jonell
The bad part of this suggestion is not that it would give the US
a national hierarchy, but that that hierarchy would be placed outside
the normal rules of the net, and group creation would be decided by
a cabal who is not in any way required to listen to the users.
The way it is written they might not always be able to push through
their own pet project (although 100 people saying they are interested
is easy to fix in most cases) but one member of the cabal can totally
block any group they dislike for personal reasons. Like perhaps that
someone they doesn't like is for it.
The US should have it's own hierarchy. Such a hierarchy should
follow the rules for the big seven.
>-frisk
-bertil-
--
Legal Notice: Exporting 'personal data' to non-European countries without
special license issued by the Computer Inspection Agency ('Datainspektionen')
for each specific case (message) is a crime. Personal data include names,
even my name. If you read this message outside Europe, I'm a criminal.
Martin H. Booda
|>
|> Yeah! Has anyone ever heard of this Jole Fur person before?
From the net.legends FAQ:
JOLIE FUR (aka Happy Pelt, aka Amused Hide) jf...@acdc.earl.edu
Normally found in talk.environment, alt.clothing.t-shirts and
alt.fan.furious. Former fashion designer; lost original account after having
been caught soliciting samples of endangered species to include in a line of
upscale underwear. Notorious for spamming with advertisements for mink garter
belts, nutria jockey shorts, and porcupine split-crotch panties for the s&m
market. Last reported researching method for transmitting scratch-n-sniff
ads via net.
--
Flies all green and buzzing on this network of despair.Who are all these people
who just post away in there? Are they crazy? Are they sainted? Are they zeroes
someone painted? It has never been explained since at first it was created, but
USENET,like a sin,requires naught but newgroupn' of everything that's ever bin.
Newgroup her,newgroup him.That's what's the deal we're dealing in.-Apols. to FZ
phil reed
>
>In article <7gq8=b=@dixie.com>, John De Armond <j...@dixie.com> wrote:
>
>>* There is no such thing as an issue uniquely of concern to the US.
>> US issues ARE world issues.
>
John has been killfile fodder for some time. If you insist on reading
his stuff, then just do the opposite of whatever he said and you're
probably safe. :-)
...phil
Albert Cheng
>I only found out last weekend what OJ Simpson supposedly did. I
>wouldn't have found out at all, but it was mentioned in the context of a
>newspaper article about capital punishment. I still don't know any of
>the details, and frankly I'm completely bored by the OJ Simpson thing
>even after that minimal exposure. Some American you've never heard of
>killed some other American you've never heard of. That's world news?
Just the same as the couples who killed a bunch and buried them
in the garden. Maybe the media are controlled by martins who
try to turn us all into useless couch potatoes.
Snowhare
: In article <310ei6$e...@xmission.xmission.com>,
My sincere sympathies.
I stand corrected: The BBC is fascinated by OJ.
I still have my doubts about their audience's interest level.
--
Benjamin Franz
Ron Asbestos Dippold
>Then how come Canada has to deal with all you yanks coming up here to
>try to cheat our health care system into paying for your illnesses?
There's a sucker born every minute (a very conservative estimate), and
two to take him or her. An enormous sucker, like someone giving away
health care for 'free', attracts a lot of people with a sweet tooth.
Quality is another issue.
--
Honest Officer, had I known my health stood in jeopardy I would never had lit
one. -- Maxim of the Hells Angels
Dave Sill
> The bad part of this suggestion is not that it would give the US
> a national hierarchy, but that that hierarchy would be placed outside
> the normal rules of the net,
There are no "normal" rule of the net. Independent hierarchies are free
to choose their own rules.
> and group creation would be decided by
> a cabal who is not in any way required to listen to the users.
No, group *names* are chosen by the committee--not the groups themselves.
> The way it is written they might not always be able to push through
> their own pet project (although 100 people saying they are interested
> is easy to fix in most cases) but one member of the cabal can totally
> block any group they dislike for personal reasons. Like perhaps that
> someone they doesn't like is for it.
Not true. We require consensus, not unanimity.
> The US should have it's own hierarchy.
Thanks.
> Such a hierarchy should
> follow the rules for the big seven.
Is there an se.* hierarchy? Does it follow the big seven rules?
John De Armond
>>people are interested in the
>>developing US health care debacle because what happens in the US tends
>>to later happen elsewhere
> How ironic. Virtually all other industrialized democracies have
>had national health care programs in place for decades. The National
>Health Service Act was passed in Britain in 1946. In terms of national
>health care, the U.S. is about a half-century behind the times.
And that's why everytime someone somewhere in the world has something
more serious than a hangnail, they show up on these shores pleading
"Help me." The US serves as that safety valve necessary to let the
2nd and 3rd world play with socialism. If the KKKlintons manage to
get their wish, that safety valve will be gone. That's why the rest of
the world is interested in what we're doing.
Anita Kilgour
>Whether you like it or not or whether you are embarrased by it or
>not, the US IS the world leader and therefore people elsewhere
>are interested in what goes on here. And in case this subtlty has
[badly concealed laughter] The USA is the world leader in health care.
Then how come Canada has to deal with all you yanks coming up here to
try to cheat our health care system into paying for your illnesses?
[sigh]
Anita
--
"So why exactly are you behaving in this extrodinary manner?"
-Rosencrantz, R&GAD.
har...@ulogic.com
>cri...@graywacke.WPI.EDU (Jesus Christ on XTC) writes:
>> "Ignorant of how the net works." It is you who are ignorant, sirrah;
>>sites that _want_ us.* will get it. Sites that want [anything] without the
>>us-centric crap will be able to have it.
>
>What? You say that "us-centric crap" will no longer appear anywhere
>other than in us.*? WOW! Tell me, how is that guaranteed?
Nothing on the net is guaranteed.
However, the theory of "the path of least resistance" should
help enormously.
If there is a place (hierarchy) for things us-centric, it is less likely
that a us-centric new group proposal will pass it's vote.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
But now I'm grasping |
that understanding | -Richard Hartman
is only part of love. | har...@uLogic.COM
Bob Chamberlain
>mat...@mantis.co.uk (mathew) writes:
>>In article <CtJID...@fulcrum.co.uk>, Ian G Batten <i...@fulcrum.co.uk> wrote:
>>>In article <310ei6$e...@xmission.xmission.com>,
>>>Snowhare <snow...@xmission.com> wrote:
>>>> Oh really? I am *sure* that everyone in Europe is absolutely fascinated
>>>> by the saga of say OJ Simpson, 20 year has been player of US football?
>>>
>>>The BBC appear to be. Can't move for the bloody stuff.
>>I only found out last weekend what OJ Simpson supposedly did. I
>>wouldn't have found out at all,
...but my vacation on pluto came to an end... ;^>
>>[...] Some American you've never heard of
>>killed some other American you've never heard of. That's world news?
Scary, ain't it? Maybe that's why no-one heard the ruckus in rwanda,
eh? Good excuse as any, i guess.
>[...] The defendant is
>facing _real_ jail time and the real possibility of the death penalty.
The irony is that, after years of studies showing that, by and large,
poor (read, monetarily-challenged) non-whites get nuked by it, the
system finally gets its hands on a rich guy, and true to form, he's
gotta be black. Well, i guess that's progress (of a sort). ;^> From
po' black folks, to po' white folks, to rich black folks... what's
left? Hmmmm. Maybe there's hope for america yet. ;^>
later: bob
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Bob Chamberlain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . bcha...@ccs.carleton.ca
Institute of Cynical Studies Carleton University
----------------------------------------------------------------------
When your opinions start to coincide with those of the majority,
it is time to reconsider your opinions. (paraphrase?) --- Mark Twain
======================================================================
har...@ulogic.com
>In article <CtJID...@fulcrum.co.uk>, Ian G Batten <i...@fulcrum.co.uk> wrote:
>>In article <310ei6$e...@xmission.xmission.com>,
>>Snowhare <snow...@xmission.com> wrote:
>>> Oh really? I am *sure* that everyone in Europe is absolutely fascinated
>>> by the saga of say OJ Simpson, 20 year has been player of US football?
>>
>>The BBC appear to be. Can't move for the bloody stuff.
>
>my guideline.
>
>I only found out last weekend what OJ Simpson supposedly did. I
>newspaper article about capital punishment. I still don't know any of
>the details, and frankly I'm completely bored by the OJ Simpson thing
>killed some other American you've never heard of. That's world news?
You're lucky you aren't >here<. They preempted the live basketball
CHAMPIONSHIP game in order to show us a half hour or so of OJ driving
the LA freeways. Can you say "boring"? Can you say "give us an update
when he changes lanes f'r chrissake but put the #$@(#@ game back on?"
*sheesh*
... but I digress ...
-Richard Hartman
har...@ulogic.COM
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
optimism - the belief that we live in the BEST of all possible worlds
pessimism - the belief that WE live in the best of all possible worlds
Tim Pierce
David Barr <ba...@pop.psu.edu> wrote:
>In article <313ev5$m...@gaia.ucs.orst.edu>,
>John Stanley <sta...@skyking.OCE.ORST.EDU> wrote:
>>So, is we to believe that we needs a US hierarchy so us can discuss
>>things in our own language?
>
>uk.*?
>ca.*?
>
>Doesn't Australia have a hierarchy?
aus.*, I believe. So do New England, New York, New Jersey,
California, the San Francisco Bay Area, Chicago, Texas, the
Pacific Northwest, Florida, Los Angeles, the District of
Columbia, and the Pioneer Valley in western Massachusetts.
Just to name a few off the top of my head. stanley.*,
anyone?
--
____ Tim Pierce / Crazy isn't so bad. I could get
\ / twpi...@unix.amherst.edu / used to this.
\/ (BITnet: TWPIERCE@AMHERST) / -- Mary Campbell
Melinda Shore
>John has been killfile fodder for some time. If you insist on reading
>his stuff, then just do the opposite of whatever he said and you're
>probably safe. :-)
One of John's earliest antics was to create a big bunch of
accounts for himself in order to inconvenience those who
wanted to put him in their killfiles. As a result, his was
probably the earliest entire site being killfiled,
predating AOL by a considerable amount.
John is not, however, in my killfile, which is probably a
good thing since he convinced me to vote "Yes" on the new
newsgroup hierarchy.
--
Melinda Shore - No Mountain Software - sh...@tc.cornell.edu
I DON'T SPEAK FOR CORNELL.
Software longa, hardware brevis.
Tim Pierce
In article <-ar8...@dixie.com>, John De Armond <j...@dixie.com> wrote:
>And in case this subtlty has
>escaped you, the issue is whether there are any proposed us.*
>newsgroups which WOULD remain uniquely within the US distribution
>because no one else is interested. I've yet to see one.
That's too bad, but I hardly think it a good reason to vote
against the hierarchy. If a preponderance of others agree
with you, then we're unlikely to get enough votes to warrant
the trouble of creating it at all.
If you have a reason why the hierarchy should *not* be
created, as opposed to a lack of reasons why it *should*,
then please let us know.
Tim Pierce
subthread has anything to do with anything.
In article <CtJEn...@cnsnews.colorado.edu>,
JACOBS DRU THOMAS <jac...@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> wrote:
>To the committee members: Let's see some resumes, your mailing
>(home) address and phone number (just in case we have to hold
>you accountable for your actions in person).
Uh, yeah. And while we're at it, let's have yours, too, so
we can order lots of free pizzas to your house.
Joel K. Furr
Martin H. Booda <bo...@lynx.navo.navy.mil> wrote:
>In article <16FFFE...@ib.rl.ac.uk>, E...@ib.rl.ac.uk writes:
>|> Yeah! Has anyone ever heard of this Jole Fur person before?
>
>From the net.legends FAQ:
>
>JOLIE FUR (aka Happy Pelt, aka Amused Hide) jf...@acdc.earl.edu
> Normally found in talk.environment, alt.clothing.t-shirts and
>alt.fan.furious. Former fashion designer; lost original account after having
>been caught soliciting samples of endangered species to include in a line of
>upscale underwear. Notorious for spamming with advertisements for mink garter
>belts, nutria jockey shorts, and porcupine split-crotch panties for the s&m
>market. Last reported researching method for transmitting scratch-n-sniff
>ads via net.
You forgot to list the stint Jolie did on the "Life With Kibo" soap opera
popular in the Massachusetts area (it runs only on WKBO, the PBS station
out of Martha's Vineyard).
Last episode I saw, Jolie had just pumped six bullets into John de Armond
(played on the show by Lieutenant Wilkes), who toppled backwards, over the
railing of the lighthouse, and down into the crashing surf. Jolie,
laughing maniacally, sprinted off into the night.
That was six weeks ago. Anyone seen any episodes since WKBO put the
series on hiatus to run their pledge drive?
-- J.
--
Joel Furr(ian): Armenian crook/criminal/wacko, Big Kahuna of alt.fan.lemurs,
Moderator of alt.folklore.suburban and comp.society.folklore, Co-Moderator
of soc.history.war.world-war-ii, and purveyor of cool net.collectibles.
Will create newsgroups for food. Order your Green Card Lawyers shirt today.
Tim Pierce
>jch...@leland.Stanford.EDU (James Alexander Chokey) writes:
>
>>In terms of national
>>health care, the U.S. is about a half-century behind the times.
>
>And that's why everytime someone somewhere in the world has something
>more serious than a hangnail, they show up on these shores pleading
>"Help me."
While I find this debate more fascinating than I can tell
you, I am afraid I fail to see its relevance to whether or
not a U.S.-specific netnews hierarchy should be created.
Humbly I suggest that you take this particular line of
argument to talk.politics.misc.
Jeff Scott Franzmann
>jch...@leland.Stanford.EDU (James Alexander Chokey) writes:
>
>
>> How ironic. Virtually all other industrialized democracies have
>>had national health care programs in place for decades. The National
>>Health Service Act was passed in Britain in 1946. In terms of national
>>health care, the U.S. is about a half-century behind the times.
>
>And that's why everytime someone somewhere in the world has something
>more serious than a hangnail, they show up on these shores pleading
>"Help me." The US serves as that safety valve necessary to let the
>2nd and 3rd world play with socialism. If the KKKlintons manage to
>get their wish, that safety valve will be gone. That's why the rest of
>the world is interested in what we're doing.
>
>John
What a charmingly naive notion! The crumbling health care system
in the United States the envy of the world? Were friends of mine enmeshed
within your archaic health care system, they would be dead. The man who
works at the Post Office here could not afford to pay for the open heart
surgery he has had, nor the subsequent operations he requires. In this
country, he is free from that worry. My former girlfriend would be dead,
unable to afford the diabetic supplies and followup care that she
requires, on top of the University education she seeks.
Your notion that the health care system in the United States is
this wonderful creation meant to benefit all is a crock. Canada's Health
Care system costs a lot more to the taxpayers, but at least the citizens
of this country do not have to take out a loan when they fall ill and
don't have Blue Cross or Blue Shield. As for this crock about line ups in
the hospitals and such that idiots like Rush Limbaugh constantly talk
about when they discuss Canada's health care system? Sure, a man may wait
three to six months for a transplant. In the States, unless he had
significant medical coverage and a lot of free cash, that man would be
dead. I'd rather be covered and wait then have no coverage and no hope.
Yes, Canada's Health Care system is flawed...there isn't a perfect
system out there. At least it makes an attempt to care about people as
opposed to the bottom line.
Sincerely,
Jeff Franzmann, Canadian and proud of it.
--
Kari Sutela
>If you're sick of hearing about the US, ignore it.
But that's the whole point of the us.* hierarchy, isn't it: ignoring
US specific subjects would be so much easier if the groups were under
a single, nice hierarchy.
> I'm getting entirely
>sick to death of hearing every time the queen sneezes
Have you seen british netusers repeatedly demanding a world wide group
about their dear queen?
--
Kari Sutela sut...@utu.fi
John De Armond
>In article <7gq8=b=@dixie.com>, j...@dixie.com (John De Armond) writes:
>|>* There is no such thing as an issue uniquely of concern to the US.
>|> US issues ARE world issues.
>Twaddle.
I offer this snipper of poignant commentary as exhibit A to support my
above assertion. Here we have a venerable parade of foreigners spewing
their anti-American prattle in an attempt to interefer with and affect
the outcome of a strictly internal U.S. matter.
I rest my case.
A. M. Mughal
]
]rdip...@qualcomm.com (Ron "Asbestos" Dippold) said
]
]] FIRST CALL FOR VOTES (of 2)
]] Proposal for the creation of a new us.* hierarchy
]
]I urge the net to REJECT this proposal and vote NO for the following
]reasons:
Let me send you a few comments before I decide to send in any
vote. I will appreciate if you can respond back.
]* There is no such thing as an issue uniquely of concern to the US.
] US issues ARE world issues.
I would say, thats a very arogant attitude to say the least.
I think it is trivial to show that US =/= World. If you have done
any foreign travel or read newspapers from overseas, you will be
surprised to find US is just one country out of close 200 others.
Lets get out of the limited view of the world. The world does not
revolve around us, although we will sure like it to be so :)
]* Regional distributions have failed precisely because people elsewhere
] are interested in the internal matters of the US, the states,
] universities and even company distributions. I get replies from
] all over the world to posts in the ga.* groups.
There are leaks in the way news servers handle distributions. I would
think it is due to misconfigured software. I have not seen local
newsgroups from my site leaking out anywhere. I think the credit would
go to the local news administrator (not me!) for properly installing
the news server software.
Okay, so there are leaks here and there, but mostly, if I want to
read de.* newsgroups, there is an hierarchy for it. I would say, there
is enough precedent in front of us. Here are a few examples,
uk.* fr.* de.* aus.*
Why not a us.* ?
]* Given that any us.* heirarchy will be distributed throughout the net,
Okay, lets take one thing at a time.
Yes, us.* heirarchy will be distributed throughout the net to ONLY
those who wish to carry us.* hierarchy, like any uk.* fr. one.
] all the heirarchy will do is duplicate other groups, pollute the
I think the RFD & CFV was pretty clear on it. It say, it would not
impose itself retroactively. So, I do not really see it duplicating
any existing newsgroups, other than following an already known
pattern. That is: having a xxx.announce.newgroup xxx.test etc etc.
Look at chinese.* hierarchy for example. They recently created about
12 some newsgroups. They didn't even ask for a vote for doing it :)
] namespace, cause even more crossposting than now exists and
I do not see how not creating us.* will cut down on cross-posting,
educating users might.
] needlessly add groups that must be read in order to follow topics.
Use a threaded newsreader :)
]* No one has proposed ANY specific group which would merit an attempt
] at a US-only distribution. The broad examples cited in this
I think about 30 some newsgroups were cited as examples. I believe
the proposed newsgroups are consistent with news.* uk.* fr.* de.*
and chinese.* hierarchy.
] proposal such as TV shows, politics and so on all fail because
] American TV shows, politics and so on ARE of interest to the rest of
] the world, as are the opinions of Americans.
Well... we disagree here... :) There are about 4.75 billion other
people in the world, I do not see them caring much about U.S.
]* New rules are being proposed by a new defacto cabal that replaces
] the voting system that has worked well for the most part, with
] a system of "bosses" who control what gets created and what doesn't.
] And it replaces defined criteria for passage or failure with
] the "judgement" of the bosses. It replaces the will of the users
] with the will of a few men sitting on high. This is the antithesis
] of the net spriit.
What alternate do you propose? A group of individuals rather than
one person ? You may have a point here. I think the view point
will differ from one person to another depending on their experiences
with David Lawrence. I have yet to object or doubt his impartiality.
]* The proposed group creation criteria is most unsatisfactory. The
] newly formed cabal proposes to replace the current vote with an
] "interest poll" whereby if 100 people sorta indicate an interest
] in the group it is created regardless of the number of negative
] votes. This is NOT the way to create new groups.
Did you discuss any alternatives during RFD ? It is kinda late to
object ... I don't know what can be done but I am very interested
to hear what do you suggest as alternative. I have couple of
alternatives as well. Maybe we should discuss them off-line?
]* The makeup of the cabal has been decreed from the cabal and no
] procedure for removing or replacing members is contemplated in
] this proposal. The highly controversial nature of several of
] the proposed cabal members combined with no mechanism for removal
] almost guarantees a spoils system with no checks and balances
] at all. "Piss me off and your group fails" isn't the way to
] run the net.
That would tie in with your previous point ? Right?
What members do you find highly controversial ?
]* This vote is being conducted in a very abnormal manner, without the
] usual CFD discussion period. If changes are needed in the current
I didn't keep track on how long RFD was run but I remember reading
the discussion...
] group creation process, the proper way is to implement them
] in accordance with the old procedures until those procedures
] are formally changed. Change via fiat is again the antithesis
] of the net culture.
Hmm... actually, I think you are not presenting facts here. The
reason is, I was able to find copies of RFDs on us.* proposal
from ftp.uu.net (dir /usenet/news.announce.newgroups
let me append the file here as well...
A.Mughal
[Standard Disclaimer] Flames:/dev/null
]
]For all those reasons and more, I urge everyone to REJECT this proposal
]and vote NO. This is a BAD heirarchy and a BAD proposal and deserves to
]die.
]
]John
]--
]John De Armond, WD4OQC, Marietta, GA j...@dixie.com
]Performance Engineering Magazine. Email to me published at my sole discretion
]Respect the VietNam Vet, for he has survived every attempt by this country
]to kill him.
=============== From ftp.uu.net ==================
From lin...@lonesome.com Thu May 14 12:37:25 1992
Xref: uunet news.announce.newgroups:2343 news.groups:50920 news.admin:21886
Newsgroups: news.announce.newgroups,news.groups,news.admin
Path: uunet!bounce-back
From: lin...@lonesome.com (Mark Linimon)
Subject: 2nd RFD: USA regional hierarchy
Message-ID: <1992May14.1...@uunet.uu.net]
Followup-To: news.groups
Sender: ta...@uunet.uu.net (David C Lawrence)
Organization: Lonesome Dove Computing Services, Austin, TX
Date: Thu, 14 May 1992 16:18:20 GMT
Approved: ta...@uunet.uu.net
Lines: 210
You may have seen postings that I've made about a local hierarchy for
the USA. Although I have certain reservations about it, I'm interested
in seeing this hierarchy get created. My concern is that the net will
only have one chance to create it, so we users and admins should give
some serious thought as to what problem we're really trying to solve,
and how we really want to proceed, before we create it. I'm hoping we
can create something that will move some inappropriate usa-centric
traffic out of the main hierarchies, create some new groups that will
useful to US readers, and perhaps increase the understanding of
Distributions and the nature of Usenet in the process.
So here's my thoughts and random brain-dump about usa.* or us.* [I have
a slight preference for the former, so I'll pick usa for purposes of
discussion, here. I'm unconvinced that the name choice is as important
as what'll go in it].
I strongly feel that this hierarchy will be big enough that we'll have
to use some kind of voting. I think the only kind that won't become
totally mired in controversy is the standard Usenet-style voting. There
is some, finite, newsreading population density beyond which newsgroup
management becomes a contentious issue. The regional hierarchies I get
(tx, austin, dfw) don't seem to suffer from that. From what I understand,
ba and ca _do_ suffer from it. My personal feeling is that usa will
quickly become big enough that it will have to have voting as well, or
we'll just be mired in arguments about procedure, resulting in fractured
distribution of the namespace.
In any case I think we have to resolve that issue _now_, before we start
discussing groups in usa.config. Whether usa.config is created by fiat
or not is of less concern for me (although people may claim that "since
usa.config was created without a vote, I can create usa.wazoo without a
vote, so there", hmm. I'd rather avoid that one.)
Note: I'm willing to conduct poll(s) for any and all of these groups,
once we get some consensus on how the groups in the hierarchy will be
managed. Until then some kind of formal vote, consider the discussion
quite preliminary.
Here's how I created my own initial wish-list of groups. First, I sat
down and scanned through the list of groups that are in the current
main hierarchies, as an exercise to see how usa-centric the current
namespace really _is_. I took the viewpoint of "Is there anything here
that is not of global interest to the world?"; or, more specifically,
"if I were in Europe, and had to pay for my feed, what would I _not_
want to see?". (Indeed a recent flap in rec.music.makers helped drive
this point home, for me).
I found it to be an eye-opening exercise. My own built-in bias about
how much Usenet is really UseAmeriNet only showed up very starkly after
going through the list. I quickly came up with about 30 groups that I
would have argued should have been created in usa.*, if it had previously
existed.
After I also threw in a few analogues to groups in tx.* and a few other
local hierarchies, here's what I came up with:
usa.announce.important General announcements of interest to USA. (Moderated)
usa.announce.newgroups Calls for USA newgroups & announcements of same. (Moderated)
usa.arts.tv The boob tube, its history, and past and current USA shows.
usa.arts.tv.soaps Postings about soap operas in the USA.
usa.config Postings of USA system down times and interruptions.
usa.forsale.computers Computers and computer equipment for sale in the USA.
usa.forsale.d Discussion engendered by items for sale in the USA.
usa.forsale.misc Short, tasteful postings about items for sale in the USA.
usa.groups Discussions and lists of newsgroups in the usa hierarchy.
usa.jobs.contract Discussions about contract labor in the USA.
usa.jobs.misc Discussion about USA employment, workplaces, careers.
usa.jobs.offered Announcements of positions available in the USA.
usa.jobs.resumes Postings of USA resumes and "situation wanted" articles.
usa.legal Legalities and the ethics of law in the USA.
usa.misc Various discussions not fitting in any other USA group.
usa.politics.misc Miscellaneous USA political discussions and ravings.
usa.politics.abortion Various USA discussions and arguments on abortion.
usa.sport.baseball Discussion about baseball in the USA.
usa.sport.baseball.college Baseball on the collegiate level in the USA.
usa.sport.basketball.college Hoops on the collegiate level in the USA.
usa.sport.basketball.misc Discussion about basketball in the USA.
usa.sport.basketball.pro Talk of professional basketball in the USA.
usa.sport.football.college US-style college football in the USA.
usa.sport.football.misc Discussion about American-style football.
usa.sport.football.pro US-style professional football.
usa.sport.misc Miscellaneous sports in the USA.
usa.taxes Tax laws and advice applicable to the USA.
usa.test Testing in the United States of America.
usa.usenet USENET in the United States of America.
usa.wanted.d Discussion engendered by usa.wanted.
usa.wanted.misc Short, tasteful posting of items wanted in the USA.
[Note: Some of my own axes to grind are ground in this list (the
replacement of the perpetually ambigous "news" by the unambiguous
"usenet"; the creation of *.[wanted|forsale].d, which if I ever get
the time, I'll propose for misc.*; and so forth.) I can be persuaded
I'm wrong about these.]
The real questions are: will people use these things to post into?
I'm primarily interested in whether this hierarchy, and these groups, will
_move_ traffic and/or have _useful_ traffic. I'm not interested in just
creating _more_ traffic. I have no plan to support a hierarchy of noise;
I'm hoping to forestall just that by this posting. If that's what it
turns into, count me out.
Folks will counter that this could all be dealt with by creating no new
newsgroups and simply insist that people use proper Distribution:
headers. While in general I agree, I doubt that even 10% of the current
newsreading/posting population has a clue about what _any_ of the headers
do, much less the Distribution: in particular. Folks with a thorough
computer background are becoming a rapidly dwindling minority on Usenet.
We have several alternatives: change the network and especially the
software to cope with it; start restricting access via more moderated
groups; or live with the noise (in decreasing order of my own preference).
Other issues of education that need to be addressed: people think of
the Distribution: header as a way to _add_ to the distribution their
article sees. In reality it is the opposite, a way to, as a courtesy,
restrict the distribution of the article only to those sites to whom
it will be relevant, and therefore probably won't mind paying for it.
Remember, the wide redistribution of all these messages comprising the
net, really relies on mutual courtesy between sites.
I've seen folks say "oh no, please post everything with world, it might
be useful to someone somewhere else." Actually, what these folks should
do is add all the Distributions they can get their hands on, to their
sys file, and let everyone else be a selective as they want to. In
other words, let _them_ carry the burden of getting everything, and let
everyone else manage their costs more conservatively. All IMHO again.
We will no doubt get responses from folks in (say) Europe that complain
that they really want to read the traffic in usa.wazoo (and possibly that
we shouldn't have created usa.wazoo because it will inconvenience them).
That's fine, but to be fair, they should have to carry the extra cost of
getting usa.wazoo to Europe themselves. The idea is not to have all of
Europe pay for carrying usa.wazoo by default, but only the folks that
really want to propagate it. And in turn, we have to make it clear to
folks in usa.wazoo that to be fair, if something's really a global issue,
that usa.wazoo is the wrong place to discuss it, so that our friends in
Europe don't miss out.
That's why I think it's so extremely important to get a good set of usa
newsgroups from day one. We want to make them specifically usa enough
that folks overseas won't complain that we've taken discussions that
really ought to be of global interest, private; but still make the groups
general enough to be useful to folks in the US.
Also, remember that (relatively) few of the Americans pay for their access,
while more of the Europeans see the cost very directly. This works in
our disfavo[u]r.
Two other items deserve some consideration as well. One is that, as
an experiment, there should be some way to remove groups. In the current
namespace practice, newsgroups live forever. There should be some
mechanism to delete them. Perhaps now's the time to try to generate
a consensus, rather than later. I'll throw out for discussion the
idea that the same voting mechanism be used to delete (or rename) groups
as to add them, with the extension that once a group is proposed for
either addition, deletion, or renaming, that whether the proposal
succeeds or fails, no further proposal can be made for the standard
6-month period. Splits and subsequent deletions wouldn't count in
this time period.
The second is to consider who ought to be allowed to propose groups,
and to participate in the polls on them. To me it seems best that one
would want to restrict participation to those who'll actually receive
the hierarchy. In the case of an existing hierarchy this is somewhat
clearer. What I'm trying to propose is a way to reduce the chance for
a situation where folks outside the geographic area create a group
inside it. Possibly to be fair, the initial voting should be limited
to folks within the USA, and as other folks around the world start
carrying it, they can join in. I doubt there's a way to enforce this
other than to ask politely, but plan for the worst case.
I've spent the time thinking and talking about this because I think it
will help increase the signal-to-noise ratio. If I thought it were just
going to create more volume, I wouldn't spend another second on it.
To bolster my arguments about _how_ it should be created, the only
comments I've gotten from news admins through email about my previous
postings, are that they're really skeptical about whether the hierarchy
will be worth carrying. So I don't see its wide propogation as necessa-
rily being a given; I think it'll depend on how good a job we do.
And since it sounds like people are going to create the hierarchy one
way or the other, at least we owe it a good shot.
To summarize, here's the main points I'm trying to make:
1. Newsgroups in the hierarchy should be created by the 2/3 with 100
mechanism, as in the standard Usenet hierarchies.
2. Careful thought should be given to the initial set of newsgroups.
3. A goal should be to segregate traffic from main hierarchy when
appropriate, so that folks overseas have greater control over which
articles they receive.
4. Careful thought should be given as to whether it's feasible for
traffic to migrate from other places in the net.
5. Posters should be educated about the usage of headers in messages,
and specifically the Distribution: header.
6. Careful thought should be given to a mechanism for removing
newsgroups. One idea is to treat newgroups, rmgroups, and renames
as newgroups are under the current rules.
7. Rights to participate in polling should lie within the geographic
area.
Ambitious? Probably. But again, I claim that Usenet is going to
have to evolve to cope with the rapidly increasing number of newsgroups.
It's time we tried something new.
Mark Linimon
--
Mark Linimon / Lonesome Dove Computing Services / Austin, Texas
{balkan,chinacat,uunet}!nominil!linimon || "...so you've got to pay attention,
lin...@lonesome.com || ...a D-10 can be the death of you."
From d...@de5.ctd.ornl.gov Tue Jul 12 15:07:26 1994
Path: uunet!bounce-back
From: d...@de5.ctd.ornl.gov (Dave Sill)
Newsgroups: news.announce.newgroups,news.groups,soc.culture.usa,alt.config
Subject: RFD: us.* hierarchy
Followup-To: news.groups
Date: 11 Jul 1994 23:42:56 -0400
Organization: Workstation Support, Oak Ridge National Lab
Lines: 156
Sender: ta...@uunet.uu.net
Approved: ta...@uunet.uu.net
Message-ID: <2vt3g0$o...@rodan.UU.NET]
Xref: uunet news.announce.newgroups:5310 news.groups:108146 soc.culture.usa:36828 alt.config:37841
[[ news.announce.newgroups moderator's note: while it is not normal to
have a proposal for a new top level hierarchy posted to
news.announce.newgroups and discussed in news.groups, I am making this
an exception because it could significantly impact the Big Seven and
alt.* hierarchies. -- tale ]]
The following text is the proposed text of a "Welcome to the us.*
Hierarchy" monthly article which would be posted to the proposed
us.newsgroups.announce newsgroup. A second file, "RFD: procedure for
creation of us.* Hierarchy newsgroups," is also being posted at the
same time as this article.
This proposal was worked out on the USA mailing list, run by Jamie
Gritton of Brigham Young University. The main author of the proposal is
Joel Furr. Extensive advice and suggestions were provided by David
Barr, Jamie Gritton, Mike Grubb, David Lawrence, Ed McGuire, Tim Pierce,
Dave Sill, and J. D. Falk.
This proposal is submitted for comment. After a few weeks, a final
proposal will be offered up for a poll, and if the poll indicates general
support for this plan, the hierarchy will be created.
What follows, as above, is the proposed "Welcome to the us.* Hierarchy"
article. Please also see the "Procedure for creation of us.* Hierarchy
newsgroups" article, posted to this group at the same time as this article.
--article begins--
Welcome to the us.* Hierarchy
INTRODUCTION:
The us.* hierarchy is being re-created. Over a year ago, several groups
in an attempted us.* hierarchy were created with little fanfare and low
propagation. These groups did not achieve wide popular support due to
their lack of support from UUNET and other influential sites, which
either didn't carry them or didn't include them in publicly available
checkgroups messages.
However, there is still a need for a hierarchy of groups dealing with
subjects of interest primarily to Americans. As such, a core group of
newsgroups to re-establish the us. hierarchy is being issued.
At this time, several us.* hierarchy groups from the previous attempt to
create the hierarchy _exist_, but none is received at more than 10% of
sites (according to Arbitron). In order to keep things orderly, these
groups will be considered bogus and identified in a regularly published
list by the moderator of us.newsgroups.announce, Dave Sill. If you
carry any us.* groups on your system at this time, you may wish to
delete them.
New groups in the us.*. hierarchy will be added after consultation with
an advisory naming committee (the "US Hierarchy Coordinating
Committee") and discussion in a 'us.newsgroups.discuss' newsgroup,
followed by an interest poll, if the proposer chooses to take things that
far. The function of the advisory committee, a group of seven veteran
news administrators and users, will be as advisors on names of groups in
order to help come up with good names that keep the us.* hierarchy well
organized and easily usable.
PHILOSOPHY AND CHARTER OF US.*:
The us.* hierarchy is intended for discussion of subjects peculiar to and
of interest mainly to Americans and residents of the United States of
America. It is *not* intended as a catch-all hierarchy for all groups
dealing with matters American; a self evident fact of late 20th-century
life is that many subjects pertaining to the USA are of worldwide
interest.
However, many subjects that have been proposed for groups in the Big 7
hierarchies (rec, comp, sci, misc, talk, soc, and news) and the alt.*
hierarchy are actually of interest mainly only to Americans: among these
are radio and television shows, entertainment personalities, some
politicians, some political issues, and so forth. These groups more
properly belong in a us.* hierarchy so that those sites which do not want
to receive US-specific traffic, as well as those sites and readers
specifically looking for US-specific traffic, may do so more easily.
Distribution of the us.* hierarchy will not be limited to sites in the USA,
however, so that Americans abroad and others with a particular interest
in the US may follow and participate in the discussions.
US.* HIERARCHY GROUP CREATION PROCESS:
See the file "Procedure for creation of us.* hierarchy newsgroups,"
posted monthly to us.newsgroups.announce and us.newsgroups.discuss
for more information.
INITIAL GROUPS:
At the start, four us.* hierarchy groups will exist. All other groups in
the hierarchy must be created via interest poll and naming decision
subsequent to the creation of the initial four groups:
us.newsgroups.announce (moderated)
us.newsgroups.discuss
us.misc
us.test
CHARTERS OF THE INITIAL FOUR GROUPS:
us.newsgroups.announce (moderated): This group is moderated by Dave
Sill (d...@ornl.gov) and will contain announcements of new group
proposals, announcements of results of interest polls, announcements of
naming decisions, checkgroups messages for the hierarchy, and other
announcements pertaining to the operation of the us.* hierarchy.
us.newsgroups.discuss: This group is unmoderated and will contain
discussion of new newsgroups proposals.
us.misc: This group is unmoderated and serves as the initial us.*
discussion group until other groups are created. Matters suitable for
discussion in us.misc are anything pertaining to the United States of
America, its culture, people, history, politics, and society.
us.test: This group will be unmoderated. It serves as a place for users of
us.* to post test messages and to check propagation of their messages.
THE US HIERARCHY COORDINATING COMMITTEE
For purposes of keeping things workable, the Committee is small and
consists of seven veteran news administrators and users:
Dave Sill d...@ornl.gov
Joel Furr jf...@acpub.duke.edu
Jamie Gritton gri...@byu.edu
Mike Grubb m...@cambot.ac.duke.edu
Ed McGuire emcg...@i2.com
David Lawrence ta...@uunet.uu.net
Tim Pierce twpi...@unix.amherst.edu
The committee operates by consensus. The Committee can be reached at
us...@uunet.uu.net, us-newsgrou...@uunet.uu.net, or by
emailing Dave Sill at d...@ornl.gov.
--article ends--
CREATION OF THE HIERARCHY:
A period of reflection and discussion will follow the posting of this
message. Subsequent to the return of the news.announce.newgroups
moderator from vacation on July 11, 1994, a poll will be held to gauge
support for the plan as presented. If the poll is in support of the plan,
newgroups will be issued by David Lawrence for the four groups listed
above. A checkgroups message and list of bogus us.* groups will also be
issued at this time. Subsequent to the creation and propagation of the
initial four groups, other groups may be proposed in
us.newsgroups.announce and us.newsgroups.discuss.
Please also see the "Procedure for creation of us.* Hierarchy
newsgroups" article, posted to this group at the same time as this article.
--
Dave Sill (d...@ornl.gov)
Martin Marietta Energy Systems, Workstation Support
URL http://www.dec.com/pub/DEC/DECinfo/html/dsill.html
From d...@de5.ctd.ornl.gov Tue Jul 12 15:07:27 1994
Path: uunet!bounce-back
From: d...@de5.ctd.ornl.gov (Dave Sill)
Newsgroups: news.announce.newgroups,news.groups,soc.culture.usa,alt.config
Subject: RFD: procedure for creation of us.* hierarchy newsgroups
Followup-To: news.groups
Date: 11 Jul 1994 23:43:46 -0400
Organization: Workstation Support, Oak Ridge National Lab
Lines: 111
Sender: ta...@uunet.uu.net
Approved: ta...@uunet.uu.net
Message-ID: <2vt3hi$p...@rodan.UU.NET]
NNTP-Posting-Host: rodan.uu.net
Xref: uunet news.announce.newgroups:5311 news.groups:108147 soc.culture.usa:36829 alt.config:37842
[[ news.announce.newgroups moderator's note: while it is not normal to
have a proposal for a new top level hierarchy posted to
news.announce.newgroups and discussed in news.groups, I am making this
an exception because it could significantly impact the Big Seven and
alt.* hierarchies. -- tale ]]
This is a proposed procedure for creation of a new us.* hierarchy.
Please see the article titled "RFD: us.* hierarchy" which was posted
to this group at the same time as this article for full details of
this plan.
--article begins--
PROCEDURE FOR CREATION OF US.* HIERARCHY NEWSGROUPS:
All groups in the US hierarchy must be proposed via consultation with
the US Hierarchy Coordinating Committee, followed by public discussion
and a public interest poll. This is different from the existing apparatus
used for Big 7 groups for two reasons: 1) if it becomes too difficult to
create groups in the US hierarchy, people will continue to use alt. or the
Big 7 for US-related groups, and, 2) the likelihood of the hierarchy
propagating well and being accepted will hinge in part on the soundness
of the decisions reached about its groups. Ergo, an advisory committee
to address the latter, and simple interest voting to address the former.
Briefly, this approach is different from that used by other hierarchies in
order to make the US hierarchy responsive to the needs of a quickly
changing net and to give news administrators assurance that group
creation will be orderly and planned.
PROCEDURE:
1) All proposals for new newsgroups must be sent to the
us.newsgroups.announce moderator, Dave Sill at d...@ornl.gov or by
submitting to us.newsgroups.announce at us-newsgroups-
anno...@uunet.uu.net. Sill will refer the proposal to the US Hierarchy
Coordinating Committee, who will discuss the proposal with the
submitter, firm up points of the proposal, and come up with a name.
2) Proposals will then be formally presented in the
us.newsgroups.announce group and discussed for a minimum of two
weeks in us.newsgroups.discuss in order to see if the proposal should be
broadened, narrowed, or changed in focus, whether the group should be
moderated, and if so by whom, and so forth.
3) After at least two weeks have passed, the proposer and the
Coordinating Committee may make changes based on input offered during
the discussion phase and then submit the proposal for an interest poll to
determine whether the group should be created.
4) 100 potential readers must indicate via the interest poll that they
would be interested in reading the group in order for the group to be
created. The interest poll must be conducted by email and must be open
for at least one week. No group will be created without receiving at least
100 potential readers' support in an interest poll.
5) Upon passing their interest poll vote, newgroup messages will be
issued for the new groups. A us.* hierarchy checkgroups message will
be issued monthly and will also be included in the monthly list of
alternative and regional newsgroups hierarchies issued by David
Lawrence, moderator of news.announce.newgroups and news.lists.
NAMING CONVENTIONS:
To avoid confusion and wasted namespace, the Coordinating Committee
attempts to place groups in logical areas of the hierarchy, instead of
following the convention of alt.fan.* to cover subjects ranging from
popular culture to politicians to radio stars and movie stars in one
catch-all subhierarchy.
Suggested subhierarchical classifications include:
us.books
us.culture
us.events
us.film
us.history
us.music
us.org
us.personality
us.politics
us.radio
us.sport
us.tv
COORDINATING COMMITTEE:
The Coordinating Committee consists of:
Dave Sill d...@ornl.gov
Joel Furr jf...@acpub.duke.edu
Jamie Gritton gri...@byu.edu
Mike Grubb m...@cambot.ac.duke.edu
Ed McGuire emcg...@i2.com
David Lawrence ta...@uunet.uu.net
Tim Pierce twpi...@unix.amherst.edu
The committee operates by consensus. The Committee can be reached at
us...@uunet.uu.net, us-newsgrou...@uunet.uu.net, or by
emailing Dave Sill at d...@ornl.gov.
--article ends--
As stated in the accompanying article, "Proposal for a new us.*
hierarchy," these guidelines will only come into effect if support for this
plan is indicated by a poll to be taken in July.
--
Dave Sill (d...@ornl.gov)
Martin Marietta Energy Systems, Workstation Support
URL http://www.dec.com/pub/DEC/DECinfo/html/dsill.html
From rdip...@qualcomm.com (RonDippold) Sun Jul 24 23:22:27 1994
Path: uunet!bounce-back
From: rdip...@qualcomm.com (Ron "Asbestos" Dippold)
Newsgroups: news.announce.newgroups,news.groups,news.admin.misc,alt.config,soc.culture.usa
Subject: CFV: us.* hierarchy
Followup-To: poster
Date: 24 Jul 1994 23:09:47 -0400
Organization: Usenet Volunteer Votetakers
Lines: 308
Sender: ta...@uunet.uu.net
Approved: ta...@uunet.uu.net
Expires: 9 Aug 1994 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <us_hiera...@uunet.uu.net]
Reply-To: vot...@qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold Voting Alias)
NNTP-Posting-Host: rodan.uu.net
Xref: uunet news.announce.newgroups:5393 news.groups:109296 news.admin.misc:19065 alt.config:38943 soc.culture.usa:37509
FIRST CALL FOR VOTES (of 2)
Proposal for the creation of a new us.* hierarchy
Note: This is _not_ a standard call for votes. Please read it very carefully.
Votes must be received by 23:59:59 UTC, 8 August 1994.
This vote is being conducted by a neutral third party. For voting
questions only contact rdip...@qualcomm.com. For questions about the
proposed group contact the USA mailing list, u...@byu.edu.
PROPOSAL
The following is a package proposal for creation of a new us.*
hierarchy to deal with subjects and issues peculiar to the residents
and citizens of the United States of America and those who follow
American culture and subjects. Please read the entire packaged
proposal. A poll ballot is appended to the end of the proposal.
The package proposal includes three pieces: A "Welcome to the us.*
hierarchy document" which will be posted monthly to the proposed
us.newsgroups.announce newsgroup, should the hierarchy be created; a
"Procedure for creation of us.* hierarchy newsgroups" document, which
will be the operating procedure should the hierarchy be created, and a
poll ballot.
This proposal was worked out on the USA mailing list, run by Jamie
Gritton of Brigham Young University. The main author of the proposal
is Joel Furr. Extensive advice and suggestions were provided by David
Barr, Jamie Gritton, Mike Grubb, David Lawrence, Ed McGuire, Tim
Pierce, Dave Sill, and J. D. Falk.
What follows, as above, is the proposed "Welcome to the us.*
Hierarchy" article. Please also see the "Procedure for creation of
us.* Hierarchy newsgroups" article, which follows immediately after
the text of the "Welcome..." article.
--article begins--
Welcome to the us.* Hierarchy
INTRODUCTION:
The us.* hierarchy is being re-created. Over a year ago, several
groups in an attempted us.* hierarchy were created with little fanfare
and low propagation. These groups did not achieve wide popular
support due to their lack of support from UUNET and other influential
sites, which either didn't carry them or didn't include them in
publicly available checkgroups messages.
However, there is still a need for a hierarchy of groups dealing with
subjects of interest primarily to Americans. As such, a core group of
newsgroups to re-establish the us. hierarchy is being issued.
At this time, several us.* hierarchy groups from the previous attempt
to create the hierarchy _exist_, but none is received at more than 10%
of sites (according to Arbitron). In order to keep things orderly,
these groups are considered bogus and identified in a regularly
published list by the moderator of us.newsgroups.announce, Dave Sill.
If you carry any pre-existing us.* groups on your system at this time,
you may wish to delete them.
New groups in the us.*. hierarchy will be added after consultation
with an advisory naming committee (the "US Hierarchy Coordinating
Committee") and discussion in a 'us.newsgroups.discuss' newsgroup,
followed by an interest poll, if the proposer chooses to take things
that far. The function of the advisory committee, a group of seven
veteran news administrators and users, is as advisors on names of
groups in order to help come up with good names that keep the us.*
hierarchy well organized and easily usable. Please note that existing
Big 7 and alt.* groups should not be considered prime candidates for
_moving_ to us.*. To keep things orderly, the us.* hierarchy is a
'from this point forward' hierarchy.
PHILOSOPHY AND CHARTER OF US.*:
The us.* hierarchy is intended for discussion of subjects peculiar to
and of interest mainly to Americans and residents of the United States
of America. It is *not* intended as a catch- all hierarchy for all
groups dealing with matters American; a self evident fact of late
20th-century life is that many subjects pertaining to the USA are of
worldwide interest.
However, many subjects that have been proposed for groups in the Big 7
hierarchies (rec, comp, sci, misc, talk, soc, and news) and the alt.*
hierarchy are actually of interest mainly only to Americans: among
these are radio and television shows, entertainment personalities,
some politicians, some political issues, and so forth. These groups
more properly belong in a us.* hierarchy so that those sites which do
not want to receive US-specific traffic, as well as those sites and
readers specifically looking for US-specific traffic, may do so more
easily. Distribution of the us.* hierarchy will not be limited to
sites in the USA, however, so that Americans abroad and others with a
particular interest in the US may follow and participate in the
discussions.
US.* HIERARCHY GROUP CREATION PROCESS:
See the file "Procedure for creation of us.* hierarchy newsgroups,"
posted monthly to us.newsgroups.announce and us.newsgroups.discuss for
more information.
INITIAL GROUPS:
At the start, four us.* hierarchy groups will exist. All other groups
in the hierarchy must be created via interest poll and naming decision
subsequent to the creation of the initial four groups:
us.newsgroups.announce (moderated)
us.newsgroups.discuss
us.misc
us.test
CHARTERS OF THE INITIAL FOUR GROUPS:
us.newsgroups.announce (moderated): This group is moderated by Dave
Sill (d...@ornl.gov) and will contain announcements of new group
proposals, announcements of results of interest polls, announcements
of naming decisions, checkgroups messages for the hierarchy, and other
announcements pertaining to the operation of the us.* hierarchy.
us.newsgroups.discuss: This group is unmoderated and will contain
discussion of new newsgroups proposals.
us.misc: This group is unmoderated and serves as the initial us.*
discussion group. Matters suitable for discussion in us.misc are
anything pertaining to the United States of America, its culture,
people, history, politics, and society.
us.test: This group will be unmoderated. It serves as a place for
users of us.* to post test messages and to check propagation of their
messages.
THE US HIERARCHY COORDINATING COMMITTEE
For purposes of keeping things workable, the Committee is small and
consists of seven veteran news administrators and users:
Dave Sill d...@ornl.gov
Joel Furr jf...@acpub.duke.edu
Jamie Gritton gri...@byu.edu
Mike Grubb m...@cambot.ac.duke.edu
Ed McGuire emcg...@i2.com
David Lawrence ta...@uunet.uu.net
Tim Pierce twpi...@unix.amherst.edu
The committee operates by consensus. The Committee can be reached at
us...@uunet.uu.net, us-newsgroups- anno...@uunet.uu.net, or by
emailing Dave Sill at d...@ornl.gov. No rules for additions to or
deletions from the Committee exist at this time. The Committee feels
that it would be better to wait until the hierarchy exists for a while
so that the lay of the land may be better understood before proposing
a whole system of rules for changes to the Committee, the creation
guidelines, and the structure of the hierarchy.
--article ends--
Next follows the "Procedure" article.
--article begins--
PROCEDURE FOR CREATION OF US.* HIERARCHY NEWSGROUPS:
All groups in the US hierarchy must be proposed via consultation with
the US Hierarchy Coordinating Committee, followed by public discussion
and a public interest poll. This is different from the existing
apparatus used for Big 7 groups for two reasons: 1) if it becomes too
difficult to create groups in the US hierarchy, people will continue
to use alt. or the Big 7 for US-related groups, and, 2) the likelihood
of the hierarchy propagating well and being accepted will hinge in
part on the soundness of the decisions reached about its groups.
Ergo, an advisory committee to address the latter, and simple interest
voting to address the former.
Briefly, this approach is different from that used by other
hierarchies in order to make the US hierarchy responsive to the needs
of a quickly changing net and to give news administrators assurance
that group creation is orderly and planned.
PROCEDURE:
1) All proposals for new newsgroups must be sent to the
us.newsgroups.announce moderator, Dave Sill at d...@ornl.gov or by
submitting to us.newsgroups.announce at us-newsgroups-
anno...@uunet.uu.net. Sill will refer the proposal to the US
Hierarchy Coordinating Committee, who will discuss the proposal with
the submitter, firm up points of the proposal, and come up with a
name.
2) Proposals will then be formally presented in the
us.newsgroups.announce group and discussed for a minimum of two weeks
in us.newsgroups.discuss in order to see if the proposal should be
broadened, narrowed, or changed in focus, whether the group should be
moderated, and if so by whom, and so forth.
3) After at least two weeks have passed, the proposer and the
Coordinating Committee may make changes based on input offered during
the discussion phase and then submit the proposal for an interest poll
to determine whether the group should be created.
4) 100 potential readers must indicate via the interest poll that they
would be interested in reading the group in order for the group to be
created. The interest poll must be conducted by email and must be
open for at least one week and may not run for longer than four weeks.
No group is created without receiving at least 100 potential readers'
support in an interest poll. Any group which fails to receive 100
votes of support in the voting period may not be re-proposed for at
least four months.
5) Upon passing their interest poll vote, newgroup messages will be
issued for the new groups. A us.* hierarchy checkgroups message will
be issued monthly and will also be included in the monthly list of
alternative and regional newsgroups hierarchies issued by David
Lawrence, moderator of news.announce.newgroups and news.lists.
Note: At this time, no procedure for removal of us.* hierarchy groups
is proposed. That will be a suitable subject for discussion in
us.newsgroups.discuss, should people feel it necessary to propose such
a policy, and a policy can be agreed on there.
NAMING CONVENTIONS:
To avoid confusion and wasted namespace, the Coordinating Committee
attempts to place groups in logical areas of the hierarchy, instead of
following the convention of alt.fan.* to cover subjects ranging from
popular culture to politicians to radio stars and movie stars in one
catch-all subhierarchy.
Suggested subhierarchical classifications include:
us.books
us.culture
us.events
us.film
us.history
us.music
us.org
us.personality
us.politics
us.radio
us.sport
us.tv
COORDINATING COMMITTEE:
The Coordinating Committee consists of:
Dave Sill d...@ornl.gov
Joel Furr jf...@acpub.duke.edu
Jamie Gritton gri...@byu.edu
Mike Grubb m...@cambot.ac.duke.edu
Ed McGuire emcg...@i2.com
David Lawrence ta...@uunet.uu.net
Tim Pierce twpi...@unix.amherst.edu
The committee operates by consensus. The Committee can be
reached at us...@uunet.uu.net, us-newsgroups-
anno...@uunet.uu.net, or by emailing Dave Sill at d...@ornl.gov.
--article ends--
What follows next is the ballot for the proposed hierarchy. The
voting will be handled by Ron Dippold. Since this is NOT a Big 7
group proposal, and since voting on a USA-specific hierarchy would
become extremely complicated if one attempted to prevent non-Americans
]from voting, and since the issue is so complex already, there are no
hard rules for what will be considered a passing result. Obviously,
if a large number of negative votes result, the proposers will redraft
the proposal to remove objectionable sections and provide alternate
mechanisms. Basically, however, if a large majority of the voters
support creation of the hierarchy, it will be created via newgroup
messages sent out by David Lawrence (ta...@uunet.uu.net). Subsequent
to the hierarchy's creation, though, creation of groups will be
handled by Dave Sill (d...@ornl.gov).
Voting in this poll will last for two weeks. Voting is open to anyone
sufficiently interested to bother to vote. One vote per person.
Standard Usenet Volunteer Vote-takers rules for discarding multiple
votes by one person or votes from non-person- specific accounts will
apply.
--ballot follows-
HOW TO VOTE
Send MAIL to: vot...@qualcomm.com
Just Replying should work if you are not reading this on a mailing list.
Your mail message should contain one of the following statements:
I vote YES on this us.* hierarchy proposal
I vote NO on this us.* hierarchy proposal
If you are quoting, please remove at least everything above the 'HOW
TO VOTE' line, as the CFV is quite large. You may add some brief
comments after your vote. These will be ignored by the voting
program, but will be passed on to the coordinating committee.
You may also ABSTAIN in place of YES/NO - this will not affect the outcome.
Anything else may be rejected by the automatic vote counting program. The
votetaker will respond to your received ballots with a personal acknowledge-
ment by mail - if you do not receive one within several days, try again.
It's your responsibility to make sure your vote is registered correctly.
One vote counted per person, no more than one per account. Addresses and
votes of all voters will be published in the final voting results list.
HALLAM-BAKER Phillip
Its second order. The BBC are reporting the US media feeding frenzy over OJ.
I saw a report on the BBC coverage on Sky. I expect Larry King will be
discussing the SKY report tonight in the context of how Satelite TV affects
coverage. then the BBC will pick up the CNN report and so on.
Just think of it as a massive USEnet thread that will never die.
--
Phillip M. Hallam-Baker
Not Speaking for anyone else.
HALLAM-BAKER Phillip
|>hal...@dxal18.cern.ch (HALLAM-BAKER Phillip) writes:
|>
|>>In article <7gq8=b=@dixie.com>, j...@dixie.com (John De Armond) writes:
|>
|>>|>* There is no such thing as an issue uniquely of concern to the US.
|>>|> US issues ARE world issues.
|>
|>>Twaddle.
|>
|>I offer this snipper of poignant commentary as exhibit A to support my
|>above assertion. Here we have a venerable parade of foreigners spewing
|>their anti-American prattle in an attempt to interefer with and affect
|>the outcome of a strictly internal U.S. matter.
|>
|>I rest my case.
Wot no arguments? Merely a restatement of the Major Premise. The Renaissence
was something that happened to other people it appears.
I'm not anti american. I am anti a particular type of american, the type who
wears a pillow case over his head and jackboots on his feet. I am against
the ignorant lout who puffs himself up with the achievements of others just
because of the random chance of his place of birth.
Patriotism is like sex, it has its place and that place is between consenting
adults in private. Those who attempt to force or intimidate others into
participating have no place in a civilised society.
John De Armond
>One of John's earliest antics was to create a big bunch of
>accounts for himself in order to inconvenience those who
>wanted to put him in their killfiles. As a result, his was
>probably the earliest entire site being killfiled,
>predating AOL by a considerable amount.
>John is not, however, in my killfile, which is probably a
>good thing since he convinced me to vote "Yes" on the new
>newsgroup hierarchy.
Ah, but sweetie, what you haven't figured out is the other hosts I
post from. I've found it quite entertaining to argue issues like
this from BOTH sides. That way I can spin up twits such as yourself
from BOTH sides. I'm debating this one from both sides too. See
if you can figure out my alter-ego. Betcha can't.
Snowhare
: hal...@dxal18.cern.ch (HALLAM-BAKER Phillip) writes:
: >In article <7gq8=b=@dixie.com>, j...@dixie.com (John De Armond) writes:
: >|>* There is no such thing as an issue uniquely of concern to the US.
: >|> US issues ARE world issues.
: >Twaddle.
: I offer this snipper of poignant commentary as exhibit A to support my
: above assertion. Here we have a venerable parade of foreigners spewing
: their anti-American prattle in an attempt to interefer with and affect
: the outcome of a strictly internal U.S. matter.
I am fascinated.
In e-mail, I got a well reasoned letter from someone suggesting that the
one thing we weren't seeing was non-US system admins participating in
this discussion, despite the fact that they are the ones the argument is
in fact revolving around as affecting the most. He suggested that
perhaps we should specifically encourage them to make their viewpoints
known on the subject of a us.* hierarchy.
John De Armond, by contrast, does not feel that "foreigners" should
"interfer with and affect...a strictly internal U.S. matter".
Hmmmm....
You can't please everyone.
My personal suspicion is that many "foreign" sys admins _are_ keeping out
of it because they _do_ perceive it as being an internal affair of the USA.
It is only the blatant parochialism of John that has drawn some of them in.
I would like to encourage any non-USA sys admins to chip in with their
perspectives on the creation of a us.* national hierarchy. Do you feel
it would make *your* job easier or harder? Would it make it easier or
harder to meet your own users needs?
--
Benjamin Franz
Skippy Furr
->
-> >> In any case, I support the creation of the us.* heirarchy.
-> > In case nobody was looking, it already exists.
->
-> Oh, this again. Yes, it already exists after a fashion. But that
-> shouldn't be a reason to stop it from being dome right this time. (I
-> can say this, as I'm the one who did it worng last time :-).
-> --
-> James Gritton - gri...@byu.edu - I disclaim - "
You did it "worng" again! (and this is one of the cabal? Sheesh!)
Bertil Jonell
Dave Sill <d...@de5.CTD.ORNL.GOV> wrote:
>In article <313u9k$p...@nyheter.chalmers.se> Bertil Jonell (d9be...@dtek.chalmers.se) wrote:
>> The bad part of this suggestion is not that it would give the US
>> a national hierarchy, but that that hierarchy would be placed outside
>> the normal rules of the net,
>
>There are no "normal" rule of the net. Independent hierarchies are free
>to choose their own rules.
Yes, that is the loophole you are using.
>> and group creation would be decided by
>> a cabal who is not in any way required to listen to the users.
>
>No, group *names* are chosen by the committee--not the groups themselves.
First of all, it is the comittee members who on a moderated newgroup
declare that a discussion should start. What is a poor proposee to do if
the comittee doesn't like his group under any name? Lay down and enjoy
most probably.
Secondly the comittee will create the group if the comittee feels
the interest is high enough. Any rules might get changed at a moments
notice.
>> The way it is written they might not always be able to push through
>> their own pet project (although 100 people saying they are interested
>> is easy to fix in most cases) but one member of the cabal can totally
>> block any group they dislike for personal reasons. Like perhaps that
>> someone they doesn't like is for it.
>
>Not true. We require consensus, not unanimity.
I do think that a member of the cabal will have far more influence
on the other members than any J Random Netuser will ever have. If one
of them said that I was a kook without any redeeming features, would
you discount me or give me a fair hearing?
>> The US should have it's own hierarchy.
>
>Thanks.
>
>> Such a hierarchy should
>> follow the rules for the big seven.
>
>Is there an se.* hierarchy? Does it follow the big seven rules?
Irrelevant since any se.* hierarchy will not play such a major role on
the net as the us.* hierarchy might.
If we decide newsgroup creation by wrestling polar bears in the town
square that won't matter to the net at large. But if the hierarchy that
belongs to such a dominating part of the net world as the US is anything
less than democratic.
My fear is that you will block the creation of groups that might be
seen as controversial in a Real World sense, and that the us.* hierarchy
will crowd out the big seven.
That crowding out might well happen *because* it is noncontroversial.
"Subscribe tous.* only, and don't let your kids get subjected to rec.guns/
rec.drugs/rec.gerbiles/talk.armed.rebellion/talk.scrap.clipper or
whatever!"
No barbed wire cross the frontier please.
>Dave Sill (d...@ornl.gov)
-bertil-
--
Legal Notice: Exporting 'personal data' to non-European countries without
special license issued by the Computer Inspection Agency ('Datainspektionen')
for each specific case (message) is a crime. Personal data include names,
even my name. If you read this message outside Europe, I'm a criminal.
Seth Breidbart
>Ah, but sweetie, what you haven't figured out is the other hosts I
>post from. I've found it quite entertaining to argue issues like
>this from BOTH sides. That way I can spin up twits such as yourself
>from BOTH sides. I'm debating this one from both sides too. See
>if you can figure out my alter-ego. Betcha can't.
t...@netcom.com, of course. (Why did it take so long to figure that
out?)
Seth
Anita Kilgour
>akil...@thinkage.on.ca (Anita Kilgour) writes:
>>Then how come Canada has to deal with all you yanks coming up here to
>>try to cheat our health care system into paying for your illnesses?
>
>have free deliveries of their new US citizens, er...children. Where
>do you think California's maid supplies come from?
[laughter] Okay, okay...I know when I've been one-upped in the silly
department. [sigh] I've *never* been able to get decent maid service,
regardless of who I try to get it from...(my boyfriends always look so
silly trying the 'Fifi the french maid' routine). ;-)
Lennart Regebro
>If you're sick of hearing about the US, ignore it.
Nono, I'm just sick of people believing that the US of A is the center of
the world. Which it's not, in case anybody wondered.
I did not mean to rack down on operation desert-storm (although I don't
believe that the US involved in Q8 because it was the 'right thing'. They
did it becuase of the oil.) It was merely meant as a nice finishing
pun. Should have added a :) to that line I suppose.
> I'm getting entirely sick to death of hearing every time the queen sneezes
>and exactly what type of overpriced kleenex the wench uses to wipe the snot
>up with.
Have faith. You're not alone.
--
Lennart Regebro Lennart...@scs.no (Try this first)
Galactic Guide Field Researcher reg...@stacken.kth.se (Spare address)
Leigh Melton
> I rest my case.
Thank god.
L.
---------------------------------------------------------------
*le...@nbi.com As a matter of fact, I _do_ speak for nbi.com.*
"Consequences, schmonsequences, as long as I'm rich." -Daffy Duck
Leigh Melton
> Why would we want a us.* heirarchy when we already have the rest of
> the net?
... and now we have gone from discussing the issue to simply making
provacative statements.
Jamie Gritton
> So, is we to believe that we needs a US hierarchy so us can discuss
> things in our own language?
You betcha. I'm tired of having to read words like "color" with a
'u' inserted in them. And "organisation"; it just looks wrong. "Kerb"
and "tyre" are simply hilarious.
:-)
--
Jamie Gritton
>> Which would leave the US as the only country without a national hierarchy....
>> why do you want that ?
> Why would we want a us.* heirarchy when we already have the rest of
> the net?
You're secretly campaigning for the hierarchy, aren't you? :-)
David D Kilzer
>j...@dixie.com (John De Armond) writes:
>>Whether you like it or not or whether you are embarrased by it or
>>not, the US IS the world leader and therefore people elsewhere
>>are interested in what goes on here. And in case this subtlty has
akil...@thinkage.on.ca (Anita Kilgour) writes:
>[badly concealed laughter] The USA is the world leader in health care.
>Then how come Canada has to deal with all you yanks coming up here to
>try to cheat our health care system into paying for your illnesses?
Then how come your doctors are leaving to practice in the U.S.? [At
least that's what ABC's ``20/20'' news program reports.]
Dave
--
David D. Kilzer \ ST:TNG _Relics_
ddki...@iastate.edu / Capt. Montgomery Scott ("Scotty")
Computer Engineer 4 \ "I may be a captain by rank, but I never
Iowa State University, Ames / wanted to be anything but an engineer."
David Holland
j...@dixie.com's message of Wed, 27 Jul 94 01:34:35 GMT said:
> I offer this snipper of poignant commentary as exhibit A to support my
> above assertion. Here we have a venerable parade of foreigners spewing
> their anti-American prattle in an attempt to interefer with and affect
> the outcome of a strictly internal U.S. matter.
It's not strictly internal. Your earlier message called for the defeat
of the hierarchy, which would cause news sites all over the rest of
the world to be flooded for years to come with irrelevant and unwanted
noise.
Do you really think "alt.oj.drive-faster" is wanted in the world at
large?
--
- David A. Holland | "The right to be heard does not automatically
dhol...@husc.harvard.edu | include the right to be taken seriously."
Dave Hayes
>if you can figure out my alter-ego. Betcha can't.
Would that be...Jay Maynard? 8-)
--
Dave Hayes - Institutional Network & Communications - JPL/NASA - Pasadena CA
da...@elxr.jpl.nasa.gov da...@jato.jpl.nasa.gov ...usc!elroy!dxh
Learn from the mistakes of others.
You don't have time to make them all yourself.
Joel K. Furr
Daniel M Silevitch <dms...@ATHENA.MIT.EDU> wrote:
>In article <+cs8...@dixie.com>, John De Armond <j...@dixie.com> wrote:
>:post from. I've found it quite entertaining to argue issues like
>:this from BOTH sides. That way I can spin up twits such as yourself
>:from BOTH sides. I'm debating this one from both sides too. See
>:if you can figure out my alter-ego. Betcha can't.
>I think I've got it!! You're Joel Furr in disguise. I have to say,
>I'm impressed with your devious plan: argue the anti-us case so
>incompetently that it loses all credibility, improving the chances
>of the hierarchy passing.
>Do I win a prize?
Yep. Having tired of the responsibilities and burdens of the role of Kibo
(a post I was elected to in the late winter after the original Kibo left
for the moon and said he wasn't coming back), I hereby pass this
responsibility on to you. *You* are now Kibo, entitled to all the rewards
and responsibilities of that estate.
Tim Pierce
>I rest my case.
I'd like to think that this means you're going to shut up
now, but I don't really have that much faith in you.
David C Lawrence
] Me: I propose us.apathy
] Committee: Sorry. How about us.silly-groups.apathy?
] Me: But it's not silly! Apathy is serious stuff.
] Committee: us.silly-groups.apathy is what we will give you.
] Me: us.culture.apathy?
] Committee: No.
] Me: us.support.apathy?
] Committee: No. It's us.silly-groups.apathy or nothing.
Ignoring that this is a ridiculously reduced version of
any discussion which would really happen, what do you
think _should_ happen instead of it?