RFD: nz.reg.canterbury.general (new group)
DuncanMcC
This is a formal Request For Discussion (RFD) for a new newsgroup:
nz.reg.canterbury.general
Note: that the the original RFD (2/3/98 - Patrick Dunford) called for the
renaming of the group nz.reg.christchurch.general - this RFD is a request
for a *new* group (in addition to the existing). In time, perhaps the
"christchurch" group may fade out and be removed (the Internet is a great
example of true "supply and demand").
Other than that Note above, this RFD is nearly idenical (copied) from
Patrick's original.
This RFD is being issued in accordance with the guidelines set in the
"FAQ: The nz.* Usenet Hierarchy" regularly posted to nz.net.announce and
the "How to create a new usenet newsgroup" FAQ regularly posted to
news.announce.newgroups. Please refer to these articles if you have any
questions about the newsgroup creation.
*This is not a call for votes. Please do not vote now.*
NEWSGROUP LINE :
nz.reg.canterbury.general Tales from the Garden City &
Canterbury
PROPONENTS :
Duncan McCormack (Dun...@adrock.com)
RATIONALE:
Since the creation of the new group nz.reg.christchurch.general there
has been a steady stream of spam messages advertising Christian
sites or causes posted to it. An informal analysis suggests these
spams are being posted by searching for newsgroups containing
"christ" or "church" in their names as no other group in the nz.*
hierarchy receives them.
It is proposed to create a new group to prevent its name being
matched in this fashion.
EXAMPLE 1: Message posted to nz.reg.christchurch.general
as follows:
From: "Darryl L Parker" <gold...@texhoma.net>
Newsgroups: ncf.sigs.religion.christian,
nz.reg.christchurch.general
Subject: There's No Such Thing as a "Saved Sinner"
Date: Wed, 4 Feb 1998 10:12:52 -0600
Organization: ioNET Inc.
Lines: 486
Message-ID: <6ba3n3$pl$3...@ionews.ionet.net>
<snip>
The full message is in six parts and Part 1 was spammed
to the following newsgroups according to DejaNews:
alt.christnet.philosophy,alt.christnet.prayer,
alt.christnet.public,
alt.christnet.second-coming.real-soon-now,
alt.christnet.theology,alt.conspiracy.antichrist,
alt.fan.jesus-christ,alt.religion,
alt.religion.apologetics,alt.religion.christian
alt.religion.christian.adventist,alt.religion.sabbath-keeper
alt.religion.christian.anabaptist.brethren
,alt.religion.christian.baptist
alt.religion.christian.lutheran
alt.religion.jehovahs-witn,
alt.religion.watchtower.reform
alt.bible,alt.bible.prophecy,alt.christnet,
alt.christnet.bible,alt.christnet.christianlife,
alt.christnet.demonology,alt.christnet.ethics
,alt.christnet.evangelical,alt.antichristnet,
alt.christnet.hypocrisy
EXAMPLE 2: Message posted to
nz.reg.christchurch.general as follows:
Subject: www.christianlinks.com -
Come Join & Register
From: "station" <sta...@hotmail.com>
Date: 1998/01/31
Message-ID: <01bd2e8c$dfdf62a0$70560cd1@extra200>
Organization: American Communications Services Inc.
Newsgroups: han.soc.religion.christianity.catholic,
han.soc.religion.christianity.protestant,
hk.soc.religion.christianity,misc.education.home-
school.christian,ncf.sigs.religion.christian,
nz.reg.christchurch.general,pdaxs.religion.christian,
rec.music.christian
www.christianlinks.com - Come Join & Register
Similar messages were also posted to these groups:
alt.christnet,alt.christnet.bible,alt.christnet.bible-
thumpers.convert.convert.convert,alt.christnet.christianlife
,alt.christnet.comp,alt.christnet.ethics,alt.christnet.evangelical,
alt.christnet.games,alt.christnet.games.ibm-pc,alt.christnet.phil
alt.religion.christian.episcopal,alt.religion.christian.jason-grundy
,alt.religion.christian.jesus-connect,alt.religion.christian.last-
days,alt.religion.christian.lutheran,alt.religion.christian.methodist
,alt.religion.christian.pentecostal,alt.relig
A total of 31 separate postings were found on DejaNews from
www.christianlinks.com
(Actual exposure in any one newsservice will vary depending on
propagation of nz.reg.christchurch.general)
CHARTER: nz.reg.canterbury.general
Any posts which deal with things of interest to or about the
Canterbury area or region are welcome and on-topic in this
group. This includes discussions of local activities and
events, local non-commercial buy/sell/wanted posts,
local issues and personalities and anything else
that relates to the area covered by the group."
The following things are not welcome:
Binaries
Chain letters, including "Make Money Fast" articles
Known hoaxes (like the "Good Times Virus")
Articles posted as separate copies to several
newsgroups (spam)
Articles excessively cross-posted (including the existing group:
nz.reg.christchurch.general)
Articles containing significantly more quoted than
new content
Duplicate/rapidly reposted messages
Commercial messages of any kind.
PROCEDURE
Please post any responses to this message to nz.net.admin. If you use the
follow-up feature on your newsreader, this should happen automatically.
All discussion about the merits of this proposal should occur on
nz.net.admin.
Unless the discussion indicates a need to resubmit a new 2nd RFD, a call
for votes (CFV) will be posted approximately three weeks after the
posting of this RFD. Please do not post any votes now. When the CFV is
posted, instructions will be given on how to mail your votes
to the independent vote counter.
This RFD has been posted to the following newsgroups :
nz.net.announce, nz.net.admin, nz.general,
nz.reg.christchurch.general
To be deemed successful over 2/3rds of those
voting need to vote yes, and there must be at
least 25 more yes than no votes. The vote will be
conducted by an independent votetaker.
Snoopy
<Dun...@adrock.nosmeggingspam.com> wrote:
Duncan- good on you for getting off your butt and actually doing
something about your convictions, instead of just whinging. I wish
more would! But I have some comments on procedural matters and your
examples which you may wish to take note of before the CFV is posted.
>
>This is a formal Request For Discussion (RFD) for a new newsgroup:
>nz.reg.canterbury.general
>
><snip>,
>
Discussion has started!
>
>this RFD is nearly identical (copied) from Patrick's original.
>
Noted
>
><snip>
>PROPONENTS :
>
>Duncan McCormack (Dun...@adrock.com)
>
I think you need a second proponent.
>
>RATIONALE:
>
>Since the creation of the new group nz.reg.christchurch.general there
>has been a steady stream of spam messages advertising Christian
>sites or causes posted to it. An informal analysis suggests these
>spams are being posted by searching for newsgroups containing
>"christ" or "church" in their names as no other group in the nz.*
>hierarchy receives them.
>
>It is proposed to create a new group to prevent its name being
>matched in this fashion.
>
>EXAMPLE 1: Message posted to nz.reg.christchurch.general
>as follows:
>
>From: "Darryl L Parker" <gold...@texhoma.net>
>Newsgroups: ncf.sigs.religion.christian,
>nz.reg.christchurch.general
>Subject: There's No Such Thing as a "Saved Sinner"
>Date: Wed, 4 Feb 1998 10:12:52 -0600
><snip>
>
note date
>
>EXAMPLE 2: Message posted to
>nz.reg.christchurch.general as follows:
>Subject: www.christianlinks.com -
>Come Join & Register
>From: "station" <sta...@hotmail.com>
>Date: 1998/01/31
>
note date again
>
>A total of 31 separate postings were found on DejaNews from
>www.christianlinks.com
>
That's the sort of homework you (or your co-proponent?) needs to do.
>
>(Actual exposure in any one newsservice will vary depending on
>propagation of nz.reg.christchurch.general)
>
May I suggest you update your examples to more current ones. Those
you have copied are almost a year old, and I think people would be
more interested in what is going on now in the group. Not stuff that
is now difficult to verify as it was on the group so long ago.
>
>CHARTER: nz.reg.canterbury.general
>
><snip>
>
That's my Snoopshot of your proposal. SNOOPY
-----------------------------------------------------
Message posted by SNOOPY using 'Forte'
Free Agent V1.11/32- http://www.forteinc.com
------------------------------------------------
Geoff McCaughan
>
> I mean is there anyone here who if this gets created will immediately
> unsubscribe from nz.reg.christchurch.general?
I'll do better than that, I'll rmgroup it.
DuncanMcC
> On 21 Jan 1999 20:58:27 GMT in nz.general DuncanMcC wrote: in
> <91695230...@bats.mcs.vuw.ac.nz>:
>
> >This is a formal Request For Discussion (RFD) for a new newsgroup:
> >nz.reg.canterbury.general
> >
> >Note: that the the original RFD (2/3/98 - Patrick Dunford) called for the
> >renaming of the group nz.reg.christchurch.general - this RFD is a request
> >for a *new* group (in addition to the existing). In time, perhaps the
> >"christchurch" group may fade out and be removed (the Internet is a great
> >example of true "supply and demand").
> >
>
> set to nz.net.admin. By having no followup set any following posts
> will try to be posted to nz.net.announce which is moderated for
> announce only posts)
>
> I reluctantly would not vote for this proposal because I think having
> a Canterbury and a Christchurch group would be highly confusing and
> just lead to a lot of duplication. People would just subscribe to
> both and often cross-post to both I suspect.
>
> I mean is there anyone here who if this gets created will immediately
> post Chch things which group would you decide to post to?
>
> I believe we would end up with two groups as almost duplicates of each
> other, just taking up more space.
>
> My preference would be for the existing group to be renamed. What
> this actually would entail is (if successful) a new group such as
> nz.reg.canterbury.general being newgrouped and created and then after
> three - six weeks nz.reg.christchurch.general automatically rmgrouped
> (deleted) to give people time to swap over.
Thanks for your input.
I originally was going for a group called:
nz.reg.chch.general (instead of the 'christchurch' in there).
But I understand that bandying this around a bit is the general idea.
--
Regards Duncan McC
(remove nosmeggingspam to reply e-mail)
http://www.adrock.com
Judi Lapsley Miller
> (Note to moderator - the followup was forgotten as it should have been
> set to nz.net.admin. By having no followup set any following posts
> will try to be posted to nz.net.announce which is moderated for
> announce only posts)
Yes, that was an oversight on my part sorry - the original submission
did not include a follow-ups header. I have since reposted the RFD,
but it hasn't appeared on my server yet. I have also responded to the
people that inadvertently included nz.net.announce in the header of
their replies, and asked them to repost their articles to nz.net.admin
only.
Judi
Co-moderator nz.net.announce
--
_______________________________________________________________
Judi Lapsley Miller http://www.vuw.ac.nz/~trills/index.htm
Psychophysics Lab http://www.vuw.ac.nz/~trills/psycho/index.htm
Tigger
>
> I originally was going for a group called:
> nz.reg.chch.general (instead of the 'christchurch' in there).
I would prefer this. Either by new group and nuke the old one, or a
rename.
Do we have to have a yes/no vote? Can we have a rename/new/nochange vote
instead?
--
Tigger =^..^=
http://www.freeyellow.com/members5/nztigger/humour.html
http://www.freethought.org.nz/usenet/nz.soc.religion/regulars
*************************************************************
Employ me! Visit http://www.freeyellow.com/members5/nztigger/cv.html
*************************************************************
Gordon Taylor
>
>On Mon, 25 Jan 1999 13:34:04 +1300 in nz.net.admin Tigger wrote: in
><36ABBB...@mr2.org.xnzx>:
>
>>DuncanMcC wrote:
>>>
>>> I originally was going for a group called:
>>> nz.reg.chch.general (instead of the 'christchurch' in there).
>>
>>I would prefer this. Either by new group and nuke the old one, or a
>>rename.
>>
>>Do we have to have a yes/no vote? Can we have a rename/new/nochange vote
>>instead?
>
>formal CFV is a Yes/No thing.
>
There is of course the option of getting another RFD going to do a
name change from nz.reg.christchurch.general to nz.reg.?*?.general
However, I must point out that this is not my preferred way of going
about it.
Could we ask Duncan McC how he feels, and this I suggest will depend
on how we feel so its straw poll time.
Y/N to the following
1) Change of name instead of another group. Assuming no Christ or
church in it.
2) Rename to nz.gen.chch.general
I think that covers it.
Cheers,
--
Gordon Taylor blu...@penguin.southern.co.nz
DuncanMcC
--
Regards Duncan McC
(remove nosmeggingspam to reply e-mail)
http://www.adrock.com
In article <36ABBB...@mr2.org.xnzx>, d...@mr2.org.xnzx says...
DuncanMcC
--
Regards Duncan McC
(remove nosmeggingspam to reply e-mail)
http://www.adrock.com
In article <91723786...@penguin.southern.co.nz>,
blu...@penguin.southern.co.nz says...
> In article <36b1e6bd....@news.xtra.co.nz> da...@farrar.com writes:
> >
> >On Mon, 25 Jan 1999 13:34:04 +1300 in nz.net.admin Tigger wrote: in
> ><36ABBB...@mr2.org.xnzx>:
> >
> >>DuncanMcC wrote:
> >>>
> >>> I originally was going for a group called:
> >>> nz.reg.chch.general (instead of the 'christchurch' in there).
> >>
> >>I would prefer this. Either by new group and nuke the old one, or a
> >>rename.
> >>
> >>Do we have to have a yes/no vote? Can we have a rename/new/nochange vote
> >>instead?
> >
Tigger
>
> Could we ask Duncan McC how he feels, and this I suggest will depend
> on how we feel so its straw poll time.
I don't care if it's a new group or a name change. I would vote for
either.
Snoopy
(DuncanMcC) wrote:
>>
>> Could we ask Duncan McC how he feels, and this I suggest will depend
>> on how we feel so its straw poll time.
>>
>>
>> 1) Change of name instead of another group. Assuming no Christ or
>> church in it.
>>
>>
>> I think that covers it.
>>
>
be renamed 'nz.reg.chch.general', instead of creating a new group
'nz.reg.canterbury.general'?
And Duncan, are you agreeing with that proposition? SNOOPY
Gordon Taylor
>
>What is this nz.gen.* - it is nz.reg.*
>
Okay, my fault. Needs to be nz.reg.canterbury.general.
For some reason my mind has set on nz.gen.*
--
Gordon Taylor blu...@penguin.southern.co.nz
DuncanMcC
tennyson@NO_SPAM.caverock.net.nz says...
> On Mon, 25 Jan 1999 23:02:32 +1300, Dun...@adrock.nosmeggingspam.com
> (DuncanMcC) wrote:
> >>
> >> Could we ask Duncan McC how he feels, and this I suggest will depend
> >> on how we feel so its straw poll time.
> >>
> >> Y/N to the following
> >>
> >> 1) Change of name instead of another group. Assuming no Christ or
> >> church in it.
> >>
> >> 2) Rename to nz.reg.chch.general
> >>
> >> I think that covers it.
> >>
> >I'm all for it...
> >
> Gordon, are you suggesting that the nz.reg.christchurch.general group
> be renamed 'nz.reg.chch.general', instead of creating a new group
> 'nz.reg.canterbury.general'?
> And Duncan, are you agreeing with that proposition? SNOOPY
Yep - I am.
I thought that the RFD - was just that - a discussion - and that it
could/ can - be changed to reflect a better general consensus.
Gordon Taylor
>
[snip]
>Gordon, are you suggesting that the nz.reg.christchurch.general group
>be renamed 'nz.reg.chch.general', instead of creating a new group
>'nz.reg.canterbury.general'?
No. What i was trying to do was set up a straw poll so that Duncan
could get some idea of whether or not he wished to withdraw the RFD.
There has been a suggestion by Tigger that a name change of the
existing would be okay by her, as would a new group.
What we need to do is to first decide what we want;
1) nz.reg.christchurch.general _and_
nz.reg.canterbury.general
This is the current RFD
OR
2) rename the group to nz.reg.chch.general
>And Duncan, are you agreeing with that proposition? SNOOPY
Yes, I am not clear either. Could you please make a statement of what
you are for.
--
Gordon Taylor blu...@penguin.southern.co.nz
Gordon Taylor
Duncan McC posted the RFD
> This is a formal Request For Discussion (RFD) for a new newsgroup:
> nz.reg.canterbury.general
> Note: that the the original RFD (2/3/98 - Patrick Dunford) called
for the
> renaming of the group nz.reg.christchurch.general - this RFD is a
request
> for a *new* group (in addition to the existing). In time, perhaps
the
> "christchurch" group may fade out and be removed (the Internet is a
great
> example of true "supply and demand").
It is not sensible to have two groups which are in fact the same
apart from the name. People will post to both and having to read two
newsgroups instead of one is extra work.
Therefore I suggest that this request goes back to the orginal one,
ie to rename the group.
> RATIONALE:
> Since the creation of the new group nz.reg.christchurch.general
there
> has been a steady stream of spam messages advertising Christian
> sites or causes posted to it. An informal analysis suggests these
> spams are being posted by searching for newsgroups containing
> "christ" or "church" in their names as no other group in the nz.*
> hierarchy receives them.
> It is proposed to create a new group to prevent its name being
> matched in this fashion.
The "steady stream over" the last year has been once a month on
average. Most of them are advertising a web site and are only a few
lines long. (My research to date at dejanews)
It is agreed that the words Christ and church in Christchurch are
likely to cause an increase in spam messages as a machine search will
turn up the nz.reg.christchurch.general group.
The opponents seem to detest religious spam most strongly. I
certainly have the viewpoint that the world would be a much better
place if there was no spam. It takes up bandwidth, wastes people time
and often costs them money into the bargain. It is the method of
removing it which is at variance. Some wish to shut the door on spam,
others wish to remove the spammers ability to practice his work. The
second method is better in the long run but it requires more effort.
In any newsgroup it is very likely that there are messages which one
does not wish to read. One just skips over these and moves onto the
next one of interest. A spam message falls into this area. It is
therefore logical to treat this spam message in much the same way as
any other message which is of no interest to the reader, skip it.
This logic breaks down when the spam messages are greater than a
reasonable amount and make the reading of the group not a pleasure. I
suggest that this has not happened in 1998 in
nz.reg.christchurch.general.
The logic also breaks down when the traffic in any group makes the
interesting to not interesting articles small. This results in a call
for a division of the group.
> EXAMPLE 1: Message posted to nz.reg.christchurch.general
> as follows:
> From: "Darryl L Parker" <gold...@texhoma.net>
> Newsgroups: ncf.sigs.religion.christian,
> nz.reg.christchurch.general
> Subject: There's No Such Thing as a "Saved Sinner"
> Date: Wed, 4 Feb 1998 10:12:52 -0600
This is all very interesting but oustide the paramaters of changing
the name of nz.reg.christchurch.general. It is for the readers of
these groups to decide if they wish to change the name to stop spam
mesages appearing.
We are only concerned about the spamming in
nz.reg.christchurch.general. The spammer can go work elsewhere, while
reading nz.reg.c*.general we care not.
--
Gordon Taylor blu...@penguin.southern.co.nz
Snoopy
Taylor) wrote:
>In article <36ac496f....@news.xtra.co.nz> da...@farrar.com writes:
>>
>>What is this nz.gen.* - it is nz.reg.*
>>
>Okay, my fault. Needs to be nz.reg.canterbury.general.
>
>For some reason my mind has set on nz.gen.*
>
More confusion! Are you saying nz.reg.canterbury.general or
nz.reg.chch.general? SNOOPY
Snoopy
(DuncanMcC) wrote:
>>
>> Gordon, are you suggesting that the nz.reg.christchurch.general group
>> be renamed 'nz.reg.chch.general', instead of creating a new group
>> 'nz.reg.canterbury.general'?
>> And Duncan, are you agreeing with that proposition? SNOOPY
>
>Yep - I am.
>
>I thought that the RFD - was just that - a discussion - and that it
>could/ can - be changed to reflect a better general consensus.
>
Yes that's what I thought too. But after the last RFD on a the name
change for this group various points were brought up, legitimate
points of issue with the RFD name change and all were ignored when the
CFV came out. It looks as if your CFV may be different. SNOOPY
Geoff McCaughan
>
> What we need to do is to first decide what we want;
>
> 1) nz.reg.christchurch.general _and_
> nz.reg.canterbury.general
>
> This is the current RFD
>
> OR
>
> 2) rename the group to nz.reg.chch.general
3) rename the group to nz.reg.canterbury.general
Geoff McCaughan
>
> That's where the argument is.
>
> Do we go for:
> 1. nz.reg.canterbury.general
Yes! The newsgroup should have the name of the district, not the city.
> or...
> 2. nz.reg.chch.general
No! Abbreviations are not used in the other group names, and won't be
recognisable to non-locals who may be wanting to use the group.
Snoopy
(DuncanMcC) wrote:
>
>That's where the argument is.
>
>Do we go for:
>1. nz.reg.canterbury.general
>
>2. nz.reg.chch.general
>
>If we can decide this one - I think we've got it cracked.
>
>It *won't* be a *new* group - it'll RENAME the existing one whatever name
>we can decide on above (1. or 2.).
>
As the one who has expressed the most disinterest in this choice
(which means I don't favour either, so I don't have a bias either way)
perhaps I might comment.
The choice is to change the group name to
1/ 'nz.reg.canterbury.general' - if you feel that a hint of
'christchurch' in the title alienates those Cantabrians not from
Christchurch, and including 'canterbury' may affect the geographic
membership profile of the group, or somehow increase the perceived
worth of contributions of Cantabrians not from Christchurch.
2/ 'nz.reg.chch.general' if you really want minimal change (but enough
to deter Christian spam) and are assured that having an 'abbreviation'
in the name group title won't confuse people.
It really is that simple, as I see it. SNOOPY
DuncanMcC
tennyson@NO_SPAM.caverock.net.nz says...
> On Tue, 26 Jan 99 05:17:13 GMT, blu...@penguin.southern.co.nz (Gordon
> Taylor) wrote:
>
> >In article <36ac496f....@news.xtra.co.nz> da...@farrar.com writes:
> >>
> >>What is this nz.gen.* - it is nz.reg.*
> >>
> >Okay, my fault. Needs to be nz.reg.canterbury.general.
> >
> >For some reason my mind has set on nz.gen.*
> >
> More confusion! Are you saying nz.reg.canterbury.general or
> nz.reg.chch.general? SNOOPY
That's where the argument is.
Do we go for:
1. nz.reg.canterbury.general
or...
2. nz.reg.chch.general
If we can decide this one - I think we've got it cracked.
It *won't* be a *new* group - it'll RENAME the existing one whatever name
we can decide on above (1. or 2.).
Robert 'Stumpy' Marsh
(Geoff McCaughan) wrote:
>DuncanMcC (Dun...@adrock.nosmeggingspam.com) wrote:
>>
>> That's where the argument is.
>>
>> Do we go for:
>> 1. nz.reg.canterbury.general
>
>Yes! The newsgroup should have the name of the district, not the city.
>
>> or...
>> 2. nz.reg.chch.general
>
>No! Abbreviations are not used in the other group names, and won't be
>recognisable to non-locals who may be wanting to use the group.
I'll second that. Within New Zealand Chch may be a universally
understood abreviation, but the people who post their "I'm coming to
New Zealand shortly, please advise" messages would be stumped by it.
IMO those are an important part of the make-up of the group and we
wouldn't want to lose them just because we'd been a bit obscure.
I'm for a change either way, but my preference would be for
n.r.canterbury.gen.
Stumpy.
--
Robert 'Stumpy' Marsh
rma...@xtra.co.nz
<http://members.xoom.com/StumpyNZ/>
Snoopy
Marsh) wrote:
>>>
>>> Do we go for:
>>> 1. nz.reg.canterbury.general
>>
>>Yes! The newsgroup should have the name of the district, not the city.
>
>understood abreviation, but the people who post their "I'm coming to
>New Zealand shortly, please advise" messages would be stumped by it.
>IMO those are an important part of the make-up of the group and we
>wouldn't want to lose them just because we'd been a bit obscure.
>
>I'm for a change either way, but my preference would be for
>n.r.canterbury.gen.
>
I think you will find that Canterbury isn't there, but then neither is
any other province.
I take your point but differ in your speculation on the affect of a
name change on those from overseas.
If you were looking for Christchurch (and I have seen some New Zealand
Maps where the only two features shown are two cities) it would be
very difficult to figure out that Canterbury was the right group to
which to post. On the other hand ChCh (which is obviously an
abbreviation due to the lack of vowels) would be much easier to spot.
Gordon Taylor
>
>On Tue, 26 Jan 99 05:17:13 GMT, blu...@penguin.southern.co.nz (Gordon
>Taylor) wrote:
>
>>In article <36ac496f....@news.xtra.co.nz> da...@farrar.com writes:
>>>
>>>What is this nz.gen.* - it is nz.reg.*
>>>
>>Okay, my fault. Needs to be nz.reg.canterbury.general.
>>
>>For some reason my mind has set on nz.gen.*
>>
>More confusion! Are you saying nz.reg.canterbury.general or
>nz.reg.chch.general? SNOOPY
Neither. I had typed in nz.gen.whatever instead of nz.reg.whatever.
Call it a typo if you like :-)
--
Gordon Taylor blu...@penguin.southern.co.nz
Gordon Taylor
>
>DuncanMcC (Dun...@adrock.nosmeggingspam.com) wrote:
>>
>> That's where the argument is.
>>
>> 1. nz.reg.canterbury.general
>
>Yes! The newsgroup should have the name of the district, not the city.
Does this also apply to Dunedin (Otago), Gisborne (East Coast),
Hamilton (Waikato)? Christchurch (canterbury)
7 of the 14 reg groups are regions. 4 are cites as above, and 3 are
fence sitters. Auckland, Wellington and Nelson are both regions and
cities.
>> or...
>> 2. nz.reg.chch.general
>
>No! Abbreviations are not used in the other group names, and won't be
>recognisable to non-locals who may be wanting to use the group.
>
This makes sense to me.
--
Gordon Taylor blu...@penguin.southern.co.nz
Marvin
Snoopy wrote in message <36ae59ab...@news.caverock.net.nz>...
>which to post. On the other hand ChCh (which is obviously an
>abbreviation due to the lack of vowels) would be much easier to spot.
chrstchrch
Marvin
Marvin
Geoff McCaughan wrote in message <78ku65$ppt$3...@ukko.trimble.co.nz>...
>DuncanMcC (Dun...@adrock.nosmeggingspam.com) wrote:
>> Do we go for:
>> 1. nz.reg.canterbury.general
>Yes! The newsgroup should have the name of the district, not the city.
Yes also.
>> or...
>> 2. nz.reg.chch.general
>No! Abbreviations are not used in the other group names, and won't be
>recognisable to non-locals who may be wanting to use the group.
No also.
Marvin
Phil Anderson
> 1) nz.reg.christchurch.general _and_
> nz.reg.canterbury.general
>
> OR
>
> 2) rename the group to nz.reg.chch.general
Neither -- nz.reg.canterbury.general (nz.reg.chch.general would be a
poor second, but an improvement on the current situation.
--
----------------------------------------------
Phil Anderson *** ha...@sloth.southern.co.nz
----------------------------------------------
"No-one is equal to anyone else!"
Snoopy
wrote:
nz.reg.chrstchrch.general? Actually I think that would work! SNOOPY
Tigger
>
> chrstchrch
Intriguing, but are you sure offering up a third option when we can't
agree out of two is a good plan? ;)
Tigger
>
> nz.reg.chrstchrch.general? Actually I think that would work! SNOOPY
Good god! Do you mean it would stop the spam, or that you might actually
vote yes?
Snoopy
>Snoopy wrote:
>>
>> nz.reg.chrstchrch.general? Actually I think that would work! SNOOPY
>
>Good god! Do you mean it would stop the spam, or that you might actually
>vote yes?
>
It would obviously stop the name matching using 'christ' and 'church'.
And I guess that means we would have reduced spam from those sources.
And although it is an abbreviation, it is probably the clearest
abbreviation you could have which spells 'Christchurch' without using
the words 'Christ' and 'Church'. I know that 'chch' is the common
abbreviation for Christchurch and because of that my first thoughts
are that 'chch' is the better abbreviation. And that is what was used
on the 'chch.chat' newsgroup that immediately preceded this one. So
there is a point in favour of using 'chch'. It gives us a sort of
broken continuity.
But the internet is an international audience and I am inclined to
think that 'chrstchrch' is the better international choice. And
reading it on the page it certainly reads 'christchurch' to me, even
though it isn't spelt that way.
But, and this is the saddest point of the whole debate, no it won't
stop spam. And neither will 'nz.reg.canterbury.general'. In fact
'Canterbury' has just as many religious connotations as 'Christchurch'
and there is no guarantee that changing the name of
'nz.reg.christchurch.general' to 'nz.reg.canterbury.general' will stop
religious spam. And even if it does .we still have all the
commercial non-religious spam to deal with.
So whatever the result of the CFV, you will still be stuck with spam.
Sorry folks but that's the truth of it. SNOOPY
Patrick Dunford
04:27:03 GMT in nz.net.admin:<36afde5...@news.caverock.net.nz> didst
write unto us...
Well that could be very easily checked by running some searches. At
present there are no religious newsgroups with the name "canterbury" so
that settles that one.
Last time we ran the CFD there was a huge load of cobblers posted in a
similar vein.
Say it straight mr beagle, you have no evidence at all that anyone will
spam religious-based e-mail to a group with "canterbury" in its name.
Stop beating about the bush, you will have to come up with a better
reason than that.
>And even if it does .we still have all the
>commercial non-religious spam to deal with.
Which is irrelevant to this discussion.
--
Views expressed in this post are my personal opinions and unless otherwise
stated not those of any organisation I am associated with.
----------------------------------------------------------
Vote for Future New Zealand
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Senate/9789/fnz/
======================================================
Patrick Dunford, ChristChurch, NZ
http://patrick.dunford.com/
Gordon Taylor
>
>Actually 11 of the 14 groups are named after the name of the regional
>council. Three out of 14 are named after the major city.
>
Well there you go agreeing with me. A total lack of consistancy in
the naming. :-)
--
Gordon Taylor blu...@penguin.southern.co.nz
Colin Francis
>On Thu, 28 Jan 1999 14:57:42 +1300, Tigger <d...@mr2.org.xnzx> wrote:
>
>>Snoopy wrote:
>>>
>>> nz.reg.chrstchrch.general? Actually I think that would work! SNOOPY
>>
>>Good god! Do you mean it would stop the spam, or that you might actually
>>vote yes?
>>
>It would obviously stop the name matching using 'christ' and 'church'.
>And I guess that means we would have reduced spam from those sources.
>
>And although it is an abbreviation, it is probably the clearest
>abbreviation you could have which spells 'Christchurch' without using
>the words 'Christ' and 'Church'. I know that 'chch' is the common
>abbreviation for Christchurch and because of that my first thoughts
>are that 'chch' is the better abbreviation. And that is what was used
>on the 'chch.chat' newsgroup that immediately preceded this one. So
>there is a point in favour of using 'chch'. It gives us a sort of
>broken continuity.
and an oxymoron ?? broken continuity ..
>But the internet is an international audience and I am inclined to
>think that 'chrstchrch' is the better international choice. And
>reading it on the page it certainly reads 'christchurch' to me, even
>though it isn't spelt that way.
>
>But, and this is the saddest point of the whole debate, no it won't
>stop spam. And neither will 'nz.reg.canterbury.general'. In fact
>'Canterbury' has just as many religious connotations as 'Christchurch'
>and there is no guarantee that changing the name of
>'nz.reg.christchurch.general' to 'nz.reg.canterbury.general' will stop
>religious spam. And even if it does .we still have all the
>commercial non-religious spam to deal with.
Geez .you duck and dive a bit .. we never said it would ..it will
stop the christian spam thats all..
Try putting Canterbury in a search engine, i got 32,000 pages with the
word canterbury .. prob less that .5% were to do with religion most of
those being Canterbury Cathedral..
Therapy is expensive Snoopy , popping bubble wrap is cheaper ..You
chose .. /If I threw you a stick would you go away .. :]
>So whatever the result of the CFV, you will still be stuck with spam.
>Sorry folks but that's the truth of it. SNOOPY
>-----------------------------------------------------
>Message posted by SNOOPY using 'Forte'
>Free Agent V1.11/32- http://www.forteinc.com
>------------------------------------------------
Col.
If a person with multiple personalities threatens
suicide, is that considered a hostage situation?
Marvin
Tigger wrote in message <36AFC3...@mr2.org.xnzx>...
>Marvin wrote:
>> chrstchrch
>Intriguing, but are you sure offering up a third option when we can't
>agree out of two is a good plan? ;)
No, I wasn't offering another option, simply responding to Snoopy's
assertion that chch was an obvious abbreviation as it had no vowels. I
actually read that wrong initially as I thought he said it was '_the_
obvious abbreviation as it was _Christchurch_ without vowels'.
I would vote in a nz.reg.canterbury.general CFV, and abstain for all other
suggested options, including this one.
Marvin
Snoopy
Dunford) wrote:
>>
>>But, and this is the saddest point of the whole debate, no it won't
>>stop spam. And neither will 'nz.reg.canterbury.general'. In fact
>>'Canterbury' has just as many religious connotations as 'Christchurch'
>>and there is no guarantee that changing the name of
>>'nz.reg.christchurch.general' to 'nz.reg.canterbury.general' will stop
>>religious spam.
>
>present there are no religious newsgroups with the name "canterbury" so
>that settles that one.
>
computer terminals in the catacombes of Canterbury Cathedral suddenly
SEE that a canterbury newsgroup has been created.
"Right , at last we have an on-line venue through which to dissect our
religious diatribes", and away the discussion goes.
(Don't laugh- as an aside this is exactly what the monks at
farnborough abbey do. They have even produced a great web site.
Worth a look for the special effects alone. Web address is
http://www.farnboroughabbey.org/homepage.html .....but I digress)
If you provide the venue (nz.reg.canterbury.general) then the scene is
set for the discussion to follow.
>
>Say it straight mr beagle, you have no evidence at all that anyone will
>spam religious-based e-mail to a group with "canterbury" in its name.
>
Did I ever claim to? When 'nz.reg.christchurch.general' was first
created was there any 'evidence' that it would be the target of
religious spam?
Why if you had the choice of renaming a group to avoid religious spam,
would you pick ANOTHER name with religious connotations? If that is
your objective does it not make more sense to rename the group
'nz.reg.chrstchrch.general' or 'nz.reg.chch.general'?
>
>Stop beating about the bush, you will have to come up with a better
>reason than that.
>
Actually that's not one of the reasons that I had in mind. But I
think it is a wothwhile 'marble' to roll into the discussion at this
time.
>
>>And even if it does .we still have all the
>>commercial non-religious spam to deal with.
>
>Which is irrelevant to this discussion.
>
It may be irrelevent TO YOU. But such is the hysteria at times in this
discussion that the original objective of the CFV has been puffed up
as an antidote to ALL spam. I am just trying to bring everyone back
to reality here. Changing the name to 'nz.reg.canterbury.general'
will not stop all spam, and is not guaranteed to stop all religious
spam. It is not the best choice if stopping religious spam is your
main objective. SNOOPY
(PS The Canterbury Association in London wanted to name 'Canterbury
Settlement' as Christchurch. The colonist society in London wanted
'Canterbury Settlement' to be called Lyttelton. I find it very ironic
that to escape this perceived 'spam threat' you are proposing to
rename the group 'nz.reg.canterbury.general', when in fact it was the
Canterbury Assocition that 'caused' this perceived 'spam threat' in
the first place!)
Geoff McCaughan
> On Thu, 28 Jan 1999 14:57:42 +1300, Tigger <d...@mr2.org.xnzx> wrote:
>
> >Snoopy wrote:
> >>
> >> nz.reg.chrstchrch.general? Actually I think that would work! SNOOPY
> >
> >Good god! Do you mean it would stop the spam, or that you might actually
> >vote yes?
> >
> It would obviously stop the name matching using 'christ' and 'church'.
> And I guess that means we would have reduced spam from those sources.
>
> And although it is an abbreviation, it is probably the clearest
> abbreviation you could have which spells 'Christchurch' without using
> the words 'Christ' and 'Church'.
It's clear when you read it what the abbreviation is for, but it has the
distinct disadvantage that people unfamiliar with it will easily forget how
to spell it. For that reason 'chch' is a better abbreviation, though its
meaning is less obvious to non-locals.
That said, I'm definitely against using any abbreviations.
Colin Francis
>That 'settles' nothing. Suppose all the monks sitting at their
>computer terminals in the catacombes of Canterbury Cathedral suddenly
>SEE that a canterbury newsgroup has been created.
>"Right , at last we have an on-line venue through which to dissect our
>religious diatribes", and away the discussion goes.
geeez Snoopy .. Is it time for your medication or mine?
>(Don't laugh- as an aside this is exactly what the monks at
>farnborough abbey do. They have even produced a great web site.
>Worth a look for the special effects alone. Web address is
>http://www.farnboroughabbey.org/homepage.html .....but I digress)
which is not abnormal ..
>If you provide the venue (nz.reg.canterbury.general) then the scene is
>set for the discussion to follow.
>Why if you had the choice of renaming a group to avoid religious spam,
>would you pick ANOTHER name with religious connotations? If that is
>your objective does it not make more sense to rename the group
>'nz.reg.chrstchrch.general' or 'nz.reg.chch.general'?
Not at all..It's your opinion that canterbury has a religious
connotation .. i guess the search engine i used was faulty and set
up to not show religious connections to Canterbury .
>Actually that's not one of the reasons that I had in mind. But I
>think it is a wothwhile 'marble' to roll into the discussion at this
>time.
>It may be irrelevent TO YOU. But such is the hysteria at times in this
>discussion that the original objective of the CFV has been puffed up
>as an antidote to ALL spam. I am just trying to bring everyone back
>to reality here. Changing the name to 'nz.reg.canterbury.general'
>will not stop all spam, and is not guaranteed to stop all religious
>spam. It is not the best choice if stopping religious spam is your
>main objective.
>
>(PS The Canterbury Association in London wanted to name 'Canterbury
>Settlement' as Christchurch. The colonist society in London wanted
>'Canterbury Settlement' to be called Lyttelton. I find it very ironic
>that to escape this perceived 'spam threat' you are proposing to
>rename the group 'nz.reg.canterbury.general', when in fact it was the
>Canterbury Assocition that 'caused' this perceived 'spam threat' in
>the first place!)
ps .This would have to be one of the most stupid statements I have
read on here .. and bears absolutely no relevance to the subject
whatsoever .
Col..
Do they have reserved parking for non-handicapped
people at the Special Olympics?
Luke Pickering
>But the internet is an international audience and I am inclined to
>think that 'chrstchrch' is the better international choice. And
>reading it on the page it certainly reads 'christchurch' to me, even
>though it isn't spelt that way.
Uh-huh, and so therefore to potential spammers if we are to take this
point as you say it....
>But, and this is the saddest point of the whole debate, no it won't
>stop spam. And neither will 'nz.reg.canterbury.general'. In fact
>'Canterbury' has just as many religious connotations as 'Christchurch'
Yeah?
______________________________________________________________
Luke D. Pickering, Ph +64 (0)25319-830
Technical Consultant Fax +64 3 355-6282
______________________________________________________________
Luke Pickering
>It may be irrelevent TO YOU. But such is the hysteria at times in this
>discussion that the original objective of the CFV has been puffed up
>as an antidote to ALL spam. I am just trying to bring everyone back
I don't believe so, in the most recent _RFD_ written by Duncan &
myself the objective and rationale is fairly clear - and twofold.
Namely we suggest it will be an effective deterrent against name
matching and it will more reasonably reflect the _regional _ nature of
the group.
As for hysteria involved in this discussion.....
Luke.
Snoopy
(Luke Pickering) wrote:
>
>>But, and this is the saddest point of the whole debate, no it won't
>>stop spam. And neither will 'nz.reg.canterbury.general'. In fact
>>'Canterbury' has just as many religious connotations as 'Christchurch'
>
>Yeah?
>
references to 'Canterbury Cathedral' and only 1363 references to
'Christchurch Cathedral'.
Of course Canterbury won't suffer from the matching of it's
constituent parts loke 'Christ''Church' has. But to suggest that
Canterbury has no religious overtones is not true. SNOOPY
Snoopy
(Luke Pickering) wrote:
>
>>It may be irrelevent TO YOU. But such is the hysteria at times in this
>>discussion that the original objective of the CFV has been puffed up
>>as an antidote to ALL spam.
>
>myself the objective and rationale is fairly clear - and twofold.
>Namely we suggest it will be an effective deterrent against name
>matching and it will more reasonably reflect the _regional _ nature of
>the group.
>
of the RFD. I was referring to the comments by others before and
since. SNOOPY
Snoopy
wrote:
>
>>If you provide the venue (nz.reg.canterbury.general) then the scene is
>>set for the discussion to follow.
>
>>Why if you had the choice of renaming a group to avoid religious spam,
>>would you pick ANOTHER name with religious connotations? If that is
>>your objective does it not make more sense to rename the group
>>'nz.reg.chrstchrch.general' or 'nz.reg.chch.general'?
>
>Not at all..It's your opinion that canterbury has a religious
>connotation .. i guess the search engine i used was faulty and set
>up to not show religious connections to Canterbury .
>
options ;-).
>>
>>(PS The Canterbury Association in London wanted to name 'Canterbury
>>Settlement' as Christchurch. The colonist society in London wanted
>>'Canterbury Settlement' to be called Lyttelton. I find it very ironic
>>that to escape this perceived 'spam threat' you are proposing to
>>rename the group 'nz.reg.canterbury.general', when in fact it was the
>>Canterbury Assocition that 'caused' this perceived 'spam threat' in
>>the first place!)
>
>ps .This would have to be one of the most stupid statements I have
>read on here ..
>
No, actually it's true. Nothing 'stupid' about it.
>
>and bears absolutely no relevance to the subject whatsoever .
>
Well I didn't include it as a 'core argument'. I just found it an
ironic observation and so tacked it on as a postscript at the end.
Snoopy
Dunford) wrote:
>>
>>Suppose all the monks sitting at their
>>computer terminals in the catacombes of Canterbury Cathedral suddenly
>>SEE that a canterbury newsgroup has been created.
>>
>>set for the discussion to follow.
>
>called alt.nz.reg.canterbury.general?
>
Very easy. You could create a 'alt.nz.reg.canterbury.general' group
to test for 'spam attractiveness'. But how would you get rid of this
group once the test was over? I don't think we want a shadow
'nz.reg.canterbury.general' hanging around.
>
>>Why if you had the choice of renaming a group to avoid religious spam,
>>would you pick ANOTHER name with religious connotations?
>
>any other group name in New Zealand. There are churches up and down the
>country named Auckland, Wellington, Dunedin etc etc for example.
>None of those groups are getting the same spam.
>
Try this. Do a search on one of the search engines on the following
topics: Canterbury Cathedral, Christchurch Cathedral, Auckland
Cathedral, Wellington Cathedral and Dunedin Cathedral.
Here are the number of matches I got using ANZWERS
Canterbury Cathedral 5392
Wellington Cathedral 2122
Christchurch Cathedral 1363
Auckland Cathedral 1108
Dunedin Cathedral 493
The fact is that 'Canterbury Cathedral' contains more matches than all
of the others COMBINED. Do you still insist that 'Canterbury' has no
religious connotations?
>
>There are precisely 10 posts in DejaNews's entire archive posted to a
>group called ncf.schools.schnews.canterbury, not one of which are
>religious spam messages.
>
Ok, it is unlikely that there will be as much religious spam posted to
nz.reg.canterbury.general, as there is posted to
nz.reg.christchurch.general. But that doesn't mean that 'Canterbury'
doesn't have a religious connotation.
And that doesn't prove there is a problem now.
>
>On the other hand there are dozens of messages
>in nz.reg.christchurch.general...the case is made I think.
>
Dozens? How many dozen? Have you ever counted them?
>
>>If that is
>>your objective does it not make more sense to rename the group
>>'nz.reg.chrstchrch.general' or 'nz.reg.chch.general'?
>
>chrstchrch doesn't mean a lot to most people...chch does not have a huge
>connotation to people not familiar with the district...anyway I also
>support the line that the group should be named after the region.
>
>It is a good choice for two reasons
>
>1. It is the name of a region which includes other population centres
>from which people can post. After all these newsgroups have REGional in
>their name.
>
Christchurch Region does not mean Christchurch City.
>
>2. It is a real place that people can look up on a map, not possible with
>any of the alternatives.
>
Is it? Try this test. Grab your nearest Atlas and have a look. The
'Canterbury Region' isn't in my atlas and I have 18 maps of New
Zealand in that. All these maps show different aspects of NZ. The
region 'Canterbury' is NOT on the map (then again neither are any of
the regions) and that is a powerful argument for not using it.
It is true that chch and chrstchrch are not on the map either.
However, Christchurch is and quite prominently. And if you must name
the newsgroup after a spot that isn't on the map (and none of the
three choices put forward are) then I think 'Chrstchrch' is the one
that is most likely to be guessed by an out of towner. SNOOPY
Gordon Taylor
>
>Yea verily Snoopy (tenn...@NOSPAM.caverock.net.nz) on Thu, 28 Jan 1999
>04:27:03 GMT in nz.net.admin:<36afde5...@news.caverock.net.nz> didst
>write unto us...
>
>>commercial non-religious spam to deal with.
>
>Which is irrelevant to this discussion.
>
_religious_ spam. Now in my view it appears that the for change folks
think that all the group gets in religious spam.
One think for sure it certainly is not ignored.
--
Gordon Taylor blu...@penguin.southern.co.nz
Patrick Dunford
write unto us...
>On Thu, 28 Jan 1999 17:50:26 +1300, pdun...@xtra.co.nz (Patrick
>Dunford) wrote:
>>>
>>>But, and this is the saddest point of the whole debate, no it won't
>>>stop spam. And neither will 'nz.reg.canterbury.general'. In fact
>>>'Canterbury' has just as many religious connotations as 'Christchurch'
>>>and there is no guarantee that changing the name of
>>>'nz.reg.christchurch.general' to 'nz.reg.canterbury.general' will stop
>>>religious spam.
>>
>>Well that could be very easily checked by running some searches. At
>>present there are no religious newsgroups with the name "canterbury" so
>>that settles that one.
>>
>That 'settles' nothing. Suppose all the monks sitting at their
>computer terminals in the catacombes of Canterbury Cathedral suddenly
>SEE that a canterbury newsgroup has been created.
>"Right , at last we have an on-line venue through which to dissect our
>religious diatribes", and away the discussion goes.
Straw-man argument. No proof that any of the above information should be
taken seriously.
>(Don't laugh- as an aside this is exactly what the monks at
>farnborough abbey do. They have even produced a great web site.
>Worth a look for the special effects alone. Web address is
>http://www.farnboroughabbey.org/homepage.html .....but I digress)
>
>If you provide the venue (nz.reg.canterbury.general) then the scene is
>set for the discussion to follow.
I think that is very easy, how much work is it to create a new group
called alt.nz.reg.canterbury.general?
>>Say it straight mr beagle, you have no evidence at all that anyone will
>>spam religious-based e-mail to a group with "canterbury" in its name.
>>
>Did I ever claim to? When 'nz.reg.christchurch.general' was first
>created was there any 'evidence' that it would be the target of
>religious spam?
>Why if you had the choice of renaming a group to avoid religious spam,
>would you pick ANOTHER name with religious connotations?
Because those connations are non-existent. They are no more there than
any other group name in New Zealand. There are churches up and down the
country named Auckland, Wellington, Dunedin etc etc for example. None of
those groups are getting the same spam.
There are precisely 10 posts in DejaNews's entire archive posted to a
group called ncf.schools.schnews.canterbury, not one of which are
religious spam messages. On the other hand there are dozens of messages
in nz.reg.christchurch.general...the case is made I think.
>If that is
>your objective does it not make more sense to rename the group
>'nz.reg.chrstchrch.general' or 'nz.reg.chch.general'?
chrstchrch doesn't mean a lot to most people...chch does not have a huge
connotation to people not familiar with the district...anyway I also
support the line that the group should be named after the region.
>>>And even if it does .we still have all the
>>>commercial non-religious spam to deal with.
>>
>>Which is irrelevant to this discussion.
>>
>It may be irrelevent TO YOU. But such is the hysteria at times in this
>discussion that the original objective of the CFV has been puffed up
>as an antidote to ALL spam. I am just trying to bring everyone back
>to reality here. Changing the name to 'nz.reg.canterbury.general'
>will not stop all spam, and is not guaranteed to stop all religious
>spam. It is not the best choice if stopping religious spam is your
>main objective. SNOOPY
It is a good choice for two reasons
1. It is the name of a region which includes other population centres
from which people can post. After all these newsgroups have REGional in
their name.
2. It is a real place that people can look up on a map, not possible with
any of the alternatives.
>(PS The Canterbury Association in London wanted to name 'Canterbury
>Settlement' as Christchurch. The colonist society in London wanted
>'Canterbury Settlement' to be called Lyttelton. I find it very ironic
>that to escape this perceived 'spam threat' you are proposing to
>rename the group 'nz.reg.canterbury.general', when in fact it was the
>Canterbury Assocition that 'caused' this perceived 'spam threat' in
>the first place!)
I take it you are joking, this is obviously not meant to be taken
seriously?
Tigger
>
> So whatever the result of the CFV, you will still be stuck with spam.
> Sorry folks but that's the truth of it. SNOOPY
Oh sure. Normal levels of spam yeah. You can't get away from that. But I
think that there are some of us who find that while the level of
Christian spam isn't necessarily intolerable, it is annoying enough that
we would be in favour of a small change that would kill or just reduce
it. And as for Canterbury having religious connotations, I doubt that
people posting messages about the 'right' way to follow Christ will be
searching usenet for .canterbury.
The level of it isn't intolerable, but I certainly don't want another
repeat of people like Alvin, with up to 22 separate posts in one day!
Patrick Dunford
28 Jan 1999 19:40:47 GMT in
nz.net.admin:<36b0baaf...@news.canterbury.ac.nz> didst write unto
us...
>tenn...@NOSPAM.caverock.net.nz (Snoopy) wrote:
>
>>But the internet is an international audience and I am inclined to
>>think that 'chrstchrch' is the better international choice. And
>>reading it on the page it certainly reads 'christchurch' to me, even
>>though it isn't spelt that way.
>
>Uh-huh, and so therefore to potential spammers if we are to take this
>point as you say it....
>
>>But, and this is the saddest point of the whole debate, no it won't
>>stop spam. And neither will 'nz.reg.canterbury.general'. In fact
>>'Canterbury' has just as many religious connotations as 'Christchurch'
>
>Yeah?
Of course not!
It never has had and it never will. The only religious connotation is its
connection with the Anglican Church in England. That is a much smaller
interest level than the *christ and *church groups. Other than that it is
a place name which is used in about 12 places in the world.
I doubt there are ever going to be any significant volume of groups, if
any, with canterbury names. At the moment there are 3 groups *church and
82 groups *christ, on the other hand there is only one group named
canterbury on NCF's server in Canada and that is a school.
Robert 'Stumpy' Marsh
tennyson@NO_SPAM.caverock.net.nz (Snoopy) wrote:
>If you were looking for Christchurch (and I have seen some New Zealand
>Maps where the only two features shown are two cities) it would be
>very difficult to figure out that Canterbury was the right group to
>which to post. On the other hand ChCh (which is obviously an
>abbreviation due to the lack of vowels) would be much easier to spot.
Good point. What about the newsgroup line - the information segment. I
think referring to "The Garden City" is a bad idea. It was fine when
the name of the city was in the group name, but I think it should be
changed to include Christchurch if we change the group name... or
would that just put us back in the firing line for the religious spam?
Stumpy.
--
Robert 'Stumpy' Marsh
rma...@xtra.co.nz
<http://members.xoom.com/StumpyNZ/>
Tigger
>
> Of course Canterbury won't suffer from the matching of it's
> constituent parts loke 'Christ''Church' has. But to suggest that
> Canterbury has no religious overtones is not true. SNOOPY
Which is precisely why nobody has suggested it. However, to suggest, as
you have done, that 'Canterbury' has as many religious connotations as
'christ' and 'church' combined, is just ludicrous. Of course it doesn't.
A quick general search of dejanews reveals only 3,725 hits for
'canterbury', with 5,098 hits for 'christchurch', 69,321 hits for
'christ' and 84,647 hits for 'church.
That gives 'canterbury' 0.02419% of the number of hits of just 'christ'
and 'church'.
Now, what was that you said about 'canterbury' having just as many
religious connotations?
Tigger
>
> >>It may be irrelevent TO YOU. But such is the hysteria at times in this
> >>discussion that the original objective of the CFV has been puffed up
> >>as an antidote to ALL spam.
> >
> of the RFD. I was referring to the comments by others before and
> since. SNOOPY
Please post quotes of anybody which suggest that they think changing the
name of the group will stop all spam. Otherwise retract the claim and
get back to reality.
Snoopy
>>
>> So whatever the result of the CFV, you will still be stuck with spam.
>> Sorry folks but that's the truth of it. SNOOPY
>
>Oh sure. Normal levels of spam yeah. You can't get away from that.
>
>people posting messages about the 'right' way to follow Christ will be
>searching usenet for .canterbury.
>
>
>The level of it isn't intolerable, but I certainly don't want another
>repeat of people like Alvin, with up to 22 separate posts in one day!
>
one message of Christian spam is one too many.
Also you cannot control how often a spammer posts at once, so the fact
that Alvin posted 22 times (was it that many/, I didn't count them) is
I feel irrelevent. He could have posted just 2 times, or 122 times.
That is something we cannot control and should not be allowed to
affect our judgement on the magnitude of the problem.
The way to stop people like Alvin is to get their ISP accounts closed
down. SNOOPY
Tigger
>
> >The level of it isn't intolerable, but I certainly don't want another
> >repeat of people like Alvin, with up to 22 separate posts in one day!
> >
> Maybe not to you. But others have posted along the lines that even
> one message of Christian spam is one too many.
>
But I haven't seen anyone say that.
> Also you cannot control how often a spammer posts at once, so the fact
> that Alvin posted 22 times (was it that many/, I didn't count them) is
It was 22 on the day that I counted them, at the time that I counted
them, for that day only. About 12 the previous day, and more on days
previous to that.
You might be prepared to just 'not read' them, or 'ignore' them, but I
feel that changing the group name is a very simple procedure, and will
mean I do not have to see their headers, or inadvertently read them. It
lowers the irritation.
> That is something we cannot control and should not be allowed to
> affect our judgement on the magnitude of the problem.
I disagree. I think that is the problem. Very few people spamming, and
only very occasionally, and only one or two postings each, wouldn't
really constitute a problem. However, the 'flooding' that Alvin and some
others have done is a problem. Also, even if each individual spammer
only posted once, I still feel that a name change is a tiny thing to do
to remove a small inconvenience, so why the hell not? I have no great
attachment to the name.
> The way to stop people like Alvin is to get their ISP accounts closed
> down. SNOOPY
Yes, but the next one, and the next one, and the next one? As has been
pointed out to you before, that is the ideal long term solution.
However, it is quite impractical as a solution, and the suggested action
at least relieves the minor irritation that most of us feel with
minimal, if any, impact on us.
Snoopy
>Snoopy wrote:
>>
>> Of course Canterbury won't suffer from the matching of it's
>> constituent parts loke 'Christ''Church' has. But to suggest that
>> Canterbury has no religious overtones is not true. SNOOPY
>
>Which is precisely why nobody has suggested it.
>
Snoopy has suggested it
>
>However, to suggest, as
>you have done, that 'Canterbury' has as many religious connotations as
>'christ' and 'church' combined, is just ludicrous. Of course it doesn't.
><snipped proof>
>
Which, if you had read what I said above, is exactly what I said.
Snoopy
>
>Please post quotes of anybody which suggest that they think changing the
>name of the group will stop all spam. Otherwise retract the claim and
>get back to reality.
>
>
>>So here is your chance to convert others to your cause. How have you
>>justified a group name change to yourself? SNOOPY
>
>The spam irritates me. That's how I justify it to myself, but I'm not on
>the campaign trail to convince anyone else.
>-H
>
OK., lets give him the benefit of the doubt, maybe he was thinking
Xian spam. But he wrote 'spam' and that I interpreted as
(unqualified) 'spam'. SNOOPY
Marvin
Snoopy wrote in message <36b039a...@news.caverock.net.nz>...
>Why if you had the choice of renaming a group to avoid religious spam,
>your objective does it not make more sense to rename the group
>'nz.reg.chrstchrch.general' or 'nz.reg.chch.general'?
No, much better to rename it nz.reg.methven,general
Marvin
Patrick Dunford
23:45:52 GMT in nz.net.admin:<36b0d8ac...@news.caverock.net.nz>
didst write unto us...
>On Thu, 28 Jan 1999 19:40:47 GMT, pho...@025319830.for.email.address
>(Luke Pickering) wrote:
>>
>>>But, and this is the saddest point of the whole debate, no it won't
>>>stop spam. And neither will 'nz.reg.canterbury.general'. In fact
>>>'Canterbury' has just as many religious connotations as 'Christchurch'
>>
>>Yeah?
>>
>I'm afraid so. In the ANZWERS search engine I pulled out 5392
>references to 'Canterbury Cathedral' and only 1363 references to
>'Christchurch Cathedral'.
>
>Of course Canterbury won't suffer from the matching of it's
>constituent parts loke 'Christ''Church' has. But to suggest that
>Canterbury has no religious overtones is not true. SNOOPY
I don't think anyone suggested that but they correctly questioned the
assumption that it has as many religious connotations. We are NOT talking
about "Christchurch" - we are talking about "christ" and "church". We
are not talking about placenames here. Canterbury Cathedral is of a
minority interest compared to world-wide interest in Jesus Christ and His
church. The messages are not getting here because the people are
interested in Christchurch.
>-----------------------------------------------------
>Message posted by SNOOPY using 'Forte'
>Free Agent V1.11/32- http://www.forteinc.com
>------------------------------------------------
>
--
Patrick Dunford
didst write unto us...
>On Fri, 29 Jan 1999 01:10:41 +1300, pdun...@xtra.co.nz (Patrick
>Dunford) wrote:
>>>
>>>Suppose all the monks sitting at their
>>>computer terminals in the catacombes of Canterbury Cathedral suddenly
>>>SEE that a canterbury newsgroup has been created.
>>>
>>>If you provide the venue (nz.reg.canterbury.general) then the scene is
>>>set for the discussion to follow.
>>
>>I think that is very easy, how much work is it to create a new group
>>called alt.nz.reg.canterbury.general?
>>
>Very easy. You could create a 'alt.nz.reg.canterbury.general' group
>to test for 'spam attractiveness'. But how would you get rid of this
>group once the test was over? I don't think we want a shadow
>'nz.reg.canterbury.general' hanging around.
>>
>>>Why if you had the choice of renaming a group to avoid religious spam,
>>>would you pick ANOTHER name with religious connotations?
>>
>>Because those connations are non-existent. They are no more there than
>>any other group name in New Zealand. There are churches up and down the
>>country named Auckland, Wellington, Dunedin etc etc for example.
>>None of those groups are getting the same spam.
>>
>Try this. Do a search on one of the search engines on the following
>topics: Canterbury Cathedral, Christchurch Cathedral, Auckland
>Cathedral, Wellington Cathedral and Dunedin Cathedral.
>
>Here are the number of matches I got using ANZWERS
>
>Canterbury Cathedral 5392
>Wellington Cathedral 2122
>Christchurch Cathedral 1363
>Auckland Cathedral 1108
>Dunedin Cathedral 493
>
>The fact is that 'Canterbury Cathedral' contains more matches than all
>of the others COMBINED. Do you still insist that 'Canterbury' has no
>religious connotations?
No because I never said that, I disputed that it has "as many". You can
of course post any numbers you wish to back your theory, the fact is that
Canterbury Cathedral is one church compared to hundreds of churches in
the four main centres of NZ, and search engine results are irrelevant to
newsgroups anyway.
>>There are precisely 10 posts in DejaNews's entire archive posted to a
>>group called ncf.schools.schnews.canterbury, not one of which are
>>religious spam messages.
>>
>Ok, it is unlikely that there will be as much religious spam posted to
>nz.reg.canterbury.general, as there is posted to
>nz.reg.christchurch.general. But that doesn't mean that 'Canterbury'
>doesn't have a religious connotation.
Who said it did not? BUT at the same time it is not equal to those
provided by the Christchurch name.
>And that doesn't prove there is a problem now.
>>
>>On the other hand there are dozens of messages
>>in nz.reg.christchurch.general...the case is made I think.
>>
>Dozens? How many dozen? Have you ever counted them?
>>
>>>If that is
>>>your objective does it not make more sense to rename the group
>>>'nz.reg.chrstchrch.general' or 'nz.reg.chch.general'?
>>
>>chrstchrch doesn't mean a lot to most people...chch does not have a huge
>>connotation to people not familiar with the district...anyway I also
>>support the line that the group should be named after the region.
>>
>>It is a good choice for two reasons
>>
>>1. It is the name of a region which includes other population centres
>>from which people can post. After all these newsgroups have REGional in
>>their name.
>>
>Christchurch Region does not mean Christchurch City.
Canterbury is the name of the region which includes Christchurch.
>>
>>2. It is a real place that people can look up on a map, not possible with
>>any of the alternatives.
>>
>Is it? Try this test. Grab your nearest Atlas and have a look. The
>'Canterbury Region' isn't in my atlas and I have 18 maps of New
>Zealand in that. All these maps show different aspects of NZ. The
>region 'Canterbury' is NOT on the map (then again neither are any of
>the regions) and that is a powerful argument for not using it.
Ah you have just said it, no regions, taranaki, manawatu,
bollocks...Canterbury comes up if you have the right map, it comes up on
Expediamaps for example, everyone in New Zealand knows that name and it
comes up in search engines.
>It is true that chch and chrstchrch are not on the map either.
>However, Christchurch is and quite prominently. And if you must name
>the newsgroup after a spot that isn't on the map (and none of the
>three choices put forward are) then I think 'Chrstchrch' is the one
>that is most likely to be guessed by an out of towner.
I find that extremely unlikely.
Snoopy
Dunford) wrote:
>>>
>>>>Why if you had the choice of renaming a group to avoid religious spam,
>>>>would you pick ANOTHER name with religious connotations?
>>>
>>>Because those connotations are non-existent.<SNAP(snip)>
>>>
OK, hold that phrase. Now See Below
>>
>>Try this. Do a search on one of the search engines on the following
>>topics: Canterbury Cathedral, Christchurch Cathedral, Auckland
>>Cathedral, Wellington Cathedral and Dunedin Cathedral.
>>
>>Here are the number of matches I got using ANZWERS
>>
>>Canterbury Cathedral 5392
>>Wellington Cathedral 2122
>>Christchurch Cathedral 1363
>>Auckland Cathedral 1108
>>Dunedin Cathedral 493
>>
>>The fact is that 'Canterbury Cathedral' contains more matches than all
>>of the others COMBINED. Do you still insist that 'Canterbury' has no
>>religious connotations?
>
>No because I never said that,
>
See above
>
>,and search engine results are irrelevant to newsgroups anyway.
>
I think the number of search engines hits can give some sort of a
measure of the relative public interest in a topic.
>
>>>
>>>On the other hand there are dozens of messages
>>>in nz.reg.christchurch.general...the case is made I think.
>>>
>>Dozens? How many dozen? Have you ever counted them?
>>
Mental note. Patrick has chosen not to answer this question
>>>
>>>2. It is a real place that people can look up on a map, not possible with
>>>any of the alternatives.
>>>
>>Is it? Try this test. Grab your nearest Atlas and have a look. The
>>'Canterbury Region' isn't in my atlas and I have 18 maps of New
>>Zealand in that. All these maps show different aspects of NZ. The
>>region 'Canterbury' is NOT on the map (then again neither are any of
>>the regions) and that is a powerful argument for not using it.
>
>Canterbury comes up if you have the right map, it comes up on
>Expediamaps for example, everyone in New Zealand knows that name and it
>comes up in search engines.
>
So it is just as well you regard Search Engines rersults as so
relevant to newsgroups then ;-), as not everyone has the 'right' map.
SNOOPY
Snoopy
Dunford) wrote:
>>>> no it won't stop spam.
>>>> And neither will 'nz.reg.canterbury.general'. In fact
>>>>'Canterbury' has just as many religious connotations as 'Christchurch'
>>>
>>>Yeah?
>>>
>>I'm afraid so. In the ANZWERS search engine I pulled out 5392
>>references to 'Canterbury Cathedral' and only 1363 references to
>>'Christchurch Cathedral'.
>>
>>Of course Canterbury won't suffer from the matching of it's
>>constituent parts loke 'Christ''Church' has. But to suggest that
>>Canterbury has no religious overtones is not true. SNOOPY
>
>I don't think anyone suggested that but they correctly questioned the
>assumption that it has as many religious connotations. We are NOT talking
>about "Christchurch"
>
Well I WAS talking about 'Christchurch' (notice I included it in
quotation marks to emphasise the one word). And the reason for that
is that I was comparing likely spam before the formation of
'nz.reg.christchurch.general' VS likely spam before the formation
'nz.reg.canterbury.general'. Obviously I can't do an 'after'
comparison without 'nz.reg.canterbury.general' existing.
>
> - we are talking about "christ" and "church".
>
And that was a 'problem' that became apparent after the group name
'Christchurch' had been decided on. The truth is no-one knows
exactly what spam will arrive here if the group name is changed to
'Canterbury'. The only thing certain is that the amount of spam that
gets into any new group will be unexpected.
Probably less than if the group name remains as it is.
Probably more than if the group name is changed to
'nz.reg.chr_istch_urch.general' SNOOPY
Geoff McCaughan
> On Fri, 29 Jan 1999 13:23:30 +1300, Tigger <d...@mr2.org.xnzx> wrote:
> >
> >Please post quotes of anybody which suggest that they think changing the
> >name of the group will stop all spam. Otherwise retract the claim and
> >get back to reality.
> >
> OK here is a quote from the thread 'Faith Alone in Christ Alone'
> >
> >>So here is your chance to convert others to your cause. How have you
> >>justified a group name change to yourself? SNOOPY
> >
> >The spam irritates me. That's how I justify it to myself, but I'm not on
> >the campaign trail to convince anyone else.
> >-H
> >
> OK., lets give him the benefit of the doubt, maybe he was thinking
> Xian spam. But he wrote 'spam' and that I interpreted as
> (unqualified) 'spam'. SNOOPY
Is this the best you can do?
Good grief, just give up now and stop all the silly posturing!
Gordon Taylor
>
>ps .This would have to be one of the most stupid statements I have
>whatsoever .
>
I must admit that I had thoughts that the track was well and truely
lost.
--
Gordon Taylor blu...@penguin.southern.co.nz
Gordon Taylor
Does Dejanews filter spam?
Any one care to comment. Ta muchly.
--
Gordon Taylor blu...@penguin.southern.co.nz
Gordon Taylor
>
>
>The level of it isn't intolerable, but I certainly don't want another
>repeat of people like Alvin, with up to 22 separate posts in one day!
>
nz.reg.christchurch.general in one day?
If so could you please name the day.
--
Gordon Taylor blu...@penguin.southern.co.nz
Gordon Taylor
>
>In article <36B0C6...@mr2.org.xnzx> d...@mr2.org.xnzx writes:
>>
>>
>>The level of it isn't intolerable, but I certainly don't want another
>>repeat of people like Alvin, with up to 22 separate posts in one day!
>>
>These 22 seperate posts from Alvin went to
>nz.reg.christchurch.general in one day?
>
Yep, according to Dejanews they did.
>If so could you please name the day.
>
12 Jan 99, which means 13 Jan here.
Thus I stand "corrected" and informed and just wonder how the heck I
did not notice 22 spams on one day. No sure if this is a good thing
or not.
--
Gordon Taylor blu...@penguin.southern.co.nz
Patrick Dunford
11:43:19 GMT in nz.net.admin:<36b19960...@news.caverock.net.nz>
didst write unto us...
What is the probability?
Patrick Dunford
didst write unto us...
>So it is just as well you regard Search Engines rersults as so
>relevant to newsgroups then ;-), as not everyone has the 'right' map.
The number of times that an artificially manipulated search engine query
produces a hit is of no particular relevance when picking a newsgroup
name.
Snoopy
Dunford) wrote:
>> The truth is no-one knows
>>exactly what spam will arrive here if the group name is changed to
>>'Canterbury'. The only thing certain is that the amount of spam that
>>gets into any new group will be unexpected.
>>
>>Probably less than if the group name remains as it is.
>
>>Probably more than if the group name is changed to
>>'nz.reg.chr_istch_urch.general' SNOOPY
>
>What is the probability?
>
I have pointed out a scenario that 'canterbury' could be religious
spam catcher if the group name was changed. That doesn't mean it will
happen, just that it might. Sure you may think the probability is low
and not worth considering. But not 'considering' what could happen
is a danger that only I have spoken up about.
Do you think that when the name 'christchurch' was chosen the
possibility of it being cross matched with headers that contain the
words 'christ' and 'church' was taken into account?
In hindsight we know differently. But we don't have hindsight with
the name change to 'canterbury'. And I don't think it's reasonable to
say it will be OK in the future without that claim coming under some
scrutiny.
I think the spam cross matched with 'christ' and 'church' was be
unexpected. I expect any spam cross matched with 'canterbury' will be
unexpected.
Did you know that the flagship brand of the LWR clothing company is
'Canterbury' for instance, and have you considered what having a
newsgroup with the same name as a commercial product might mean?
I don't wish to get into another long discussion about the probability
of commercial traffic on this newsgroup as both you and I can only
speculate here.
But we are not talking about gumboot manufacturers spamming the
wellington group. There are potentially some very nasty spam hooks in
the canterbury name. SNOOPY
Colin Francis
Get a dog up ya Snoops .. You talk so much crap ..
Col.
If a person with multiple personalities threatens
suicide, is that considered a hostage situation?
Gordon Taylor
All this heated and varied disscussion would not have satred in all
likelyhood if nz.reg.christchurch.general had not received some spam.
This is what the RFD was about. I do feel that we have strayed
somewhat from the road. Maybe its time to have a RFD for time to
vote. ;-)
--
Gordon Taylor blu...@penguin.southern.co.nz
Gordon Taylor
>
>Yea verily Snoopy (tenn...@NOSPAM.caverock.net.nz) on Thu, 28 Jan 1999
>23:45:55 GMT in nz.net.admin:<36b0df51...@news.caverock.net.nz>
>
>>On Fri, 29 Jan 1999 01:10:41 +1300, pdun...@xtra.co.nz (Patrick
>>Dunford) wrote:
{sniping only quoted material} Something got lost somewhere in the
quoting I think
>>>2. It is a real place that people can look up on a map, not possible with
>>>any of the alternatives.
>>>
>>Is it? Try this test. Grab your nearest Atlas and have a look. The
>>'Canterbury Region' isn't in my atlas and I have 18 maps of New
>>Zealand in that. All these maps show different aspects of NZ. The
>>region 'Canterbury' is NOT on the map (then again neither are any of
>>the regions) and that is a powerful argument for not using it.
>
>Ah you have just said it, no regions, taranaki, manawatu,
>bollocks...Canterbury comes up if you have the right map, it comes up on
>Expediamaps for example, everyone in New Zealand knows that name and it
>comes up in search engines.
>
What can I say? Of course Canterbury comes up in search engines, it
has a catherdal as has been already pointed out here.
--
Gordon Taylor blu...@penguin.southern.co.nz
Gordon Taylor
>
>Yea verily Snoopy (tenn...@NOSPAM.caverock.net.nz) on Fri, 29 Jan 1999
>>'nz.reg.chr_istch_urch.general' SNOOPY
>
>What is the probability?
>
start to discuss this probability?
A serious suggestion but I wish that not one takes it up as there is
no need to go further into the weeds.
--
Gordon Taylor blu...@penguin.southern.co.nz
Gordon Taylor
>
>On Fri, 29 Jan 99 07:47:26 GMT in nz.net.admin Gordon Taylor wrote: in
><91759604...@penguin.southern.co.nz>:
>
>>Just a small but important point has crossed my tiny mind.
>>
>>Does Dejanews filter spam?
>>
>>Any one care to comment. Ta muchly.
>
>
I noticed that all of Alvins postings on Dejanews had Re: in the
subject line.
--
Gordon Taylor blu...@penguin.southern.co.nz
Snoopy
Taylor) wrote:
>
>All this heated and varied disscussion would not have started in all
>
>This is what the RFD was about.
>
was the spam that kicked the whole thing off, but even in last years
CFV the referendum was not just about spam. There are two issues
here.
1/ISSUE 1: The stopping of spam
2/ISSUE 2: The dropping of the 'christchurch' name and replacing it
with 'canterbury' (this seems to be the favourite option).
They aren't connected, except in the sense that you only have one vote
on the two issues. SNOOPY
Gordon Taylor
>
>I agree with your first sentence, Gordon but not the second. Yes it
>was the spam that kicked the whole thing off, but even in last years
>CFV the referendum was not just about spam. There are two issues
>here.
>
>1/ISSUE 1: The stopping of spam
>2/ISSUE 2: The dropping of the 'christchurch' name and replacing it
>with 'canterbury' (this seems to be the favourite option).
>
>They aren't connected, except in the sense that you only have one vote
>on the two issues. SNOOPY
I agree that a discussion can and should consider other points which
are not strickly in the RFD. However there needs to be a check done
now and again to check that the discussion is still within reasonable
bounds. I feel that this has not been the case in some of the
discussion.
I see the point that if we have full words only then we need a word
to replace Christchurch and Canterbury is the sensible one.
--
Gordon Taylor blu...@penguin.southern.co.nz
Tigger
> In article <36B0C6...@mr2.org.xnzx> d...@mr2.org.xnzx writes:
> >
> >The level of it isn't intolerable, but I certainly don't want another
> >repeat of people like Alvin, with up to 22 separate posts in one day!
> >
> These 22 seperate posts from Alvin went to
> nz.reg.christchurch.general in one day?
Yep.
> If so could you please name the day.
Nope. :) Sorry, I didn't make a note in my diary at the time "Alvin
posted 22 times today". But if you check dejanews you might find a reply
from me to Patrick, who had said that Alvin wasn't too bad, asking him
if the 22 posts "today" constituted flooding yet.
Tigger
>
> I noticed that all of Alvins postings on Dejanews had Re: in the
> subject line.
I assumed that was to convince people that it was a discussion on some
topic, not a one-off sermon.
Tigger
>
> Get a dog up ya Snoops .. You talk so much crap ..
Ditto. Pause for a moment, and someone speak up here. Is there any other
single person contributing to this thread, who strongly thinks it is a
bad idea to rename n.r.christchurch.g to n.r.canterbury.g?
Snoopy
>>
>> Get a dog up ya Snoops .. You talk so much crap ..
>
>Ditto. Pause for a moment, and someone speak up here. Is there any other
>single person contributing to this thread, who strongly thinks it is a
>bad idea to rename n.r.christchurch.g to n.r.canterbury.g?
>
Sixteen people voted against the newsgroup name change last time
around. I think you will find that this is the most significant
opposition ever encountered to a CFV.
So don't try to make out the case is all one sided, or the vote is all
one sided. It isn't.
I am aware that I am the most vocal campaigner against the name
change.
Maybe it is because my skin is thicker than most, and others do not
wish to get involved in the verbal battle?
Maybe that's because I am the best at expressing the opposing case,
and others opposed don't see any need to improve on what I have
posted? After all, I have had the most practice at it!
This is what 'nz.net.admin' is for- one of it's main purposes is as a
forum for discussing the issues around CFVs.
Then again, maybe I am the only one against the group name change now?
I guess after the CFV we will all find out.
What you are suggesting is that those who do not agree with your
majority vocal view should not express any view at all. A type of
voluntary sensorship. Is that what you are advocating? SNOOPY
Gordon Taylor
>
>Gordon Taylor wrote:
>>
>> I noticed that all of Alvins postings on Dejanews had Re: in the
>> subject line.
>
>I assumed that was to convince people that it was a discussion on some
>topic, not a one-off sermon.
>
catching machine(s).
My point was that most spammers write a subject line with No Re: as
the start. Interesting that Alvin does. He is cunning therefore yes?
Lets nail him to the floor. The basic instinct of hunting remains
alive. Lets hunt him down. The ISP are on our side.
--
Gordon Taylor blu...@penguin.southern.co.nz
Gordon Taylor
>
>Colin Francis wrote:
>>
>> Get a dog up ya Snoops .. You talk so much crap ..
>
>Ditto. Pause for a moment, and someone speak up here. Is there any other
>single person contributing to this thread, who strongly thinks it is a
>bad idea to rename n.r.christchurch.g to n.r.canterbury.g?
>
get by it.
You may disagree with SNOOPY's viewpoint, that is okay. To say that
SNOOPY is not okay is asking for trouble. Sorting the ideas from the
people that hold them is something we all need to work at. Play the
ball not the person as they say.
Tigger, at the end of the day, or discussion we have a vote. That
will settle it.
--
Gordon Taylor blu...@penguin.southern.co.nz
Marvin
Snoopy wrote in message <36b4de0f...@news.caverock.net.nz>...
>On Mon, 01 Feb 1999 10:22:20 +1300, Tigger <d...@mr2.org.xnzx> wrote:
>>Ditto. Pause for a moment, and someone speak up here. Is there any other
>>single person contributing to this thread, who strongly thinks it is a
>>bad idea to rename n.r.christchurch.g to n.r.canterbury.g?
<>
>What you are suggesting is that those who do not agree with your
>majority vocal view should not express any view at all. A type of
>voluntary sensorship. Is that what you are advocating? SNOOPY
If that is what Tigger is suggesting above I will print this message and eat
it.
She merely asked if there was anyone else out there.
If Tigger was suggesting people opposed shouldn't post she wouldn't have
asked them to speak up would she?
Marvin
Tigger
>
> So don't try to make out the case is all one sided, or the vote is all
> one sided. It isn't.
Oh, show me where I did or shut your cake hole. You keep saying that
people are saying 'this' or 'that', but nobody does. It's in your
imagination.
> I am aware that I am the most vocal campaigner against the name
> change.
Yes, I was after finding out if anyone else was *strongly* opposed to
it, not just 'opposed'. You did read that, didn't you? Cos your
statement at the top doesn't sound like it.
> Maybe that's because I am the best at expressing the opposing case,
> and others opposed don't see any need to improve on what I have
> posted? After all, I have had the most practice at it!
If the opposing case is just "I like using 'christchurch'", which it
seems to be, then I would be very interested to know why 16 people are
so attached to it being 'christchurch' that they would vote no.
> What you are suggesting is that those who do not agree with your
> majority vocal view should not express any view at all. A type of
Um, here you go again. Where did I suggest that at all? Quite the
opposite, I encouraged those who supported you to speak up! Stop
building up straw people, they can't vote.
Tigger
> In article <36B4C9...@mr2.org.xnzx> d...@mr2.org.xnzx writes:
> >
> >single person contributing to this thread, who strongly thinks it is a
> >bad idea to rename n.r.christchurch.g to n.r.canterbury.g?
> >
> get by it.
Sure. Whyever not?
> You may disagree with SNOOPY's viewpoint, that is okay. To say that
> SNOOPY is not okay is asking for trouble.
And if you could highlight the exact sentence where I said that, I'd be
most grateful.
> Tigger, at the end of the day, or discussion we have a vote. That
> will settle it.
True, but if those that are strongly opposed to the change don't voice
their opinions, then nothing can be done to incorporate their concerns.
I have already suggested that Snoopy get together with the person
writing the CFV to present both sides, so that he doesn't have to post
the 'con' side after each CFV like he did last time.
I just think that Snoops appears to be the only person so committed to
holding onto 'christchurch', and also that anyone who votes no but has
different opinions to Snoopy is an idiot for voting without discussing.
If they'd said what their objections were, they could have been worked
around and compromises agreed upon.
Snoopy
>>>>
>>>> Get a dog up ya Snoops .. You talk so much crap ..
>>>
>>>Ditto. Pause for a moment, and someone speak up here. Is there any other
>>>single person contributing to this thread, who strongly thinks it is a
>>>bad idea to rename n.r.christchurch.g to n.r.canterbury.g?
>>>
>> So don't try to make out the case is all one sided, or the vote is all
>> one sided. It isn't.
>
>Oh, show me where I did or shut your cake hole. You keep saying that
>people are saying 'this' or 'that', but nobody does. It's in your
>imagination.
>
OK, I read your ditto statement again. Looks as though I took it the
wrong way. Sorry if I caused offence (although after you had agreed
woth Colin's comment that I was talking crap perhaps you might see why
I might be in a mood to take offence myself)
>
>> I am aware that I am the most vocal campaigner against the name
>> change.
>
>Yes, I was after finding out if anyone else was *strongly* opposed to
>it, not just 'opposed'. You did read that, didn't you? Cos your
>statement at the top doesn't sound like it.
>
No I didn't read your ditto paragraph like that. You asked if there
WAS any other person contributing to this thread...etc.
if you had written 'Would any other person like to contribute to this
thread...then your meaning would be clear
Your original wording didn't sound like an invitation to me. Please
try to be clearer if that is what you meant.
>> Maybe that's because I am the best at expressing the opposing case,
>> and others opposed don't see any need to improve on what I have
>> posted? After all, I have had the most practice at it!
>
>If the opposing case is just "I like using 'christchurch'", which it
>seems to be, then I would be very interested to know why 16 people are
>so attached to it being 'christchurch' that they would vote no.
>
So would I.
Maybe if you and Colin F were civil in ALL you replies you would find
out. But maybe these people don't see the issue as a big deal. Maybe
they are sitting on the fence and 'on balance' lean the Christchurch
way? And maybe they feel that getting into a verbal slanging match
over something which they don't feel that strongly about just isn't
worth it?
>
>> What you are suggesting is that those who do not agree with your
>> majority vocal view should not express any view at all. A type of
>
>Um, here you go again. Where did I suggest that at all? Quite the
>opposite, I encouraged those who supported you to speak up!
>
OK, maybe I got the 'wrong end of the thread' here. But go back and
look at the flow of the thread again.
First you agreed with Colin Fs view that I was talking crap.
Then you asked if someone would speak up who agreed with me (by
implication they would also be talking crap).
Can you blame others for not wanting to come into the debate given
your 'encouragement'?
When I read your 'Ditto' paragraph, I took the interpretaion that you
wanted others to speak up to support YOUR view, and therefore shout
down my 'lone' voice. It is very easy to interpret your words in a
way somewhat different to what you intended! SNOOPY
Snoopy
>
>True, but if those that are strongly opposed to the change don't voice
>their opinions, then nothing can be done to incorporate their concerns.
>
>I have already suggested that Snoopy get together with the person
>writing the CFV to present both sides, so that he doesn't have to post
>the 'con' side after each CFV like he did last time.
>
is the nature of CFVs. Do you have any objection to me posting the
other side of the argument as a seperate post?
>I just think that Snoops appears to be the only person so committed to
>holding onto 'christchurch', and also that anyone who votes no but has
>different opinions to Snoopy is an idiot for voting without discussing.
>
written below .
"So far Snoopy has been the only one strongly opposed to the name
change to post a stand. There may be others out there who oppose the
name change for different reasons. If those that are opposed to the
change don't voice their opinions, then nothing can be done to
incorporate their concerns."
It says exactly the same thing as your paragraph, but doesn't seek to
brand anyone an 'idiot'. Maybe if you had written it that way others
may have been more inclined to contribute. I know you can write in a
more diplomatic way. That last sentence in 'my' paragraph is in fact
yours.
>
>If they'd said what their objections were, they could have been worked
>around and compromises agreed upon.
>
Exactly SNOOPY
Gordon Taylor
>If the opposing case is just "I like using 'christchurch'", which it
>seems to be, then I would be very interested to know why 16 people are
>so attached to it being 'christchurch' that they would vote no.
>
First off those 16 people voted in April last. Their views may have
changed since.
There is the school of thought which says that the rate of spam does
not warrant a newsgroup change. Another is that Christchurch is
recongnisable to people from outside NZ, the reverse is also being
argued ie Canterbury is the region.
Yet another is why should the spammer(s) be given this power, a
newsgroup change.
--
Gordon Taylor blu...@penguin.southern.co.nz
Gordon Taylor
>
>On Tue, 02 Feb 1999 15:53:41 +1300, Tigger <d...@mr2.org.xnzx> wrote:
>>
>>I just think that Snoops appears to be the only person so committed to
>>holding onto 'christchurch', and also that anyone who votes no but has
>>different opinions to Snoopy is an idiot for voting without discussing.
>>
>Tigger, take that paragraph above and compare it with what I have
>written below .
>
>"So far Snoopy has been the only one strongly opposed to the name
>change to post a stand. There may be others out there who oppose the
>name change for different reasons. If those that are opposed to the
>change don't voice their opinions, then nothing can be done to
>incorporate their concerns."
>
>It says exactly the same thing as your paragraph, but doesn't seek to
>brand anyone an 'idiot'. Maybe if you had written it that way others
>may have been more inclined to contribute. I know you can write in a
>more diplomatic way. That last sentence in 'my' paragraph is in fact
>yours.
>>
best order. Do it myself all too often. Emotion is the culpurit.
I take it from Tigger's posts a certain level of frustration. It
sometimes, read often helps, if one expresses their feelings. After
all we are human. One can express your feelings and it does not upset
people.
I certainly have felt some frustration at times in this discussion.
Arms have waved in the air as I have paced the room saying that I
will stop reading theses change of newsgroup posts. Has not worked ;-)
--
Gordon Taylor blu...@penguin.southern.co.nz
Gordon Taylor
>
>Gordon Taylor wrote:
>> In article <36B4C9...@mr2.org.xnzx> d...@mr2.org.xnzx writes:
>> >
>> >single person contributing to this thread, who strongly thinks it is a
>> >bad idea to rename n.r.christchurch.g to n.r.canterbury.g?
>> >
>> get by it.
>
>Sure. Why ever not?
Because you express the view that they should speak up.
I am saying that while that maybe a great idea you can not demand it.
>
>> You may disagree with SNOOPY's viewpoint, that is okay. To say that
>> SNOOPY is not okay is asking for trouble.
>
>And if you could highlight the exact sentence where I said that, I'd be
>most grateful.
>
Its in the word Ditto above. To me Col told SNOOPY to do something
not very pleasnt. You replied with Ditto. True you then go on with
"Pause for a moment, ... " Thus I'll agree it was frustration
speaking rather than a full blown personal attack. A bad day perhaps.
>> Tigger, at the end of the day, or discussion we have a vote. That
>> will settle it.
>
>True, but if those that are strongly opposed to the change don't voice
>their opinions, then nothing can be done to incorporate their concerns.
I have just seen a wee point. I think there are two ways of viewing
the RFD. One more than I had been viewing it from.
1) The name of the newgroup needs to be cahnged because of the
spam. People disscuss this motion. It is then voted on.
2) The RFD purpose is to start a discussion from which changes
can be made if felt necessary.
I take the viewpoint of 1 above as this is the way I read the RFD.
The tone of the RFD is that this is the newsgroup needs to be changed
because of ... It does not suggest that alternatives are being called
for.
>I have already suggested that Snoopy get together with the person
>writing the CFV to present both sides,
You see, to me both sides should have been presented in the
discussion.
>
>I just think that Snoops appears to be the only person so committed to
>holding onto 'christchurch', and also that anyone who votes no but has
>different opinions to Snoopy is an idiot for voting without discussing.
Maybe they think that all this discussion is crap, they have no time
for it. Their mind is made up and they will reserve their energy to
vote.
I see your view point, and yes it results in a better decesion at the
end of the day if all view points are discussed. This implies that
people do more listening than talking.
>If they'd said what their objections were, they could have been worked
>around and compromises agreed upon.
>
Maybe. A good idea but I get the feeling that many people are just so
anti religiuos spam in the Christchurch version of the newsgroup that
they will not rest until it is changed.
Once again, I do not see the RFD giving the oppotunity to for a
compromise. Then again that maybe just a too restrictive view point.
--
Gordon Taylor blu...@penguin.southern.co.nz
Luke Pickering
>I have just seen a wee point. I think there are two ways of viewing
>the RFD. One more than I had been viewing it from.
>
> 1) The name of the newgroup needs to be cahnged because of the
>spam. People disscuss this motion. It is then voted on.
>
> 2) The RFD purpose is to start a discussion from which changes
>can be made if felt necessary.
>
>I take the viewpoint of 1 above as this is the way I read the RFD.
>The tone of the RFD is that this is the newsgroup needs to be changed
>because of ... It does not suggest that alternatives are being called
>for.
Yes, it is a fairly standard procedure in any meeting that a proposal
is made, discussion is held _on that proposal_ and a vote is called
for - again on that proposal. To do it any other way has the potential
to cause chaos and detract from an otherwise clear choice.
>>I have already suggested that Snoopy get together with the person
>>writing the CFV to present both sides,
>
>You see, to me both sides should have been presented in the
>discussion.
Absolutely - there is no need to 'present both sides' in a motion, the
choice is simply based upon the wording of that motion - yea or nay.
Indeed with the present system of voting etc more than one choice
would be extremely problematic and certainly unecessary in this case
(see below).
>Maybe they think that all this discussion is crap, they have no time
>for it. Their mind is made up and they will reserve their energy to
>vote.
I should think that many people have long since evaluated the
situation and made a decision - certainly the ratio of data volume
generated v # of generators v # readers is interesting :-)
>Once again, I do not see the RFD giving the oppotunity to for a
>compromise. Then again that maybe just a too restrictive view point.
Nope, you've got it in one Gordon :-) Personally the concept of a
'compromise' in this situation leaves me somewhat nonplussed - it
lacks necessity insofar as we are not trying to negotiate the purchase
of something for which the tender ranges along a continuum and can be
varied between parties ... rather it is a particularly simple
question, not of earth-shattering import, and with a fairly clear
black/white outcome according to the present structure for such
things.
Personally the sooner we can begin the CFV and get on with it the
better it will be for this scribe, I am finding myself 'filtering' a
number of posts due to their, er, predictability and as such not
really getting a lot out of it now...
Luke.
______________________________________________________________
Luke D. Pickering, Ph +64 (0)25319-830
Technical Consultant Fax +64 3 355-6282
______________________________________________________________
Snoopy
Taylor) wrote:
>
>I have just seen a wee point. I think there are two ways of viewing
>the RFD. One more than I had been viewing it from.
>
> 1) The name of the newgroup needs to be cahnged because of the
>spam. People disscuss this motion. It is then voted on.
>
> 2) The RFD purpose is to start a discussion from which changes
>can be made if felt necessary.
>
>I take the viewpoint of 1 above as this is the way I read the RFD.
>The tone of the RFD is that this is the newsgroup needs to be changed
>because of ... It does not suggest that alternatives are being called
>for.
>
postings have been 'irrelevant'. I certianly took the point of view
that (2) was the way to view the RFD. Before i carried on with the
discussions on different name options, I did clarify with Duncan that
this is what he meant. DPF thought this as well. Luke was not so
keen, but grudgingly accepted that discussion on the title form was
OK.
I agree the tone of the referendum reads as (1). But what was
Duncan's alternative. I'm speculating here....
RFD: Rename 'nz.reg.christchurch.general' to
'nz.reg.canterbury.general' OR 'nz.reg.chch.general'OR
nz.reg.chrstchrch.general OR 'nz.reg.chr_istch_urch.general' OR.....
You see how flakey that would look?
No, Duncan made a call on what he believed would be the most popular
choice
RFD:Rename 'nz.reg.christchurch.general' to 'nz.reg.canterbury.general
With hindsight it looked like it was the right choice. But if popular
opinion had dictated another choice, then the CFV could easily have
been worded differently. SNOOPY
>
>Maybe. A good idea but I get the feeling that many people are just so
>anti religious spam in the Christchurch version of the newsgroup that
>they will not rest until it is changed.
>
But people who vote for 'nz.reg.canterbury.general' for this reason,
consider this.
If you allow the newsgroup name to change on such a minor matter (and
I regard a worst case of 3% spam as a minor matter) will this not
encourage more referendums on 'minor matters'. You may solve this
issue for a while, but it raises the question of what trivial matter
will be the cause of the NEXT referendum.
And have you really solved anything? What happens if this new
'nz.reg.canterbury.general' continues to grow and it is decided to
split the newsgroup into three:
nz.reg.canterbury.ashburton.general
nz.reg.canterbury.timaru.general
nz.reg.canterbury.christchurch.general
You see the 'christchurch' problem may well come back to haunt you.
Geoff McCaughan
>
> And have you really solved anything? What happens if this new
> 'nz.reg.canterbury.general' continues to grow and it is decided to
> split the newsgroup into three:
>
> nz.reg.canterbury.ashburton.general
> nz.reg.canterbury.timaru.general
> nz.reg.canterbury.christchurch.general
>
> You see the 'christchurch' problem may well come back to haunt you.
Don't do that then.
Tigger
>
> OK, I read your ditto statement again. Looks as though I took it the
> wrong way. Sorry if I caused offence (although after you had agreed
> woth Colin's comment that I was talking crap perhaps you might see why
> I might be in a mood to take offence myself)
I can understand offence at me saying you talk crap, sure. But thinking
that anything in the paragraph suggested that I thought the argument is
one-sided is reading too much into it.
> No I didn't read your ditto paragraph like that. You asked if there
> WAS any other person contributing to this thread...etc.
"... who felt so strongly against changing the name". That appears to
make sense to me.
> if you had written 'Would any other person like to contribute to this
> thread...then your meaning would be clear
Ah, I think I see what you mean. Did I actually say 'contributing to
this thread' though, because I meant reading, lurking, not contributing,
as you were the only person contributing who was so strongly opposed. If
I did say 'contributing', I admit error there in choice of words.
> Maybe if you and Colin F were civil in ALL you replies you would find
> out.
Oh come on. You've been shown how Canterbury has 0.02% of the activity
on usenet that christ+church does, yet it took that to convince you that
canterbury didn't actually have just as much of a religious connotation
as christchurch, if you're convinced at all. Your arguments have been
mostly silly and unfounded. So please forgive us for losing our tempers
occasionally.
> But maybe these people don't see the issue as a big deal. Maybe
Then why vote no to it? If people out there are reading this and don't
think it's a big deal, then surely you can at least see that the
majority of people discussing it want it to happen, and therefore
support them.
> they are sitting on the fence and 'on balance' lean the Christchurch
> way? And maybe they feel that getting into a verbal slanging match
> over something which they don't feel that strongly about just isn't
> worth it?
Fair enough. But I was after finding out if anyone else did feel as
strongly as you, just wasn't vocal about it.
> First you agreed with Colin Fs view that I was talking crap.
> Then you asked if someone would speak up who agreed with me (by
> implication they would also be talking crap).
> Can you blame others for not wanting to come into the debate given
> your 'encouragement'?
Well, someone else pointed out how you'd taken what I'd said the wrong
way, so I don't think I was entirely vague or misleading. Sorry if you
got it wrong.
> When I read your 'Ditto' paragraph, I took the interpretaion that you
> wanted others to speak up to support YOUR view, and therefore shout
> down my 'lone' voice. It is very easy to interpret your words in a
> way somewhat different to what you intended! SNOOPY
Maybe for you. I honestly don't know how you reached that conclusion.
Okay, to clarify then.
Is there anyone out there in cyberspace reading this, who feels very
strongly that the name of the group nrcg should not be changed, and who
is not posting under the name Snoopy? Please speak up, I'd like to know
if you exist.
Clearer?
Tigger
>
> I have no objection to the wording of the CFV being one sided. that
> is the nature of CFVs. Do you have any objection to me posting the
> other side of the argument as a seperate post?
Nope. Just think it'd be simpler. Why should CFVs be onesided? I can see
why they'd present the pro case, but why *not* add "The opposing view is
that......"? Makes sense to me. <shrug>
> It says exactly the same thing as your paragraph, but doesn't seek to
> brand anyone an 'idiot'. Maybe if you had written it that way others
> may have been more inclined to contribute. I know you can write in a
> more diplomatic way. That last sentence in 'my' paragraph is in fact
> yours.
Yes, it is far better worded. I tend to write off the cuff, without
editing and rewording what I write, and sometimes it can come out wrong.
I'm also very blunt. Hell, that's just me.
Tigger
>
> Because you express the view that they should speak up.
> I am saying that while that maybe a great idea you can not demand it.
No, but I can ask, can't I? Maybe some just feel they need to be invited
into the discussion. Newbies, for instance. Also (trying to carefully
word this) I would have a lot more respect for someone who voiced their
concern about the change before voting, than for someone who chose to
remain silent and did not get their concerns considered. Just IMO.
> Its in the word Ditto above. To me Col told SNOOPY to do something
> not very pleasnt. You replied with Ditto. True you then go on with
Sheesh. That Ditto has opened a can of worms. Okay, I was specifically
agreeing with something along the lines of "Snoopy can talk crap
sometimes", not necessarily with "get a dog up ya". However, I decline
to believe that Colin originally meant for Snoopy to 'get a dog' up him
anyway, and it was merely figurative.
> "Pause for a moment, ... " Thus I'll agree it was frustration
> speaking rather than a full blown personal attack. A bad day perhaps.
Just frustration. I fail to understand Snoopy's opinions. I am careful
to say here that I support his right to have, hold, and voice whatever
opinions he likes. But I simply fail to understand them, so suffer a
great deal of frustration when trying to deal with them.
> I take the viewpoint of 1 above as this is the way I read the RFD.
> The tone of the RFD is that this is the newsgroup needs to be changed
> because of ... It does not suggest that alternatives are being called
> for.
Um, hard one. I do take the stance of 1 as well, mostly. However, if
there are legitimate concerns, I also think they should be addressed.
Note 'legitimate'. I, for example, do not consider the (incorrect) claim
that the new name has just as many religious connotations as the last
one to be 'legitimate', simply because it is very easily proven wrong.
However, that does not mean I am saying Snoopy should never have written
it. Oh sigh. Well, I kind of am, but I am aware that is my opinion, not
law. (God I hate this trying to be PC).
> Maybe. A good idea but I get the feeling that many people are just so
> anti religiuos spam in the Christchurch version of the newsgroup that
> they will not rest until it is changed.
I agree. I did say compromise. I don't think the cons are going to
convince the pros not to change the name. But maybe a compromise can be
worked out. Eg, chch.chat could be resurrected and those concerned about
spam use that instead, and no cross posting be allowed between groups.
> Once again, I do not see the RFD giving the oppotunity to for a
> compromise. Then again that maybe just a too restrictive view point.
I think that it could be the catalyst for discussions of compromises,
maybe under a different thread heading.
Snoopy
>
>Ah, I think I see what you mean. Did I actually say 'contributing to
>this thread' though,
>
Yes you did.
>
>because I meant reading, lurking, not contributing,
>as you were the only person contributing who was so strongly opposed. If
>I did say 'contributing', I admit error there in choice of words.
>
Your admission of 'error in choice of words' is accepted, and
forgiven.
>
>> But maybe these people don't see the issue as a big deal. Maybe
>
>Then why vote no to it? If people out there are reading this and don't
>think it's a big deal, then surely you can at least see that the
>majority of people discussing it want it to happen, and therefore
>support them.
>
A vote in the CFV may take a minute to do at best. If I thought that
I would slightly improve my lot by just taking a minute to do
something why not do it? I don't have to feel strongly about it one
way or the other to go to the 'minor inconvenience' of voting.
Further, I certainly hope no one will vote one way 'just because they
think that's what most people want'. What has been expressed in this
forum is a straw poll of strong views.
You may find the vote is carried or lost by those that have a view,
but 'don't really care that much'. And these people haven't
expressed their views here at all.
If voters vote for what THEY want, the mechanics of the CFV will sort
the rest out. If this poll follows the last one, it will be a close
race.
>
>Okay, to clarify then.
>
>Is there anyone out there in cyberspace reading this, who feels very
>strongly that the name of the group nrcg should not be changed, and who
>is not posting under the name Snoopy? Please speak up, I'd like to know
>if you exist.
>
>Clearer?
>
Much clearer thank you. Although unless they have a new angle on the
debate there is no reason why they should post. I personally am not
seeking any moral support. SNOOPY
Gordon Taylor
>
>Snoopy wrote:
>>
>> I have no objection to the wording of the CFV being one sided. that
>> is the nature of CFVs. Do you have any objection to me posting the
>> other side of the argument as a seperate post?
>
>Nope. Just think it'd be simpler. Why should CFVs be onesided? I can see
>why they'd present the pro case, but why *not* add "The opposing view is
>that......"? Makes sense to me. <shrug>
>
it.
The opposing view point can be presented in the Discussion.
In the real world some one will say that, x=y and this will get a
response, often from both/all sides.
Or take a General Election. For 4 weeks before hand everyone who
wishes express a range of views but at the end of polling day people
have said Y/N to Ms x Mr y and z.
End of rave.
>Yes, it is far better worded. I tend to write off the cuff, without
>editing and rewording what I write, and sometimes it can come out wrong.
>I'm also very blunt. Hell, that's just me.
>
Sometimes the backspace comes in handy. If you had used it on your
"Ditto" your reply would have been totally different in its tone.
See people we now know a wee bit more to respond to Tigger's
postings.
--
Gordon Taylor blu...@penguin.southern.co.nz
Gordon Taylor
>
>Gordon Taylor wrote:
>>
>> Because you express the view that they should speak up.
>> I am saying that while that maybe a great idea you can not demand it.
>
>No, but I can ask, can't I? Maybe some just feel they need to be invited
>into the discussion. Newbies, for instance.
Fair point. However one needs to ask in an encouraging way. A newbie
is unlikey to come forward if the tone is one of, Get Up Here Newbie
and TELL US what You THINK!
>Also (trying to carefully
>word this) I would have a lot more respect for someone who voiced their
>concern about the change before voting, than for someone who chose to
>remain silent and did not get their concerns considered. Just IMO.
>
In other words you wish to understand the other point of view? or at
least hear them?
>> Its in the word Ditto above. To me Col told SNOOPY to do something
>> not very pleasnt. You replied with Ditto. True you then go on with
>
>Sheesh. That Ditto has opened a can of worms.
These things do happen ;-) Explanation accepted.
>
>> "Pause for a moment, ... " Thus I'll agree it was frustration
>> speaking rather than a full blown personal attack. A bad day perhaps.
>
>Just frustration. I fail to understand Snoopy's opinions. I am careful
>to say here that I support his right to have, hold, and voice whatever
>opinions he likes. But I simply fail to understand them, so suffer a
>great deal of frustration when trying to deal with them.
>
Hard at times. It helps remove all your ego/emotion before one
starts. Also it often takes time. Sometimes you just have to accpect
that this is the way of the world even if you can not figure it.
>> I take the viewpoint of 1 above as this is the way I read the RFD.
>> The tone of the RFD is that this is the newsgroup needs to be changed
>> because of ... It does not suggest that alternatives are being called
>> for.
>
>Um, hard one. I do take the stance of 1 as well, mostly. However, if
>there are legitimate concerns, I also think they should be addressed.
>
Sure. I agree that it is possible for/after a Disscussion that the
CFV will be very different from what was planned to start with.
>
>> Once again, I do not see the RFD giving the oppotunity to for a
>> compromise. Then again that maybe just a too restrictive view point.
>
>I think that it could be the catalyst for discussions of compromises,
>maybe under a different thread heading.
>
No, best to keep it all under the one umbrella other wise there will
be several ideas which come out and they will be incompatiable.
Gosh, this thread/subject is getting into very different seas. Still
we can understand each other better then its okay in my view.
--
Gordon Taylor blu...@penguin.southern.co.nz
Marvin
Snoopy wrote in message <36b6e153...@news.caverock.net.nz>...
>No, Duncan made a call on what he believed would be the most popular
>choice
>
>RFD:Rename 'nz.reg.christchurch.general' to 'nz.reg.canterbury.general
>With hindsight it looked like it was the right choice. But if popular
>opinion had dictated another choice, then the CFV could easily have
>been worded differently. SNOOPY
Having sorted that out, can we now just argue 'yes' or 'no' to the name
change and leave the other options out?. Thanks.
>And have you really solved anything? What happens if this new
>'nz.reg.canterbury.general' continues to grow and it is decided to
>split the newsgroup into three:
>
>nz.reg.canterbury.ashburton.general
>nz.reg.canterbury.timaru.general
>nz.reg.canterbury.christchurch.general
>
>You see the 'christchurch' problem may well come back to haunt you.
That probably won't happen for quite some time yet, but when it does, I'm
sure there will be a vehement argument in which you'll be able to revisit
the chch, chrstchrch, chr_ist_chu_rch options
Marvin