RFD: Remove rec.games.bolo (Last Call for Comments)
Big-8 Management Board
unmoderated newsgroup rec.games.bolo.
Newsgroups Line:
rec.games.bolo The networked strategy war game Bolo.
Distribution:
news.announce.newgroups
news.groups.proposals
rec.games.bolo
Proponent: Big-8 Management Board <bo...@big-8.org>
Charter:
To allow the discussion of topics and posting of software
related to the game "Bolo," by Stuart Cheshire, originally
for the Macintosh.
Rationale for removal:
Both the game and the newsgroup are defunct. The last
ontopic posts appear to have been made circa 2000. The
board is interested in closing unmoderated groups that
have, in the past, been used for distribution of
binaries.
History of the Group:
rec.games.bolo is an unmoderated newsgroup which passed
its vote for creation by 447:26 as reported in
news.announce.newgroups on 30 Nov 1993.
<http://www.faqs.org/faqs/games/bolo-faq/part1/>
Procedure:
Those who wish to comment on this request to remove this
newsgroup should subscribe to news:news.groups.proposals and
participate in the relevant threads in that newsgroup.
To this end, the followup header of this RFD has been set to
news.groups.proposals.
All discussion of active proposals should be posted to
news.groups.proposals.
If desired by the readership of closely affected groups, the
discussion may be crossposted to those groups, but care must
be taken to ensure that all discussion appears in
news.groups.proposals as well.
For more information on the newsgroup removal process, please see
http://www.big-8.org/dokuwiki/doku.php?id=policies:rmgroup
Formal voting on this RFD will take place five days after
the publication of this RFD in n.a.n. The formal vote
by the board may take as much as a week.
History of this RFD:
2009-06-25 Removal RFD / Last Call for Comments
C.R. Osterwald
Management Board <bo...@big-8.org> wrote:
>This is a formal Request for Discussion (RFD) to remove the
>unmoderated newsgroup rec.games.bolo.
>
>Newsgroups Line:
>rec.games.bolo The networked strategy war game Bolo.
>
>Distribution:
> news.announce.newgroups
> news.groups.proposals
> rec.games.bolo
>
>Proponent: Big-8 Management Board <bo...@big-8.org>
>
>Charter:
>
>To allow the discussion of topics and posting of software
>related to the game "Bolo," by Stuart Cheshire, originally
>for the Macintosh.
>
>Rationale for removal:
>
>Both the game and the newsgroup are defunct.
The game is not "defunct", there are at least two up-to-date versions
of Bolo for both Macintosh OSX and Windows/Linux:
http://www.nubolo.net/
http://www.winbolo.com/
>The last
>ontopic posts appear to have been made circa 2000.
There have been posts more recent than this.
>The
>board is interested in closing unmoderated groups that
>have, in the past, been used for distribution of
>binaries.
This depends on your definition of the word "binary" -- the allowance
in the original charter for rec.games.bolo was for Bolo map files,
which are straight ASCII text up to a couple kilobytes. In other
words, they are roughly equivalent to a thread in ROT-13. r.g.b has
never been used to post "software", images, or video.
>
>History of the Group:
>
>rec.games.bolo is an unmoderated newsgroup which passed
>its vote for creation by 447:26 as reported in
>news.announce.newgroups on 30 Nov 1993.
>
><http://www.faqs.org/faqs/games/bolo-faq/part1/>
>
>Procedure:
>
>Those who wish to comment on this request to remove this
>newsgroup should subscribe to news:news.groups.proposals and
>participate in the relevant threads in that newsgroup.
I certainly don't understand the need to kill rec.games.bolo, and ask
that this proposal be defeated.
>
>To this end, the followup header of this RFD has been set to
>news.groups.proposals.
>
>All discussion of active proposals should be posted to
>news.groups.proposals.
>
>If desired by the readership of closely affected groups, the
>discussion may be crossposted to those groups, but care must
>be taken to ensure that all discussion appears in
>news.groups.proposals as well.
>
>For more information on the newsgroup removal process, please see
>
>http://www.big-8.org/dokuwiki/doku.php?id=policies:rmgroup
>
>Formal voting on this RFD will take place five days after
>the publication of this RFD in n.a.n. The formal vote
>by the board may take as much as a week.
>
>History of this RFD:
>
>2009-06-25 Removal RFD / Last Call for Comments
Last Call? When was the first call, and why is there such a rush to
kill it?
Robert Uhl
>
>>> The board is interested in closing unmoderated groups that have, in
>>> the past, been used for distribution of binaries.
>
>>except for binaries of maps in the game (a few K at most...it was a very
>>simple game).
>
> The charter envisages "posting of software." Folks here seemed to
> remember it as a binary group, which is what started this RFD. In
> fact, traffic has been very light--it is not being used as a cover for
> any kind of binary traffic.
As Carl Osterwald posted elsewhere, the 'binaries' were ASCII
representation of in-game maps...not binaries in the usual Usenet sense.
I can understand wanting to get rid of covert binaries groups; they're a
bit of a plague. But I don't think rgb qualifies.
> Do you think we should just leave it alone?
I do, although I'll be honest it's more for sentimental issues than
anything else. It was the first newsgroup I regularly read and posted
to. Honestly, it's been incredibly quiet for a long time. I'm still
subscribed though.
And since (outside of Google's feed) it hasn't been too spam-ridden my
inclination is to leave it alone. You never know--it might pick up
again!
--
Robert Uhl <http://public.xdi.org/=ruhl>
Physics is the mess that results when you pollute mathematics with reality.
--Joe Zeff
Martin X. Moleski, SJ
<250620091909071393%erfc...@usa.net>:
>>The
>>board is interested in closing unmoderated groups that
>>have, in the past, been used for distribution of
>>binaries.
>This depends on your definition of the word "binary" -- the allowance
>in the original charter for rec.games.bolo was for Bolo map files,
>which are straight ASCII text up to a couple kilobytes. In other
>words, they are roughly equivalent to a thread in ROT-13. r.g.b has
>never been used to post "software", images, or video.
OK.
The charter read:
"To allow the discussion of topics and posting of software
related to the game 'Bolo,' by Stuart Cheshire, originally
for the Macintosh."
I hope you can see how that would give the impression that
the group might have been used to circulate "software."
>I certainly don't understand the need to kill rec.games.bolo...
The allegation was made that the newsgroup was used to
circulate binary material.
By inspection, it certainly seemed to be a dead group.
It's good to know that some people still care about it and
that it is not being used to circulate binaries.
> ... and ask
>that this proposal be defeated.
It is feedback like this that would lead to that decision.
>Last Call? When was the first call, and why is there such a rush to
>kill it?
This is a fast-track removal proposal. We've done them before.
I suppose we should label them "First and Last Call for Comments."
Marty
--
Member, Big-8 Management Board--but speaking only for myself
For more information, see http://www.big-8.org
Adam H. Kerman
>>History of this RFD:
Please. Gross violation of procedure is OFF TOPIC and MUST NEVER be
pointed out to the Board. For instance, this message was not posted to
news.announce.newgroups as required.
Remember, the Board is never wrong.
Steve Bonine
> For instance, this message was not posted to
> news.announce.newgroups as required.
Really, Adam, do you think that you can just make ridiculous statements
and that because you say it, everyone will jump on your bandwagon? The
RFD appeared in my feed of news.announce.newgroups from both
individual.net and from Giganews, and it's on Google.
> Remember, the Board is never wrong.
Actually, this RFD turns out to be a fine illustration of the board
being wrong. That's the whole purpose of doing an RFD; otherwise the
board could just remove the group with no discussion. There seems to be
significant support showing up for the newsgroup and even though the
group is at the point of death, it is perhaps not completely moribund.
Since the board has not moved forward on removing truly dead groups (or
even identifying them), I seriously doubt if rec.games.bolo will
actually be removed.
David Bostwick
[...]
>
>This is a fast-track removal proposal. We've done them before.
>I suppose we should label them "First and Last Call for Comments."
>
> Marty
"First and Only," maybe?
Or like the airlines, "Last and final call for boarding."
Martin X. Moleski, SJ
<7ajtl2F...@mid.individual.net>:
>Actually, this RFD turns out to be a fine illustration of the board
>being wrong.
The board agreed to propose the removal of the group because
some folks in n.g.p recommended purifying the big-8 of
all binary groups.
If r.g.b is not being abused for the circulation of binaries
and if there are some folks still subscribed to the group,
I don't see any reason not to let it continue in existence.
>That's the whole purpose of doing an RFD; otherwise the
>board could just remove the group with no discussion. There seems to be
>significant support showing up for the newsgroup and even though the
>group is at the point of death, it is perhaps not completely moribund.
>Since the board has not moved forward on removing truly dead groups (or
>even identifying them), I seriously doubt if rec.games.bolo will
>actually be removed.
I have no idea how the vote will go. At this point, although
I wrote the RFD, I'm inclined to think that leaving the group
in peace is OK.
Minhiriath
already been posted.
Min
Jeremy Nixon
> Last Call? When was the first call, and why is there such a rush to
> kill it?
There seemed little reason not to fast-track the proposal, since the
group has been unused for years. Since that was clearly premature,
this will now not result in a fast-track removal.
--
Jeremy Nixon | http://www.defocus.net
Email address in header is valid
Member of the Big-8 Management Board
Mark Kramer
Steve Bonine <s...@pobox.com> wrote:
>Actually, this RFD turns out to be a fine illustration of the board
>being wrong. That's the whole purpose of doing an RFD;
The whole purpose of an RFD is to illustrate that the board is wrong?
Do you think you can make any kind of ridiculous statement and the rest
of the world will jump onto your bandwagon?
>Since the board has not moved forward on removing truly dead groups (or
>even identifying them), I seriously doubt if rec.games.bolo will
>actually be removed.
You just had Marty twist a comment about the group not being for
"software" into a claim that it wasn't for "binaries", so I doubt that
message is getting through. It was intended for maps of bolo, which are
"computer data" that some might call "software" but are certainly "binary".
Steve Bonine
> In article <7ajtl2F...@mid.individual.net>,
> Steve Bonine <s...@pobox.com> wrote:
>> Actually, this RFD turns out to be a fine illustration of the board
>> being wrong. That's the whole purpose of doing an RFD;
>
> The whole purpose of an RFD is to illustrate that the board is wrong?
>
> Do you think you can make any kind of ridiculous statement and the rest
> of the world will jump onto your bandwagon?
I know that by selective quoting you can twist any statement to make it
seem ridiculous.
>> Since the board has not moved forward on removing truly dead groups (or
>> even identifying them), I seriously doubt if rec.games.bolo will
>> actually be removed.
>
> You just had Marty twist a comment about the group not being for
> "software" into a claim that it wasn't for "binaries", so I doubt that
> message is getting through. It was intended for maps of bolo, which are
> "computer data" that some might call "software" but are certainly "binary".
Personally, I think that the group should be removed, but mine is the
minority opinion. I understand and respect other folks' opinions, even
when I don't agree. I have said what I believe, and I am not generally
in the habit of beating the ground where there was once a horse.
C.R. Osterwald
<s...@pobox.com> wrote:
>Mark Kramer wrote:
>> It was intended for maps of bolo, which are
>> "computer data" that some might call "software" but are certainly "binary".
>
>Personally, I think that the group should be removed, but mine is the
>minority opinion.
ASCII text is also binary, as are PGP public keys. This issue was
thoroughly hashed out back in 1993 when r.g.b was just an RFD, to the
satisfaction of everyone involved at the time.
Steve Bonine
A few things have changed since 1993.
Aratzio
Bonine <s...@pobox.com> got double secret probation for writing:
As a matter fo fact a few things have changed since a few nanoseconds
ago. Some things are still exactly the same. Tomorrow will have a
whole new set of things that have changed and a whole set of things
that have not changed.
I will bet you can even come up with an even more idiotic comment than
your last, but that would not be something that has changed since
1993.
Adam H. Kerman
>This is a formal Request for Discussion (RFD) to remove the
>unmoderated newsgroup rec.games.bolo.
>Proponent: Big-8 Management Board <bo...@big-8.org>
>Charter:
>To allow the discussion of topics and posting of software
>related to the game "Bolo," by Stuart Cheshire, originally
>for the Macintosh.
>Rationale for removal:
>Both the game and the newsgroup are defunct. The last
>ontopic posts appear to have been made circa 2000. The
>board is interested in closing unmoderated groups that
>have, in the past, been used for distribution of
>binaries.
Are binaries a problem? Do the administrators of any servers that
created the group even recall that software distribution is on topic?
More than likely, any server running Cleanfeed makes no exception for
this group.
That's illegitimate rationale.
Steve Bonine
"Illegitimate" is a rather odd word to use.
As I'm sure that you already know, there has been a renewed interest in
binary groups recently based on certain politicians and the ever-popular
topic of kiddie porn. Perhaps this was the reason that several ISPs
dropped the alt hierarchy and/or stopped providing all of Usenet to
their customers. Perhaps this was just a convenient excuse. But the
bottom line is that the existence of newsgroups that are used to
distribute binary information is a topic that has received attention in
the past several months. More detail on this issue can be found at
http://www.big-8.org/dokuwiki/doku.php?id=faqs:binary_problem
So, yes, binaries are "a problem". They're not a problem for individual
server administrators, based on the availability of facilities like
Cleanfeed. But politically, it might be advantageous for the
administrators of the big-8 to be able, when the topic comes up, to
state that the hierarchy isn't used for distribution of binary data.
So it makes sense, if you've got a newsgroup with a charter that states
that it's used for distributing binary data, and no one is using the
group, to remove it from the canonical list. Such action, if nothing
else, serves as a tangible act that can be used to illustrate that the
board is sensitive to the issue of distributing binaries in the big-8.
But it turns out that a number of people have spoken up and asked that
the newsgroup not be removed. Not that they're actually USING it, mind
you. But I can understand how the board would be loath to remove a
newsgroup when a number of people have objected to its removal.
On the general topic of removal of "dead" groups . . . this is an
illustration of how it just ain't gonna happen. Someone pointed out
that the information in the RFD is inaccurate, and that there was an
on-topic thread in February 2007 and one actual on-topic article in
March 2008. To me, this is a textbook definition of the term "dead".
But yet, several folks have objected to the group being removed. That's
exactly what will happen when removal is proposed for almost any group.
People will object to the removal of the group because it's "comfort
food". They have no intention of actually posting in the group, but
somehow seeing it officially removed from the list of canonical groups
would be the death of something embedded in their past.
Martin X. Moleski, SJ
> ... It's a group in the Big-8 that's intended for binary traffic. That's
>reason enough to give it a close look.
That's what started this ball rolling, I think.
And it's unmoderated. That was strike two.
BUT--on closer inspection--the group is not being used
to circulate offtopic binaries at present, it is marked
in some filtering systems in such a way that the
small binary maps didn't cause problems, and it's got
a handful of folks still subscribed to it who remember
it with affection.
I'm inclined to leave it be.
Marty
--
Co-chair of the Big-8 Management Board (B8MB) <http://www.big-8.org>
Unless otherwise indicated, I speak for myself, not for the Board.
Adam H. Kerman
>Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>For instance, this message was not posted to news.announce.newgroups
>>as required.
>Really, Adam, do you think that you can just make ridiculous statements
>and that because you say it, everyone will jump on your bandwagon?
Who is this "everyone" you think you speak for? I expect little from you,
Steve, but invective and over the top exaggeration. I expect others to
check things out for themselves.
>The RFD appeared in my feed of news.announce.newgroups from both
>individual.net and from Giganews, and it's on Google.
At the time I posted that, it wasn't on one server that I checked.
Checking again, it's there now. I didn't check other servers.
Adam H. Kerman
>Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>Big-8 Management Board <bo...@big-8.org> wrote:
>>>This is a formal Request for Discussion (RFD) to remove the
>>>unmoderated newsgroup rec.games.bolo.
>>>Proponent: Big-8 Management Board <bo...@big-8.org>
>>>Charter:
>>>To allow the discussion of topics and posting of software
>>>related to the game "Bolo," by Stuart Cheshire, originally
>>>for the Macintosh.
>>>Rationale for removal:
>>>Both the game and the newsgroup are defunct. The last
>>>ontopic posts appear to have been made circa 2000. The
>>>board is interested in closing unmoderated groups that
>>>have, in the past, been used for distribution of
>>>binaries.
>>Are binaries a problem? Do the administrators of any servers that
>>created the group even recall that software distribution is on topic?
>>More than likely, any server running Cleanfeed makes no exception for
>>this group.
>>That's illegitimate rationale.
>"Illegitimate" is a rather odd word to use.
How nice.
>As I'm sure that you already know, there has been a renewed interest in
>binary groups recently based on certain politicians and the ever-popular
>topic of kiddie porn. . . .
Steve, I don't know any of this. Your arguments are offensive. The rest
of your message was deleted unread.
Bob Noel
"Martin X. Moleski, SJ" <mol...@canisius.edu> wrote:
> > ... It's a group in the Big-8 that's intended for binary traffic. That's
> >reason enough to give it a close look.
>
> That's what started this ball rolling, I think.
>
> And it's unmoderated. That was strike two.
>
> BUT--on closer inspection--the group is not being used
> to circulate offtopic binaries at present, it is marked
> in some filtering systems in such a way that the
> small binary maps didn't cause problems, and it's got
> a handful of folks still subscribed to it who remember
> it with affection.
There was much discussion circa 1996 regarding filtering
of binaries in r.g.b. IIRC Richard Depew eventually
understood the nature of the binaries in r.g.b and
modified his filter to allow small binaries. Again, iirc
he set his limit at 100k.
>
> I'm inclined to leave it be.
thank you
Peter J Ross
<~$!~@u.defocus.net> wrote:
> C.R. Osterwald <erfc...@usa.net> wrote:
>
>> Last Call? When was the first call, and why is there such a rush to
>> kill it?
>
> There seemed little reason not to fast-track the proposal, since the
> group has been unused for years. Since that was clearly premature,
> this will now not result in a fast-track removal.
There have been no binaries posted in rec.games.bolo for many years.
Ergo, there is no reason to panic about the imminent destruction of
the Big 8 as a result of the kiddy porn movies that aren't posted to
rec.games.bolo.
If binaries are such a huge issue, why not retrocharter the group to
clarify that the permitted "software" comprises US-ASCII map files for
the Bolo game that happen not to be human-readable? Alternatively,
rmgroup every Big-8 group that permits PGP/MIME.
The fact that a new version of the Bolo game has been released in 2009
is the clincher for me. There are dozens of newsgroups more deserving
of rmgrouping than this one.
DON'T
PANIC!
--
PJR :-)
slrn newsreader v0.9.9p1: http://slrn.sourceforge.net/
extra slrn documentation: http://slrn-doc.sourceforge.net/
newsgroup name validator: http://pjr.lasnobberia.net/usenet/validator
Aratzio
J Ross <p...@example.invalid> got double secret probation for writing:
>In news.groups on Fri, 26 Jun 2009 13:06:00 CST, Jeremy Nixon
><~$!~@u.defocus.net> wrote:
>
>> C.R. Osterwald <erfc...@usa.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Last Call? When was the first call, and why is there such a rush to
>>> kill it?
>>
>> There seemed little reason not to fast-track the proposal, since the
>> group has been unused for years. Since that was clearly premature,
>> this will now not result in a fast-track removal.
>
>There have been no binaries posted in rec.games.bolo for many years.
>
>Ergo, there is no reason to panic about the imminent destruction of
>the Big 8 as a result of the kiddy porn movies that aren't posted to
>rec.games.bolo.
>
>If binaries are such a huge issue, why not retrocharter the group to
>clarify that the permitted "software" comprises US-ASCII map files for
>the Bolo game that happen not to be human-readable? Alternatively,
>rmgroup every Big-8 group that permits PGP/MIME.
>
>The fact that a new version of the Bolo game has been released in 2009
>is the clincher for me. There are dozens of newsgroups more deserving
>of rmgrouping than this one.
Keith Laumer is dead, rmgroup is valid. David Weber is a poser.
>
>DON'T
>PANIC!
Doug Adams is dead too.
Dave Sill
> On Sat, 27 Jun 2009 09:15:03 CST, rob...@deadspam.com (Rob Kelk) wrote in <4a460fc...@news.individual.net>:
>
>> ... It's a group in the Big-8 that's intended for binary traffic. That's
>> reason enough to give it a close look.
>
> That's what started this ball rolling, I think.
>
> And it's unmoderated. That was strike two.
It's dead: strike three. I think we should nuke it.
-Dave
Mark Kramer
Steve Bonine <s...@pobox.com> wrote:
>Mark Kramer wrote:
>> In article <7ajtl2F...@mid.individual.net>,
>> Steve Bonine <s...@pobox.com> wrote:
>>> Actually, this RFD turns out to be a fine illustration of the board
>>> being wrong. That's the whole purpose of doing an RFD;
>>
>> The whole purpose of an RFD is to illustrate that the board is wrong?
>>
>> Do you think you can make any kind of ridiculous statement and the rest
>> of the world will jump onto your bandwagon?
>
>I know that by selective quoting you can twist any statement to make it
>seem ridiculous.
I didn't "selective quote" you. I took your TOPIC SENTENCE for a paragraph
and the the very next clause referring to that topic. It is not I making you
seem ridiculous. It is your own words, in the same order you used them.
'That' has to refer to something, and the only possible antecedant is
"fine illustration of the board being wrong". There is no other possible
antecedant in your topic sentence.
>>> Since the board has not moved forward on removing truly dead groups (or
>>> even identifying them), I seriously doubt if rec.games.bolo will
>>> actually be removed.
>>
>> You just had Marty twist a comment about the group not being for
>> "software" into a claim that it wasn't for "binaries", so I doubt that
>> message is getting through. It was intended for maps of bolo, which are
>> "computer data" that some might call "software" but are certainly "binary".
>
>Personally, I think that the group should be removed, but mine is the
>minority opinion.
Also an irrelevant opinion. The statement I made wasn't about your opinion
but about an odd twist of the language that converted "software" into
"binaries".
>I understand and respect other folks' opinions, even
>when I don't agree. I have said what I believe, and I am not generally
>in the habit of beating the ground where there was once a horse.
But in my case, you'll make an exception. Yes, I know.
Mark Kramer
Yes, I know ASCII is also binary, and I was there when this was all hashed
out when rgb was created, saying the same thing. Nobody seems to care
that they are using too broad a term when trying to kill the mosquitos.
Mark Kramer
Yes, you are 16 years older, but apparently no wiser. I don't know, maybe
you are, but that says a lot about what you were like back then.
RGB has not changed significantly since then, nor has the fact that ASCII
is binary and yet you seem quite happy posting binaries to every group you
infest.
Mark Kramer
Peter J Ross <peadar...@gmail.com> wrote:
>If binaries are such a huge issue, why not retrocharter the group to
>clarify that the permitted "software" comprises US-ASCII map files for
>the Bolo game that happen not to be human-readable? Alternatively,
>rmgroup every Big-8 group that permits PGP/MIME.
Not needed. NO panic is necessary. The Charter already has a limit on
what dastardly binaries may be posted. "Related to the game 'bolo'."
Marty's failure to quote the charter limitations properly is a local
manifestation of quantum mismanagement, not global.
Mark Kramer
Steve Bonine <s...@pobox.com> wrote in a binary code called ASCII:
>As I'm sure that you already know, there has been a renewed interest in
>binary groups recently based on certain politicians and the ever-popular
>topic of kiddie porn. Perhaps this was the reason that several ISPs
>dropped the alt hierarchy and/or stopped providing all of Usenet to
>their customers.
Perhaps it was because they are trying to cut any costs they can get
away with. I suspect my version is closer to reality than yours.
>So, yes, binaries are "a problem".
And yet you continue to post them.
Just what other inconvenient truths will you ignore in your search
to remove inconvenient newsgroups? Is the vast amount of binaries in
news.groups going to become an issue tomorrow?
>But politically, it might be advantageous for the
>administrators of the big-8 to be able, when the topic comes up, to
>state that the hierarchy isn't used for distribution of binary data.
You do recall the word "unmoderated" and how it appears in the charters of
many, many Big 8 newsgroups, don't you? (You seem to have forgotten that
the "Big 8" refers to eight distinct hierarchies and refer to all eight
as "the hierarchy", but that might just be "selective quoting" again.)
You do know that "unmoderated" means you have little ability to control the
distribution of anything in those newsgroups, don't you?
Here begins 755 foo
M(R$O<V)I;B]S:`HC5&%G(#,X-#`*(R`@("`@("!#;W!Y<FEG:'0@*&,I(#$Y
M.#0L(#$Y.#8L(#$Y.#<L(#$Y.#@L(#$Y.#D@050F5`HC("`@("`@("`@06QL
M(%)I9VAT<R!297-E<G9E9`H*(R`@("`@("!42$E3($E3(%5.4%5"3$E32$5$
M(%!23U!2245405)9(%-/55)#12!#3T1%($]&($%4)E0*(R`@("`@("!4:&4@
M8V]P>7)I9VAT(&YO=&EC92!A8F]V92!D;V5S(&YO="!E=FED96YC92!A;GD*
M(R`@("`@("!A8W1U86P@;W(@:6YT96YD960@<'5B;&EC871I;VX@;V8@<W5C
M:"!S;W5R8V4@8V]D92X*"B-I9&5N="`@(D`H(RET<G5E.G1R=64N<V@@("`@
C("`@,2XT(@HC:61E;G0@("(D4F5V:7-I;VXZ(#$N-B`D(@IR
`
here ends foo
Martin X. Moleski, SJ
Support for the strike three argument:
* vanishingly small on-topic content for many years
* apparently no longer necessary for circulating battle maps
* at least two websites devoted to the game
The last 8+ years of data suggest to me that the
group isn't much used--even though we've had a
few folks express (understandable) attachment to it:
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.bolo/about?hl=en
So I'm leaning back to the nuke it side of the argument.
Robert Uhl
>
>>It's dead: strike three. I think we should nuke it.
>
> Support for the strike three argument:
>
> * vanishingly small on-topic content for many years
True enough--but by removing rgb there will never be any more content
ever...
> * apparently no longer necessary for circulating battle maps
rgb wasn't meant only for posting maps--the map side of things was
always a minor side note.
> * at least two websites devoted to the game
The idea that websites are a suitable replacement for Usenet seems very
dangerous to me--Usenet groups are IMHO much more suitable for
discussions than are web forums.
I do think that the folks who write the new Bolo versions should post to
rgb and direct their users here, rather than running their own web
forums or mailing lists.
--
Robert Uhl <http://public.xdi.org/=ruhl>
The English love making fun of foreigners, whose mere existence they
regard as an enormous jest. --Iain Pears
Helge Nareid
wrote:
>In news.groups on Fri, 26 Jun 2009 13:06:00 CST, Jeremy Nixon
><~$!~@u.defocus.net> wrote:
>
>> C.R. Osterwald <erfc...@usa.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Last Call? When was the first call, and why is there such a rush to
>>> kill it?
>>
>> There seemed little reason not to fast-track the proposal, since the
>> group has been unused for years. Since that was clearly premature,
>> this will now not result in a fast-track removal.
>
>There have been no binaries posted in rec.games.bolo for many years.
>
>Ergo, there is no reason to panic about the imminent destruction of
>the Big 8 as a result of the kiddy porn movies that aren't posted to
>rec.games.bolo.
Agreed.
The motivation for the proposal is the IMHO understandable desire to
remove any unmoderated binary group in the Big-8. As you are probably
aware, this was prompted by a recent (informal) proposal to create a
new unmoderated binary group in the rec.* hierarchy.
In the course of the discussion, it has been made very clear that a
majority of the board will not consider the creation of any new
unmoderated binary group in the Big 8.
Deriving directly from that discussion, the next step is to look at
any existing unmoderated group allowing binaries, which is why
rec.games.bolo came under discussion.
I, for one, did not even know of the existence of the game of bolo
prior to this discussion, so I would not presume to have any opinion
of the merits or otherwise of the game, nor can I claim any
familiarity with the newsgroup. So any knowledge I have is based on
what has been said in this discussion.
The discussion have indicated that the "binaries" in question are a
very limited case, and have very limited bandwidth implication.
>If binaries are such a huge issue, why not retrocharter the group to
>clarify that the permitted "software" comprises US-ASCII map files for
>the Bolo game that happen not to be human-readable?
I'm glad that _you_ suggested this ;-)
This is yet another hornets' nest.
To the best of my knowledge, there has up to now never been any case
of the charter of a Big-8 newsgroup being changed after the group has
been created-
Changing the charter of a newsgroup is one of the things for which
there is no current procedure, and the convention has up to now been
that there is _no_ way to change the charter of an existing newsgroup.
This convention predates the B8MB by some considerable margin - I
remember being involved in charter clarification discussions since the
mid-90s and being told that "it just can't be done".
Personally I am open to discussion of charter changes, but the matter
has up to now not been discussed within the B8MB at all (at least
within my time with the B8MB), so I have no idea what the collective
opinion of the B8MB may be.
>Alternatively,
>rmgroup every Big-8 group that permits PGP/MIME.
That wouldn't get my support. My native tongue (Norwegian) requires
8-bit support, I also have some limited knowledge of Japanese which
requires at least 16 bits.
>The fact that a new version of the Bolo game has been released in 2009
>is the clincher for me. There are dozens of newsgroups more deserving
>of rmgrouping than this one.
Agreed.
>DON'T
>PANIC!
I'm adding news.groups.proposals to the newsgroup list for this
message, so I do advise you to take you own advice.
--
Helge Nareid
Member of the Big-8 Management Board (B8MB)
Unless otherwise stated, speaking only for myself
For further info see: http://www.big-8.org/
"The Honest One"
"C.R. Osterwald" <erfc...@usa.net> wrote in message
> ASCII text is also binary, as are PGP public keys. This issue was
> thoroughly hashed out back in 1993 when r.g.b was just an RFD, to the
> satisfaction of everyone involved at the time.
> CR-O
Who cares ??
--
Your Pal,
HJ
p.s. Why aren't your posts showing-up in your Google account ??
"The Honest One"
>
> Absolutely correct, although I would suggest that fruitflies might be
a
> better analogy. r.g.b is hardly going to lead to the Death of Usenet
> As We Know It.
> --
> CR-O
Oh yes it will be the death of Usenet as we know it !!
--
Your Pal,
HJ
Martin X. Moleski, SJ
<m3ljnaf...@latakia.octopodial-chrome.com>:
>> * vanishingly small on-topic content for many years
>True enough--but by removing rgb there will never be any more content
>ever...
I understand that that is a consequence of removing a
group (to the extent that our request for removal
is effective). :o)
>> * apparently no longer necessary for circulating battle maps
>rgb wasn't meant only for posting maps--the map side of things was
>always a minor side note.
Understood.
>> * at least two websites devoted to the game
>The idea that websites are a suitable replacement for Usenet seems very
>dangerous to me--Usenet groups are IMHO much more suitable for
>discussions than are web forums.
I'm not announcing a general principle; I much prefer
Usenet to web forums. In this case, the players of the
game have largely abandoned Usenet and don't need it to
keep the game alive.
>I do think that the folks who write the new Bolo versions should post to
>rgb and direct their users here, rather than running their own web
>forums or mailing lists.
As far as I can tell, they have voted with their feet.
"The Honest One"
> In article <_OKdndT5KZxk9dTX...@centurytel.net>,
Dishonest
> Outhouse Clockbrain Cockbrain Jon wrote:
>
> >"C.R. Osterwald" <erfc...@usa.net> wrote in message
> >>
> >> <snip whining, pissing, & moaning>
> >>
> >> Absolutely correct, although I would suggest that fruitflies might
be
> >a
> >> better analogy. r.g.b is hardly going to lead to the Death of
Usenet
> >> As We Know It.
> >
>
> That's always a keeper. Or posting addresses? I'm sure Rhonda will
> give you a doggie treat and a pat on the head for that. Don't forget
> the post editing too, post-humping coward.
Oh, I've turned-over a new leaf !!
Let's play golf sometime....
--
Your Pal,
Inspector John Clouseau
Adam H. Kerman
>On Sun, 28 Jun 2009 19:34:26 +0100, Peter J Ross <p...@example.invalid> wrote:
>>on Fri, 26 Jun 2009 13:06:00 CST, Jeremy Nixon <~$!~@u.defocus.net> wrote:
>>>C.R. Osterwald <erfc...@usa.net> wrote:
>>>>Last Call? When was the first call, and why is there such a rush to
>>>>kill it?
>>>There seemed little reason not to fast-track the proposal, since the
>>>group has been unused for years. Since that was clearly premature,
>>>this will now not result in a fast-track removal.
>>There have been no binaries posted in rec.games.bolo for many years.
>>Ergo, there is no reason to panic about the imminent destruction of
>>the Big 8 as a result of the kiddy porn movies that aren't posted to
>>rec.games.bolo.
>Agreed.
>The motivation for the proposal is the IMHO understandable desire to
>remove any unmoderated binary group in the Big-8. As you are probably
>aware, this was prompted by a recent (informal) proposal to create a
>new unmoderated binary group in the rec.* hierarchy.
The desire is not understandable. There is no evidence that bolo-related
software has been posted to the group in years, the only binaries that
would be on topic per charter.
The claim was that there has been no on topic messages at all in the last
year, so how the hell could this group be used for binaries?
>Deriving directly from that discussion, the next step is to look at
>any existing unmoderated group allowing binaries, which is why
>rec.games.bolo came under discussion.
Leave it to News administrators to run Cleanfeed to catch the incidental
binary posted to any other group that allows incidental binaries per
charter. This isn't an issue.
>I, for one, did not even know of the existence of the game of bolo
>prior to this discussion, so I would not presume to have any opinion
>of the merits or otherwise of the game, nor can I claim any
>familiarity with the newsgroup. So any knowledge I have is based on
>what has been said in this discussion.
Great. It's always best to have discussions of pruning the group list in
absolute ignorance.
>>If binaries are such a huge issue, why not retrocharter the group to
>>clarify that the permitted "software" comprises US-ASCII map files for
>>the Bolo game that happen not to be human-readable?
>I'm glad that _you_ suggested this ;-)
>This is yet another hornets' nest.
Yeah. Don't do it. Just let News administrators deal with a potential
issue using Cleanfeed.
>Personally I am open to discussion of charter changes, but the matter
>has up to now not been discussed within the B8MB at all (at least
>within my time with the B8MB), so I have no idea what the collective
>opinion of the B8MB may be.
More pointless busy work.
>I'm adding news.groups.proposals to the newsgroup list for this
>message, so I do advise you to take you own advice.
Kindly don't attempt to force moderation upon an unmoderated thread.
Steve Crook
Message-Id: <h2cbs1$fq0$1...@news.eternal-september.org>:
> Yeah. Don't do it. Just let News administrators deal with a potential
> issue using Cleanfeed.
This might be a good point at which to mention that later Cleanfeed
versions treat base64 encoded binary differently to uuencoded and yEnc.
This came about as ASCII armored PGP public keys posted to Usenet were
being rejected as binary content.
At present, the Cleanfeed default is:
max_encoded_lines => 15 (uuencoded and yEnc content)
max_base64_lines => 200 (base64)
--
pub 1024D/228761E7 2003-06-04 Steven Crook
Key fingerprint = 1CD9 95E1 E9CE 80D6 C885 B7EB B471 80D5 2287 61E7
uid Steven Crook <st...@mixmin.net>
Martin X. Moleski, SJ
>What is your quantitative definition of the vague term "vanishingly"?
It's not a quantitative word.
It's a qualitiative description of the falloff in
use of the group since circa 1999.
The quantitative data is here:
>>http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.bolo/about?hl=en
>Are you looking to "nuke" each and every Big-8 newsgroup that fits this
>subjective criterion?
Not right now.
There have been some efforts made to remove dead
newsgroups over the last couple of years. If
you are interested in writing RFDs for unused
newsgroups, here are some suggestions about how
to do so:
http://www.big-8.org/dokuwiki/doku.php?id=policies:rmgroup
>>So I'm leaning back to the nuke it side of the argument.
>Using this line of reasoning, it is time to "nuke" all of Usenet.
That's what some ISPs are doing (e.g., AT&T).
>If this does happen, I will be asking my NSP to ignore the control
>message and continue carrying rec.games.bolo.
That is within your rights and the rights of your NSP.
We know that there are lots of servers that ignore control
messages for the big-8, some on purpose and some by accident
(it seems).
Dave Sill
>
> What is your quantitative definition of the vague term "vanishingly"?
> subjective criterion?
Looking to? No. I'd personally like to nuke all the dead Big 8 groups,
but the effort required far exceeds the benefit.
rec.games.bolo is different because it's unmoderated, its charter allows
binaries, and because we've already gotten the ball rolling with the RFD
and this discussion. At this point, the effort is done, all that remains
is to conduct the vote and issue the rmgroup if it passes.
>> * at least two websites devoted to the game
>
> How is that "strike three"?
It shows that Bolo users have abandoned the group in favor of web-based
alternatives.
We've had a few people clamoring to keep the group apparently solely
for sentimental reasons. Nobody's saying "I'm actively posting
Bolo-related messages to the group".
Use it or lose it.
> If this [rmgroup] does happen, I will be asking my NSP to ignore the control
> message and continue carrying rec.games.bolo.
What do you think that will accomplish? The group has been dead for
years. The rmgroup will make it more permanently dead. Retaining it on a
handful of servers intentionally won't make Usenet a better place.
-Dave
Peter J Ross
Please do *not* quote me in news.groups.proposals, or I'll be deterred
from commenting.
In news.groups on Mon, 29 Jun 2009 18:40:17 CST, Helge Nareid
<hn...@hnareid.me.uk> wrote:
> On Sun, 28 Jun 2009 19:34:26 +0100, Peter J Ross <p...@example.invalid>
> wrote:
>
>>In news.groups on Fri, 26 Jun 2009 13:06:00 CST, Jeremy Nixon
>><~$!~@u.defocus.net> wrote:
>>
>>> C.R. Osterwald <erfc...@usa.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Last Call? When was the first call, and why is there such a rush to
>>>> kill it?
>>>
>>> There seemed little reason not to fast-track the proposal, since the
>>> group has been unused for years. Since that was clearly premature,
>>> this will now not result in a fast-track removal.
>>
>>There have been no binaries posted in rec.games.bolo for many years.
>>
>>Ergo, there is no reason to panic about the imminent destruction of
>>the Big 8 as a result of the kiddy porn movies that aren't posted to
>>rec.games.bolo.
>
> Agreed.
<...>
> The discussion have indicated that the "binaries" in question are a
> very limited case, and have very limited bandwidth implication.
Also, no such binaries have been posted recently and nobody has
expressed a wish to post any.
>>If binaries are such a huge issue, why not retrocharter the group to
>>clarify that the permitted "software" comprises US-ASCII map files for
>>the Bolo game that happen not to be human-readable?
>
> I'm glad that _you_ suggested this ;-)
I recently suggested something similar for an alt.* group.
"retrocharter" isn't the best word. The plan would be to include
clarification of the existing charter in the archive of control
messages for the group.
> This is yet another hornets' nest.
That's because of the danger of charter wars comparable to the old
rmgroup wars. But the danger doesn't exist in a managed hierarchy.
> To the best of my knowledge, there has up to now never been any case
> of the charter of a Big-8 newsgroup being changed after the group has
> been created-
I *think* there are a few examples of groups that had charters *added*
some time after they were newgrouped, though I don't know of any that
had existing charters changed.
> Changing the charter of a newsgroup is one of the things for which
> there is no current procedure,
A good procedure might be developed as a result of discussion of an
RFD.
> and the convention has up to now been
> that there is _no_ way to change the charter of an existing newsgroup.
> This convention predates the B8MB by some considerable margin - I
> remember being involved in charter clarification discussions since the
> mid-90s and being told that "it just can't be done".
Did anybody tell tale that?
> Personally I am open to discussion of charter changes, but the matter
> has up to now not been discussed within the B8MB at all (at least
> within my time with the B8MB), so I have no idea what the collective
> opinion of the B8MB may be.
It's an issue only if the original charter of RGB is deemed to permit
posts that might bring the Big-8 hierarchies into disrepute.
>>Alternatively,
>>rmgroup every Big-8 group that permits PGP/MIME.
>
> That wouldn't get my support. My native tongue (Norwegian) requires
> 8-bit support, I also have some limited knowledge of Japanese which
> requires at least 16 bits.
"PGP/MIME" doesn't mean "PGP or MIME". It means this:
<http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2015.txt>
In practice it's one of the "multipart/signed" MIME types that are
commonly allowed as an exception to the "no binaries" rule.
>>The fact that a new version of the Bolo game has been released in 2009
>>is the clincher for me. There are dozens of newsgroups more deserving
>>of rmgrouping than this one.
>
> Agreed.
Last time rmgrouping in general was discussed, there seemed to be a
consensus that it was more trouble than it was worth, even for groups
that were created for the discussion of software that's now long dead.
rmgrouping a group for discussion of software that's recently been
updated would be just silly: what if the latest version suddenly
becomes popular?
>>DON'T
>>PANIC!
>
> I'm adding news.groups.proposals to the newsgroup list for this
> message, so I do advise you to take you own advice.
If you persist in quoting me verbatim in news.groups.proposals, I'll
either stop posting about RFDs or adopt a prose style too persistently
impolite about the Bambies to be quotable there. I've already been
through this with Jim Riley a couple of years ago, and even the NGP
moderators agreed to accept my wishes about crossposting.
Peter J Ross
In news.groups on Tue, 30 Jun 2009 09:02:55 CST, Dave Sill
<da...@sill.org> wrote:
> C.R. Osterwald wrote:
>>
>> What is your quantitative definition of the vague term "vanishingly"?
>> Are you looking to "nuke" each and every Big-8 newsgroup that fits this
>> subjective criterion?
>
> Looking to? No. I'd personally like to nuke all the dead Big 8 groups,
> but the effort required far exceeds the benefit.
>
> rec.games.bolo is different because it's unmoderated, its charter allows
> binaries,
Its charter allows only a specific kind of binaries.
> and because we've already gotten the ball rolling with the RFD
> and this discussion.
RFDs should be judged on their merits, not their momentum.
> At this point, the effort is done, all that remains
> is to conduct the vote and issue the rmgroup if it passes.
And then as many as ten percent of servers may remove the group.
>>> * at least two websites devoted to the game
>>
>> How is that "strike three"?
>
> It shows that Bolo users have abandoned the group in favor of web-based
> alternatives.
What makes you think the Web users previously used Usenet?
> We've had a few people clamoring to keep the group apparently solely
> for sentimental reasons. Nobody's saying "I'm actively posting
> Bolo-related messages to the group".
So what? The specific danger in this case is that the software is
still being developed and therefore might become popular again, in
which case you might be in the amusing position of having to newgroup
a group you'd previously rmgrouped.
> Use it or lose it.
I'll remember that aphorism next time news.groups.proposals is empty
for a few weeks or months.
>> If this [rmgroup] does happen, I will be asking my NSP to ignore the control
>> message and continue carrying rec.games.bolo.
>
> What do you think that will accomplish? The group has been dead for
> years. The rmgroup will make it more permanently dead. Retaining it on a
> handful of servers intentionally won't make Usenet a better place.
It will make at least one corner of Usenet retain a harmless newsgroup
where people can discuss Bolo (and post maps) if they wish too. That
corner of Usenet will be a better place for such people than the
unnecessarily sanitised corner you choose to inhabit.
I had no opinion at all about this RFD when it was first posted, but
the discussion so far has made me form a few inchoate views. The fact
that the RFD results from a policy issue means that we need more time
to continue discussion than the "Last Call for Comments" nonsense
technically permits. If you start voting soon, I'll be disappointed.
Another thought that occurs to me is that RFDs, whether for adding
groups or removing them, should prehaps come from users, not from
hierarchy administrators. The users propose something, the experts
advise the users, and the admins finally make a decision. Otherwise
it's all just Bamby busywork.
"The Honest One"
"C.R. Osterwald" <erfc...@usa.net> wrote in message
>
> The joys of moderation -- with this I shall bid the treehouse adieu:
> --
> C.R. Osterwald
Sorry you're having trouble getting your buddies in the Big-8 to follow
your wants.......
Let's meet at the Pool Hall for a couple of games and some brewskees to
help drown your sorrows......
I'll buy the first round !!
--
Your Usenet Pal,
Inspector John Clouseau
rhombo
wrote:
> "C.R. Osterwald" <erfc-1...@usa.net> wrote in message
>
> news:290620092003484259%erfc...@usa.net...
>
>
>
>
>
> > In article <_OKdndT5KZxk9dTXnZ2dnUVZ_tydn...@centurytel.net>,
> Dishonest
> > Outhouse Clockbrain Cockbrain Jon wrote:
>
>
> > >> <snip whining, pissing, & moaning>
>
> > >> Absolutely correct, although I would suggest that fruitflies might
> be
> > >a
> > >> better analogy. r.g.b is hardly going to lead to the Death of
> Usenet
> > >> As We Know It.
>
> > >Oh yes it will be the death of Usenet as we know it !!
>
> > No pedophilia lames tonight? How about calling people a "fuckin Jew"?
> > That's always a keeper. Or posting addresses? I'm sure Rhonda will
> > give you a doggie treat and a pat on the head for that. Don't forget
> > the post editing too, post-humping coward.
>
> Oh, I've turned-over a new leaf !!
>
> Let's play golf sometime....
> --
> Your Pal,
> Inspector John Clouseau
Wolfus-puss wants to chase the balls around...
"The Honest One"
"rhombo" <parall...@who.net> wrote in message
news:7a4f3af2-6d55-4768...@o36g2000vbi.googlegroups.com...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I just bet that he does...........and
he wants to grab my "putter" too !!
--
Inspector John Clouseau
Igenlode Wordsmith
Martin X. Moleski, SJ wrote:
> The last 8+ years of data suggest to me that the
> group isn't much used--even though we've had a
> few folks express (understandable) attachment to it:
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.bolo/about?hl=en
>
> So I'm leaning back to the nuke it side of the argument.
>
I for one am deeply unhappy at the suggestion that newsgroups can be
'deleted' (for what any attempts in that direction nowadays are worth,
of course...) in the face of explicit opposition from their existing
users. Whether that opposition is deemed by the Board to be reasonable
or merely sentimental would seem irrelevant: the point is that people
evidently do want the group, and attempting to take it away is not a
friendly thing to do...
--
Igenlode Wordsmith Pirates of the Caribbean
fanfiction:
- http://ivory.150m.com/Tower/Fiction/FineWoman.html
- http://ivory.150m.com/Tower/Fiction/ForMe.html
Steve Bonine
> I for one am deeply unhappy at the suggestion that newsgroups can be
> 'deleted' (for what any attempts in that direction nowadays are worth,
> of course...) in the face of explicit opposition from their existing
> users. Whether that opposition is deemed by the Board to be reasonable
> or merely sentimental would seem irrelevant: the point is that people
> evidently do want the group, and attempting to take it away is not a
> friendly thing to do...
There are no existing users. rec.games.bolo is a newsgroup that has
been abandoned by its users. None of them are saying that they now plan
to use it; they're just upset because someone is considering removing it.
I don't use news.software.anu-news any more, but I have many happy
memories of using it and of the activities associated with using it.
When it was removed from the list of groups, it was a reminder that
times change. But it didn't make me deeply unhappy, and leaving it in
the list would not have made me deeply glad.
What you're saying is don't ever remove a newsgroup because it might
pull the heartstrings of people who once used it. And frankly, given
the hubbub that we've seen, I agree with you. It's not worth the hassle.
Martin X. Moleski, SJ
<e8257b1c-0229-4ff7...@18g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>:
>> ... So I'm leaning back to the nuke it side of the argument.
>I for one am deeply unhappy at the suggestion that newsgroups can be
>'deleted' (for what any attempts in that direction nowadays are worth,
>of course...) in the face of explicit opposition from their existing
>users. Whether that opposition is deemed by the Board to be reasonable
>or merely sentimental would seem irrelevant: the point is that people
>evidently do want the group, and attempting to take it away is not a
>friendly thing to do...
If the people who protested the removal of the group were USING it
regularly, I would vote against removing it.
I understand the emotional attachment to newsgroups--I feel that
way about the ones I've followed for the last decade or so.
This is something about which reasonable people might reasonably
disagree. I'm still inclined to vote for the removal despite
the protests.
Brian Mailman
>> Killing newsgroups because there are "web-based alternatives"
>> indicates to me that you have no regard for the future of Usenet.
And yet, they claim to "create" groups, and "create" them on the basis
that there's something besides a web-based alternative needed.
B/
Brian Mailman
> [rec.games.bolo removed]
restored.
>
> Peter J Ross <p...@example.invalid> wrote:
>> In news.groups on Tue, 30 Jun 2009 09:02:55 CST, Dave Sill
>> <da...@sill.org> wrote:
>>
>> > It shows that Bolo users have abandoned the group in favor of web-based
>> > alternatives.
>>
>> What makes you think the Web users previously used Usenet?
>
> It doesn't really make any difference whether they did or not. What's
> important is that Bolo users have abandoned the newsgroup.
>
>> Another thought that occurs to me is that RFDs, whether for adding
>> groups or removing them, should prehaps come from users, not from
>> hierarchy administrators. The users propose something, the experts
>> advise the users, and the admins finally make a decision. Otherwise
>> it's all just Bamby busywork.
>
> <laugh> The nonexistent users of an abandoned group should be the ones
> to propose removal of the group? Why not just say that you're opposed
> to removing dead groups? (Since I really don't believe that you are
> opposed, maybe that was sarcasm or an inadvertent funny.)
>