More junta flouncing: Re: 2nd RFD: The Great Downsizing 2011/1

21 views
Skip to first unread message

qartl

unread,
Mar 5, 2011, 2:31:42 PM3/5/11
to
In article <great-downsizi...@news.albasani.net>, Big-8
Management Board <bo...@big-8.org> wrote:

[lame followups trick to the junta's moderated treehouse defeated,
scorned, and laughed at. proper newsgroups restored and added.]

> REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
>
>This is a formal Request for Discussion (RFD) to remove the following
>198 unmoderated newsgroups.
>
>RATIONALE:
>
>All groups listed below fulfill these conditions:
>- no moderated groups
>- no group names matching *.misc
>- zero on-topic, non-crossposted threads in the past 18 months
>- on-topic questions that received no on-topic answer do not count

This rationale is false, therefore the entire proposal should be voted
down. See below.

>The discussion following the publication of the 1st RFD brought up
>principal opposition to the removal of groups, and the notion that
>some groups have a function beyond mere traffic.
>
>The claim that the groups in question have not been used for a long
>time was not disputed, however. Therefore the list was not changed.

Once again the junta is too lazy to do any real research. See below.

>Because of the magnitude of the group list this proposal is not cross-
>posted to target groups. In the course of these proceedings the B8MB
>will post pointers to this announcement to appropriate groups. Readers
>are encouraged to take initiative and spread the message.

Very lame, once again the junta demonstrates that they are too lazy
period.
>
>PROCEDURE:
>
>The procedure shall take at least 8 weeks, with announcements posted
>every 4 weeks: 1st RFD, 2nd RFD, and LCC. The group lists may be re-
>vised during this stage. Discussion about candidate groups should take
>place in moderated group news.groups.proposals. After publication of
>the LCC the board votes on each newsgroup individually.
>More details can be found here:
>
> http://www.big-8.org/wiki/Mass_removal_of_groups

Once again the junta ignores the fact that their "removal" control
messages are routinely ignored by news administrators and that they
lack any power to remove any newsgroups.

>NEWSGROUP LINES:

[huge snip]

>rec.games.bolo The networked strategy war game Bolo.

Message-ID:
<9640523f-9af5-425b...@k17g2000pre.googlegroups.com>
Message-ID: <87k4h2v...@octopodial-chrome.com>
Message-ID: <8rvvet...@mid.individual.net>

Ragugaki

unread,
Mar 18, 2011, 1:06:18 PM3/18/11
to
On Mar 6, 6:31 am, qartl <qa...@a51.mi1> wrote:
> In article <great-downsizing-2011-1-rf...@news.albasani.net>, Big-8

>
> Management Board <bo...@big-8.org> wrote:
>
> [lame followups trick to the junta's moderated treehouse defeated,
> scorned, and laughed at.  proper newsgroups restored and added.]
>
> >              REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
>
> >This is a formal Request for Discussion (RFD) to remove the following
> >198 unmoderated newsgroups.
>
> >RATIONALE:
>
> >All groups listed below fulfill these conditions:
> >- no moderated groups
> >- no group names matching *.misc
> >- zero on-topic, non-crossposted threads in the past 18 months
> >- on-topic questions that received no on-topic answer do not count
>
> This rationale is false, therefore the entire proposal should be voted
> down.  See below.

Agreed - rec.games.bolo should stay.

Message has been deleted

Aratzio

unread,
Apr 10, 2011, 11:13:51 PM4/10/11
to
On Sun, 10 Apr 2011 16:43:07 -0600, in the land of news.groups, qartl
<qa...@a51.mi1> got double secret probation for writing:

>[treehouse redirect defeated]


>
>Big-8 Management Board <bo...@big-8.org> wrote:
>
>>All groups listed below fulfill these conditions:
>>- no moderated groups
>>- no group names matching *.misc
>>- zero on-topic, non-crossposted threads in the past 18 months
>>- on-topic questions that received no on-topic answer do not count
>

>An old adage comes to mind here:
>
>"Please don't confuse me with facts, my mind is made up."
>
>And the fools still can't be bothered to post into the targeted groups.
>
>I will be requesting my ISP to ignore the impending flood of
>ill-conceived control messages.

I'm telling.

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
Message has been deleted
0 new messages