First CFV New Newsgroup uk.local.borders-region
Peter Parry
wrote:
>*** WARNING! DO *NOT* VOTE USING THE FORM IN CRAIG'S MESSAGE! ***
>
>By reposting the voting form, Craig is soliciting votes *by breaking UK
>Usenet Voting Regulations* [see http://www.usenet.org.uk]
>
>It is possible that he is deliberately trying to get the vote called off
>(as seen previously with uk.people.support.* votes), but I think he's just
>being clueless, rather than malicious.
Isn't Craig a propaganda official for a nationalist political party
(If I'm wrong he has my most abject apologies for insulting him by
calling him a politician)?
If this is so your assumption, while kindly, is questionable. The
aim of such a person would be furthering partisan points in the most
effective way possible. Often their role would be to conceal and
manipulate the truth or mislead the reader (as is the job of every
propaganda person).
If he does not wish to see this group created what better way than to
circumvent the usual democratic processes and throw a spanner in the
works than by carrying out an action which he has surely seen in the
past led to the suspension of a vote?
We are not talking about a naive newcomer here.
--
Peter Parry. 01442 212597 0973 269132 fax 01442 233169
http://www.wppltd.demon.co.uk
Craig Cockburn
In article <6vkq9t$g3$3...@indiekid.freeserve.co.uk>, Iain D. Kidd
<ia...@onecooldude.com> writes
>And since Craig has posted *his* side of the Borders newsgroup debate to
>these newsgroups, allow me to post a rebuttal to his nationalistic
>frothings.
>
Such strong language. Surely unnecessary from someone with a valid
argument?
>
>By setting a precedent, he means that other people will say "Why can't I
>propose a newsgroup in uk.local.*, rather than your parochial wee scot.*
>hierarchy, since there is already a uk.local.borders-region group?"
>
No I don't, and the issue of being parochial is irrelevant.
>
>I would suggest voting FOR since the proponent wants a group in uk.*, and
>the fact that Mr Cockburn is a petulant child who wants everything in his
>playground should not cause her any problems.
>
Oh dear, more of that strong language again. Are you trying to make a
point here?
>
>This has already been covered in great depth in uk.net.news.config, in a
>flame war that has been ongoing since the end of August. Readers
>interested in the debate should consult Dejanews.
>
Summary: If you look at Dejanews, you'll find there have been several
objectors.
>> 2. The UK is in a major state of change with well over half of Scots
>> voters wishing independence in the short term (source: ICM). With the
>> elections to the Scottish parliament less than 7 months away, putting a
>> new group in the uk.* hierarchy would seem to be premature and likely to
>> change in the short term.
>
>This is a political point, and one which has little relevance to the uk.*
>hierarchy.
It is extremely relevant as the UK is a political grouping likely to
change.
> In the meantime, I think it is safe to say that Scotland is
>not going to become independent in the next ten years, so any proposed
>uk.local.* newsgroup can safely be said to have a potential lifetime
>longer than (say) uk.media.tv.friends.
>
>This is, therefore, not a reason to vote against the creation of this
>group.
>
Your analysis is conjecture. My analysis is also conjecture but at least
is backed up by scientific opinion polls. Therefore my opinion is shared
by the majority of the poll sample. Your opinion appears to stand alone.
>> Even within the spirit of devolution, it would
>> seem appropriate for a group covering a Scottish area to be decided at a
>> Scottish level, rather than by a UK committee led by vocal members from
>> Birmingham.
>
>Almost nothing is decided by the UK.* Committee. They are there as a
>guiding body, and are *ELECTED* into their positions. Every group
>creation is handled *DEMOCRATICALLY*, as we can see by the need for a CFV
>on this newsgroup.
>
I thought there was supposed to be elections to this group last month?
What happened?
>
>Compare this to the scot.* hierarchy, which is a totally ramshackle
>affair, where newsgroups are apparently created on the whim of one or two
>people.
>
Hardly. What experience do you have of creating a group in Scot? None. I
have created scot.jobs through the process documented in the
soc.culture.scottish FAQ for creating scot.* newsgroups.
>> 3. Placing the group in the English dominated uk.local. area would
>> create a precedent as there are currently no Scottish groups there.
>
>That is because no-one has proposed one before (although when the
>uk.local.* hierarchy was created, certain Scottish Nationalist numptys
>were extremely vocal, discouraging others from proposing Scottish groups)
>
Not me, I wasn't reading the group then as far as I recall.
>
>> Having Scottish issues in even more places would be
>> detrimental to existing groups.
>
>HA! scot.general is one of the biggest wastes of space on the news list.
>
That's why you posted your message there? I see.
--
Craig Cockburn ("coburn") http://www.scot.demon.co.uk/
Port na Banrighinn, Alba. (Queensferry, Scotland) PGP key available.
Sgri\obh thugam 'sa Gha\idhlig ma 'se do thoil e.
Andy Mabbett
<ia...@onecooldude.com> writes
[FU overridden, then re-set]
>By reposting the voting form, Craig is soliciting votes *by breaking UK
>Usenet Voting Regulations* [see http://www.usenet.org.uk]
I wonder why he finds that necessary...
[...]
>Distributing pre-marked or otherwise edited
>>copies of this CFV is considered to be vote fraud.
Which may in turn result in a vote against the group being re- run.
That's hardly helping Craig's cause, is it?
>In article <5UF71HAu...@scot.demon.co.uk>,
> Craig Cockburn <cr...@scot.demon.co.uk> writes:
>> The first call for votes for a group for the "Scottish Borders" has been
>> posted and I have attached it for your information as the call for votes
>> was not posted here, even though this group has a significant Scottish
>> content.
"This group" seems to be five. Craig has not previously, to the best of
my knowledge, asked for some of them to be included in the debate - nor
even mentioned the existence of them.
The official CFV was posted (I believe at Craig's request) to
scot.general
>> I am in favour of the borders having their own discussion group
>> however I am against this proposal as it sets a precedent for creating
>> Scottish groups in uk.* rather than scot.*.
Not having it will not set any precedent against future uk.local.[part
of Scotland] newsgroup.
>> My preference would be for a
>> group in scot.*. Having a group in both would be unnecessary duplication
Not necessarily; given that you seem to want scot.* to be propagated
only for the benefit of people *in* Scotland, but uk.* is as widely (=
globally) propagated as possible, the readerships could be very
different. This point has been made previously, more than once.
>> and so I would suggest voting against this so that a group in scot.* can
>> progress without this duplication problem.
scot.borders (or whatever) can be created (or not) regardless of what
happens in uk.*
[...]
>> it would
>> seem appropriate for a group covering a Scottish area to be decided at a
>> Scottish level, rather than by a UK committee led by vocal members from
>> Birmingham.
That's just rubbish - the committee is not "led" by anybody, and the
majority of its members are neither from, nor in, Birmingham.
(I'm not on the committee, should anybody be wondering).
>> 3. Placing the group in the English dominated uk.local. area
The only way to stop it being "English dominated" is to redress the
balance by creating uk.local.[part of Scotland] groups.
[...]
>> This would clear the way for other Scottish areas to be created,
See above.
>> particularly
>> uk.local.lothian which conflicts with the existing Edinburgh groups
>> and to an extent with scot.general (both widely propagated
But not *well* propagated.
>> and covered by dejanews.
So?
>> Having Scottish issues in even more places would be
>> detrimental to existing groups.
In your opinion.
[...]
--
Andy Mabbett, Development Manager, Birmingham Assist
Birmingham City Council - http://www.birmingham.gov.uk
!*!*!*! See our *new* web site, at the above address !*!*!*!
Andy Mabbett
<pe...@wppltd.demon.co.uk> writes
>Isn't Craig a propaganda official for a nationalist political party
In:
<L4j3eOAc...@scot.demon.co.uk> [1]
he said "I'm the SNP Press Officer for Edinburgh Central".
One wonders what the SNP policy on democratic voting is...
[1] Transcribed manually for reasons too tiresome to go in to. Available
on Dejanews, anyway.
--
Andy Mabbett: Personal view only - *not* my employers!
Hint: Telepathy rarely functions correctly via Usenet
Iain Rae
<cr...@scot.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>The first call for votes for a group for the "Scottish Borders" has been
>posted and I have attached it for your information as the call for votes
>was not posted here, even though this group has a significant Scottish
>content.
>Please vote against this proposed group for the reasons detailed above.
If you're interested in voting then I'd advise you to seek out and
read the discussions in deja news and decide for yourselves.
In reposting the Call For Votes against the advice given in the
procedures section Craig is laying himself open to accusations of
soliciting for votes or possibly vote rigging. If you vote using the
copy of the ballot Craig posted here your vote may be declared to be
invalid and be ignored. The official sources of ballots are (as listed
in the CFV:
>OFFICIAL SOURCES OF THE CFV:
>
>* The copy which was posted to uk.net.news.announce
>
>* The copy which was posted to any other groups by the votetaker
> (uk.net.news.config, uk.local.geordie, uk.local.nw-england, scot.general)
>
>* Any copies which were sent to mailing lists by the votetaker
>
>* The votetaker
>
>
Craig, given the discussion relating to the RFD and to minimise any
post-vote vote challenges it might be wise to cancel your original
posting to ed.general et al and repost the message replacing the copy
of the call for votes with a reference to the valid sources of the
ballot. Either that or ask the votetaker to post an official ballot
form to the various groups.
>The mechanism for voting is detailed below
Yes, quite. And I'd advise everyone to read them carefully.
what's Finnish for forty-two (ok Mabbett do your worst :) )
Charles Mcgregor
from ia...@onecooldude.com (Iain D. Kidd) contains these words:
> *** WARNING! DO *NOT* VOTE USING THE FORM IN CRAIG'S MESSAGE! ***
> By reposting the voting form, Craig is soliciting votes *by breaking UK
> Usenet Voting Regulations* [see http://www.usenet.org.uk]
> It is possible that he is deliberately trying to get the vote called off
> (as seen previously with uk.people.support.* votes), but I think he's just
> being clueless, rather than malicious.
> If you wish to vote, go to uk.net.news.announce and complete the ballot
> found there.
> As the RFD says:
> >The purpose of a vote is to determine the genuine interest of persons
> >who would read a proposed newsgroup. Soliciting votes from
> >disinterested parties defeats this purpose. Please do not distribute
> >this CFV. If you must, direct people to the official CFV as posted to
> >uk.net.news.announce. Distributing pre-marked or otherwise edited
> >copies of this CFV is considered to be vote fraud. When in doubt,
> >ask the votetaker, who can also arrange for an official posting in
> >other relevant newsgroups or mailing lists if asked.
This is unbelievable. Are you the same bunch of fascists who are
proposing a local.UK group for Midlothian and banning Gaelic?
Your position is morally bankrupt.
You want to direct the franchise for your vote away from those whom
it concerns the most.
Your motives can only be described as, at best, Imperialist.
The name you have chosen is not even sensible on a simple clarity
basis, however I suspect that that is of little interest to you,
since your nasty motives are so apparent.
I urge people to vote against this in the name of decency.
> Votes made referencing a Message other than the official uk.* post *may be
> invalid*.
> In article <5UF71HAu...@scot.demon.co.uk>,
> Craig Cockburn <cr...@scot.demon.co.uk> writes:
> > The first call for votes for a group for the "Scottish Borders" has been
> > posted and I have attached it for your information as the call for votes
> > was not posted here, even though this group has a significant Scottish
> > content. I am in favour of the borders having their own discussion group
> > however I am against this proposal as it sets a precedent for creating
> > Scottish groups in uk.* rather than scot.*. My preference would be for a
> > group in scot.*. Having a group in both would be unnecessary duplication
> > and so I would suggest voting against this so that a group in scot.* can
> > progress without this duplication problem.
> >
> > My other objections are:
> > 1. The name chosen is "uk.local.borders-region". This is a throwback to
> > the Borders Region days, yet the area covered by the group is not the
> > same. The name is therefore confusing. The name is also confusing
> > because it does not specify which UK border and which side of that
> > border it covers - uk.local.scot-borders would have been far better.
> >
> > 2. The UK is in a major state of change with well over half of Scots
> > voters wishing independence in the short term (source: ICM). With the
> > elections to the Scottish parliament less than 7 months away, putting a
> > new group in the uk.* hierarchy would seem to be premature and likely to
> > change in the short term. Even within the spirit of devolution, it would
> > seem appropriate for a group covering a Scottish area to be decided at a
> > Scottish level, rather than by a UK committee led by vocal members from
> > Birmingham.
> >
> > 3. Placing the group in the English dominated uk.local. area would
> > create a precedent as there are currently no Scottish groups there. This
> > would clear the way for other Scottish areas to be created, particularly
> > uk.local.lothian which conflicts with the existing Edinburgh groups and
> > to an extent with scot.general (both widely propagated and covered by
> > dejanews). Having Scottish issues in even more places would be
> > detrimental to existing groups.
> >
> > Please vote against this proposed group for the reasons detailed above.
> > The mechanism for voting is detailed below DO NOT SEND VOTES TO ME OR TO
> > THIS NEWSGROUP.
> >
> > In article <cfv-uk.local.borders...@usenet.org.uk>,
> > Alan Ford <al...@whirlnet.demon.co.uk> writes
> >> [snip repost of RFD]
regards
chic
Charles Mcgregor
from ia...@onecooldude.com (Iain D. Kidd) contains these words:
> And since Craig has posted *his* side of the Borders newsgroup debate to
> these newsgroups, allow me to post a rebuttal to his nationalistic
> frothings.
> FWIW, these are just my views. However, if you want to see the full
> history of the Scottish Borders debate, visit uk.net.news.config. The RFD
> for this newsgroup was posted in late August.
> In article <5UF71HAu...@scot.demon.co.uk>,
> Craig Cockburn <cr...@scot.demon.co.uk> writes:
> > The first call for votes for a group for the "Scottish Borders" has been
> > posted and I have attached it for your information as the call for votes
> > was not posted here, even though this group has a significant Scottish
> > content. I am in favour of the borders having their own discussion group
> > however I am against this proposal as it sets a precedent for creating
> > Scottish groups in uk.* rather than scot.*.
> By setting a precedent, he means that other people will say "Why can't I
> propose a newsgroup in uk.local.*, rather than your parochial wee scot.*
> hierarchy, since there is already a uk.local.borders-region group?"
Your language is of the gutter racist.
> Hopefully, should this group get through, it will save us future flames
> from Mr Cockburn.
> > My preference would be for a
> > group in scot.*. Having a group in both would be unnecessary duplication
> > and so I would suggest voting against this so that a group in scot.* can
> > progress without this duplication problem.
> I would suggest voting FOR since the proponent wants a group in uk.*, and
> the fact that Mr Cockburn is a petulant child who wants everything in his
> playground should not cause her any problems.
It is your unwillingness to test the opinion of those who are most
effected by this group, i.e. Scots, especially Borderers, that is so
reprehensible.
If Mr Cockburn objects to your boorish direspect for normal
democratic processes then he simply upholds that which is right and decent.
> > My other objections are:
> > 1. The name chosen is "uk.local.borders-region". This is a throwback to
> > the Borders Region days, yet the area covered by the group is not the
> > same. The name is therefore confusing. The name is also confusing
> > because it does not specify which UK border and which side of that
> > border it covers - uk.local.scot-borders would have been far better.
> This has already been covered in great depth in uk.net.news.config, in a
> flame war that has been ongoing since the end of August. Readers
> interested in the debate should consult Dejanews.
> Summary: No-one else has any problem with the name, except Mr Cockburn.
I know that is not true.
> > 2. The UK is in a major state of change with well over half of Scots
> > voters wishing independence in the short term (source: ICM). With the
> > elections to the Scottish parliament less than 7 months away, putting a
> > new group in the uk.* hierarchy would seem to be premature and likely to
> > change in the short term.
> This is a political point, and one which has little relevance to the uk.*
> hierarchy. In the meantime, I think it is safe to say that Scotland is
> not going to become independent in the next ten years, so any proposed
> uk.local.* newsgroup can safely be said to have a potential lifetime
> longer than (say) uk.media.tv.friends.
> This is, therefore, not a reason to vote against the creation of this
> group.
Seems like a perfectly pragmatic reason to me. Anyway, it is obvious
that the proposal FOR the group is politically motivated.
> > Even within the spirit of devolution, it would
> > seem appropriate for a group covering a Scottish area to be decided at a
> > Scottish level, rather than by a UK committee led by vocal members from
> > Birmingham.
> Almost nothing is decided by the UK.* Committee. They are there as a
> guiding body, and are *ELECTED* into their positions. Every group
We've seen your recommended election ideology.
> creation is handled *DEMOCRATICALLY*, as we can see by the need for a CFV
> on this newsgroup.
You've learned to spell the word in capitals, now look it up.
> Full details of the commitee, its purpose, and its members can be found on
> http://www.usenet.org.uk
> Compare this to the scot.* hierarchy, which is a totally ramshackle
> affair, where newsgroups are apparently created on the whim of one or two
> people.
> > 3. Placing the group in the English dominated uk.local. area would
> > create a precedent as there are currently no Scottish groups there.
> That is because no-one has proposed one before (although when the
> uk.local.* hierarchy was created, certain Scottish Nationalist numptys
> were extremely vocal, discouraging others from proposing Scottish groups)
Currently, about 60% of the population support independence in Scotland, 40%
for the SNP. Your florid description betrays yet again your hidden agenda.
> > This
> > would clear the way for other Scottish areas to be created, particularly
> > uk.local.lothian which conflicts with the existing Edinburgh groups and
> > to an extent with scot.general (both widely propagated and covered by
> > dejanews).
> That's a whole seperate thread, and a whole seperate argument. At the
> same time, a concensus seems to have been reached on uk.net.news.config,
> with Craig Cockburn being the sole voice of contention on that point.
Speaking for myself, I have little interest in UK or British groups.
I suspect that few Scots do. That absence should not, however, be
interpreted as acquiescence, quite the opposite in fact.
> > Having Scottish issues in even more places would be
> > detrimental to existing groups.
> HA! scot.general is one of the biggest wastes of space on the news list.
> In the last week, there have been *three* threads that have not been cross
> posted to other groups in other hierarchies. One from an American tracing
> his heritage, one from an Austrian planning a trip to Edinburgh, and one
> thread about Laptop Phonepoints.
Well that is obviously untrue. Many groups have nothing in them for
weeks on end.
> If anything, the proposed groups would *increase* traffic in scot.*,
> albeit by increasing cross-posts.
From where? The UK newsgroups where there is hardly any scots?
What's the point of that?
regards
chic
Iain Rae
<chi...@zetnet.co.uk> wrote:
>The message <6vkq9t$g3$3...@indiekid.freeserve.co.uk>
> from ia...@onecooldude.com (Iain D. Kidd) contains these words:
>> In article <5UF71HAu...@scot.demon.co.uk>,
>> Craig Cockburn <cr...@scot.demon.co.uk> writes:
>> I would suggest voting FOR since the proponent wants a group in uk.*, and
>> the fact that Mr Cockburn is a petulant child who wants everything in his
>> playground should not cause her any problems.
>
>It is your unwillingness to test the opinion of those who are most
>effected by this group, i.e. Scots, especially Borderers, that is so
>reprehensible.
>If Mr Cockburn objects to your boorish direspect for normal
>democratic processes then he simply upholds that which is right and decent.
>
This is a call for votes (CFV) each person replying with a ballot gets
one vote, in what way is it undemocratic?
>> > 2. The UK is in a major state of change with well over half of Scots
>> > voters wishing independence in the short term (source: ICM). With the
>> > elections to the Scottish parliament less than 7 months away, putting a
>> > new group in the uk.* hierarchy would seem to be premature and likely to
>> > change in the short term.
>
>> This is a political point, and one which has little relevance to the uk.*
>> hierarchy. In the meantime, I think it is safe to say that Scotland is
>> not going to become independent in the next ten years, so any proposed
>> uk.local.* newsgroup can safely be said to have a potential lifetime
>> longer than (say) uk.media.tv.friends.
>
>> This is, therefore, not a reason to vote against the creation of this
>> group.
>
>Seems like a perfectly pragmatic reason to me. Anyway, it is obvious
>that the proposal FOR the group is politically motivated.
In what way is it politically motivated? the proponent (Heather
Colquhoun) proposed a local group for the area on both sides of the
Scotland -England Border, the group, the coverage and the charter has
been modified during the RFD stage to that listed in the CFV. I am
unaware of any posting from Heather which could be said to be
political.
Or are there some old Clan politics going on here ;-)
>
>> creation is handled *DEMOCRATICALLY*, as we can see by the need for a CFV
>> on this newsgroup.
>
>You've learned to spell the word in capitals, now look it up.
Don't have the OED to hand (or would you rate that as being biased)
but
Hypertext Webster Gateway: "democratically"
From Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913) (web1913)
Democratically \Dem`o*crat"ic*al*ly\, adv. In a democratic manner.
From WordNet (r) 1.6 (wn)
democratically adv : in a democratic manner; based on democratic
principles; "it was decided democratically"; "democratically elected
government" [ant:
{undemocratically}]
democratic leads to:
Hypertext Webster Gateway: "democracy"
From Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913) (web1913)
Democracy \De*moc"ra*cy\, n.; pl. Democracies. [F. d['e]mocratie, fr.
Gr. dhmokrati`a; dh^mos the people + kratei^n to be strong, to rule,
kra`tos strength.] 1.
Government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme
power is retained and directly exercised by the people.
2. Government by popular representation; a form of government in which
the supreme power is retained by the people, but is indirectly
exercised through a system of
representation and delegated authority periodically renewed; a
constitutional representative government; a republic.
3. Collectively, the people, regarded as the source of government.
--Milton.
4. The principles and policy of the Democratic party, so called.
[U.S.]
We have publicly available rules on group creation, we have a period
where anyone can comment on the proposal and the proposal is put to a
vote, how is that undemocratic?
The rules are
>> > 3. Placing the group in the English dominated uk.local. area would
>> > create a precedent as there are currently no Scottish groups there.
>
>> That is because no-one has proposed one before (although when the
>> uk.local.* hierarchy was created, certain Scottish Nationalist numptys
>> were extremely vocal, discouraging others from proposing Scottish groups)
>
>Currently, about 60% of the population support independence in Scotland, 40%
>for the SNP. Your florid description betrays yet again your hidden agenda.
which has what do do with someone creating a usenet group?
>
>> > This
>> > would clear the way for other Scottish areas to be created, particularly
>> > uk.local.lothian which conflicts with the existing Edinburgh groups and
>> > to an extent with scot.general (both widely propagated and covered by
>> > dejanews).
>
>> That's a whole seperate thread, and a whole seperate argument. At the
>> same time, a concensus seems to have been reached on uk.net.news.config,
>> with Craig Cockburn being the sole voice of contention on that point.
>
>Speaking for myself, I have little interest in UK or British groups.
>I suspect that few Scots do. That absence should not, however, be
>interpreted as acquiescence, quite the opposite in fact.
Then can I suggest that you ignore the vote, ignore the group if it is
created and allow those scots who wish to take part in the uk.*
community get on with it.
>
>> > Having Scottish issues in even more places would be
>> > detrimental to existing groups.
>
>> HA! scot.general is one of the biggest wastes of space on the news list.
>
>> In the last week, there have been *three* threads that have not been cross
>> posted to other groups in other hierarchies. One from an American tracing
>> his heritage, one from an Austrian planning a trip to Edinburgh, and one
>> thread about Laptop Phonepoints.
>
>Well that is obviously untrue. Many groups have nothing in them for
>weeks on end.
>
>> If anything, the proposed groups would *increase* traffic in scot.*,
>> albeit by increasing cross-posts.
>
>From where? The UK newsgroups where there is hardly any scots?
>What's the point of that?
you have statisticts proving this?
>
>regards
>chic
Ladies and Gentlemen, the call for votes has been issued, can we
please keep any further debate on the issues without either side
dropping into personal or racial insults.
Iain (who's race is also royal and has hit fourteen in Finnish and
thinking about starting to count in Inuit)
Craig Cockburn
<ia...@civ.hw.ac.uk> writes
> Either that or ask the votetaker to post an official ballot
>form to the various groups.
I will do that.
Craig Cockburn
<amab...@bham-assist.demon.co.uk> writes
>In article <361e1a0b...@news.demon.co.uk>, Peter Parry
><pe...@wppltd.demon.co.uk> writes
>>Isn't Craig a propaganda official for a nationalist political party
>
>In:
>
> <L4j3eOAc...@scot.demon.co.uk> [1]
>
>he said "I'm the SNP Press Officer for Edinburgh Central".
>
>One wonders what the SNP policy on democratic voting is...
>
Note that when I post using that position, I make it clear and do so
with the agreement of the branch office bearers. I make no mention of
that position in my signature and it is safe to assume that unless I
specify otherwise I am not writing on behalf of the SNP in any capacity.
I am also an office bearer in other non political organisations,
including one community group and two charities. It is safe to assume
I'm not writing on behalf of them too unless I specify otherwise.
Alan Ford
>In article <36295394....@news.hw.ac.uk>, Iain Rae
><ia...@civ.hw.ac.uk> writes
>
>> Either that or ask the votetaker to post an official ballot
>>form to the various groups.
>
>I will do that.
Craig has now contacted me about this. I have requested that he cancels
his original article, and then I will post the CFV officially to the
requested groups.
--
Alan Ford <al...@whirlnet.demon.co.uk>
UKVoting Votetaker
Andy Mabbett
<chi...@zetnet.co.uk> writes
[snip excessive quoting]
[...]
>You want to direct the franchise for your vote away from those whom
>it concerns the most.
Yeah, that's why the CFV was posted to uk.net.news.announce and
scot.general...
>Your motives can only be described as, at best, Imperialist.
Rot.
>The name you have chosen is not even sensible on a simple clarity
>basis,
You have had ample opportunity to suggest alternatives, during the
length and often heated RFD period.
> however I suspect that that is of little interest to you,
>since your nasty motives are so apparent.
"nasty motives"?
>I urge people to vote against this in the name of decency.
What is indecent about allowing people to have the newsgroup they want?
[Snip even more excessive quoting]
Please learn to quote properly when following- up - you might like to
read the following primer on posting to newsgroups:
www.mahayana.demon.co.uk/computer/format.htm
Andy Mabbett
[...]
>It is your unwillingness to test the opinion of those who are most
>effected by this group, i.e. Scots, especially Borderers, that is so
>reprehensible.
In what way is an open vote "not willing to test" such an opinion?
[...]
>Seems like a perfectly pragmatic reason to me. Anyway, it is obvious
>that the proposal FOR the group is politically motivated.
Really? How?
>We've seen your recommended election ideology.
Indeed - it's open, and was itself chosen by a democratic process. If
you don't like it, you are welcome to make a formal proposal to change
it.
What's your "recommended election ideology"?
[...]
>> That's a whole seperate thread, and a whole seperate argument. At the
>> same time, a concensus seems to have been reached on uk.net.news.config,
>> with Craig Cockburn being the sole voice of contention on that point.
>
>Speaking for myself, I have little interest in UK or British groups.
>I suspect that few Scots do.
Evidence from those who post in uk.* groups suggest otherwise. Besides,
uk.* Is a*global* hierarchy, for discussion of UK-related issues.
[...]
>> If anything, the proposed groups would *increase* traffic in scot.*,
>> albeit by increasing cross-posts.
>
>From where? The UK newsgroups where there is hardly any scots?
Your evidence for this is..?
Andy Mabbett
<ia...@civ.hw.ac.uk> writes
>what's Finnish for forty-two (ok Mabbett do your worst :) )
If I must...
It's the answer to life, the Universe, and pickled herrings
bogus address
ia...@civ.hw.ac.uk (Iain Rae) writes:
> In reposting the Call For Votes against the advice given in the
> procedures section Craig is laying himself open to accusations of
> soliciting for votes or possibly vote rigging.
*You* didn't post it to ed.general, despite its clear relevance to the
concerns of that group, which opens *you* to accusations of being a
sneaky little weasel trying to worm your proposal through in secret.
---> email to "jc" at this site: email to "jack" or "bogus" will bounce <---
Jack Campin: 11 Third Street, Newtongrange, Midlothian EH22 4PU; 0131 6604760
http://www.purr.demon.co.uk/purrhome.html food intolerance data and recipes,
freeware logic fonts for the Macintosh, and Scots traditional music resources
Charles Mcgregor
from ia...@civ.hw.ac.uk (Iain Rae) contains these words:
> On Fri, 9 Oct 1998 20:12:08 +0100, Charles Mcgregor
> <chi...@zetnet.co.uk> wrote:
> >The message <6vkq9t$g3$3...@indiekid.freeserve.co.uk>
> > from ia...@onecooldude.com (Iain D. Kidd) contains these words:
> >> In article <5UF71HAu...@scot.demon.co.uk>,
> >> Craig Cockburn <cr...@scot.demon.co.uk> writes:
> >> I would suggest voting FOR since the proponent wants a group in uk.*, and
> >> the fact that Mr Cockburn is a petulant child who wants everything in his
> >> playground should not cause her any problems.
> >
> >It is your unwillingness to test the opinion of those who are most
> >effected by this group, i.e. Scots, especially Borderers, that is so
> >reprehensible.
> >If Mr Cockburn objects to your boorish direspect for normal
> >democratic processes then he simply upholds that which is right and decent.
> >
> This is a call for votes (CFV) each person replying with a ballot gets
> one vote, in what way is it undemocratic?
Would it be democratic if a group in say the US decided to set up a
newsgroup for the Wirral?
> >> > 2. The UK is in a major state of change with well over half of Scots
> >> > voters wishing independence in the short term (source: ICM). With the
> >> > elections to the Scottish parliament less than 7 months away, putting a
> >> > new group in the uk.* hierarchy would seem to be premature and likely to
> >> > change in the short term.
> >
> >> This is a political point, and one which has little relevance to the uk.*
> >> hierarchy. In the meantime, I think it is safe to say that Scotland is
> >> not going to become independent in the next ten years, so any proposed
Currently the SNP look quite likely to form the Scottish government,
their policy is to hold a referendum (this is a vote on an issue held
amongst those whom it effects, just thought you'd like to know that
since it is obviously new to you) on Scottish independence which in
turn looks likely to be accepted. This may only be 2 years away.
> >> uk.local.* newsgroup can safely be said to have a potential lifetime
> >> longer than (say) uk.media.tv.friends.
> >
> >> This is, therefore, not a reason to vote against the creation of this
> >> group.
> >
> >Seems like a perfectly pragmatic reason to me. Anyway, it is obvious
> >that the proposal FOR the group is politically motivated.
> In what way is it politically motivated? the proponent (Heather
Imperialist, seemingly.
> Colquhoun) proposed a local group for the area on both sides of the
Woa!...wait a minute... you said BOTH sides. This gets crazier by
the minute. Where, in the World is ANY border region considered to
be other than two seperate entities, whether for newsgroups or anything else?
Imperialist, definitely.
> Scotland -England Border, the group, the coverage and the charter has
> been modified during the RFD stage to that listed in the CFV. I am
> unaware of any posting from Heather which could be said to be
> political.
> Or are there some old Clan politics going on here ;-)
Smoke screen.
> >
> >> creation is handled *DEMOCRATICALLY*, as we can see by the need for a CFV
> >> on this newsgroup.
> >
> >You've learned to spell the word in capitals, now look it up.
> Don't have the OED to hand (or would you rate that as being biased)
The OED was compiled by a Scot. The Oxford bit was added later.
> but
> Hypertext Webster Gateway: "democratically"
> From Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913) (web1913)
> Democratically \Dem`o*crat"ic*al*ly\, adv. In a democratic manner.
> From WordNet (r) 1.6 (wn)
> democratically adv : in a democratic manner; based on democratic
> principles; "it was decided democratically"; "democratically elected
> government" [ant:
> {undemocratically}]
> democratic leads to:
> Hypertext Webster Gateway: "democracy"
> From Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913) (web1913)
> Democracy \De*moc"ra*cy\, n.; pl. Democracies. [F. d['e]mocratie, fr.
> Gr. dhmokrati`a; dh^mos the people + kratei^n to be strong, to rule,
> kra`tos strength.] 1.
> Government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme
> power is retained and directly exercised by the people.
> 2. Government by popular representation; a form of government in which
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> the supreme power is retained by the people, but is indirectly
> exercised through a system of
> representation and delegated authority periodically renewed; a
> constitutional representative government; a republic.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> 3. Collectively, the people, regarded as the source of government.
> --Milton.
> 4. The principles and policy of the Democratic party, so called.
> [U.S.]
> We have publicly available rules on group creation, we have a period
> where anyone can comment on the proposal and the proposal is put to a
> vote, how is that undemocratic?
You excluded the main Scottish groups and when Craig posted your
proposal there had the temerity to call his action anti-democratic.
I, a Scot with relatives in the borders would have known nothing about it.
> The rules are
> >> > 3. Placing the group in the English dominated uk.local. area would
> >> > create a precedent as there are currently no Scottish groups there.
> >
> >> That is because no-one has proposed one before (although when the
> >> uk.local.* hierarchy was created, certain Scottish Nationalist numptys
> >> were extremely vocal, discouraging others from proposing Scottish groups)
> >
> >Currently, about 60% of the population support independence in Scotland, 40%
> >for the SNP. Your florid description betrays yet again your hidden agenda.
> which has what do do with someone creating a usenet group?
Emotive, if not racist, language does not help your cause or give any
other impression than that you are a group of biggotted yahoos.
I think, based on all the evidence I have seen so far, that you are a
group of little Englanders with vestigial delusions of Empire.
Of course you could prove me wrong by creating two seperate borders
groups (which could be cross-postable for anyone that wants to) and
which are sensibly named e.g. uk.scottish-borders-with-england and
uk.english-borders-with scotland.
However short lived, at least this naming convention would make sense.
Somehow I feel this solution is just not going to be viable somehow, right?
> >
> >> > This
> >> > would clear the way for other Scottish areas to be created, particularly
> >> > uk.local.lothian which conflicts with the existing Edinburgh groups and
> >> > to an extent with scot.general (both widely propagated and covered by
> >> > dejanews).
> >
> >> That's a whole seperate thread, and a whole seperate argument. At the
> >> same time, a concensus seems to have been reached on uk.net.news.config,
> >> with Craig Cockburn being the sole voice of contention on that point.
> >
> >Speaking for myself, I have little interest in UK or British groups.
> >I suspect that few Scots do. That absence should not, however, be
> >interpreted as acquiescence, quite the opposite in fact.
> Then can I suggest that you ignore the vote, ignore the group if it is
> created and allow those scots who wish to take part in the uk.*
> community get on with it.
And to hell with fairness eh?
> >
> >> > Having Scottish issues in even more places would be
> >> > detrimental to existing groups.
> >
> >> HA! scot.general is one of the biggest wastes of space on the news list.
> >
> >> In the last week, there have been *three* threads that have not been cross
> >> posted to other groups in other hierarchies. One from an American tracing
> >> his heritage, one from an Austrian planning a trip to Edinburgh, and one
> >> thread about Laptop Phonepoints.
> >
> >Well that is obviously untrue. Many groups have nothing in them for
> >weeks on end.
> >
> >> If anything, the proposed groups would *increase* traffic in scot.*,
> >> albeit by increasing cross-posts.
> >
> >From where? The UK newsgroups where there is hardly any scots?
> >What's the point of that?
> you have statisticts proving this?
soc.culture.scottish is the main scottish group and rarely even has uk groups
as a crosspost in headers.
> >
> >regards
> >chic
> Ladies and Gentlemen, the call for votes has been issued, can we
> please keep any further debate on the issues without either side
> dropping into personal or racial insults.
You are the people who have been doing both.
> Iain (who's race is also royal and has hit fourteen in Finnish and
> thinking about starting to count in Inuit)
Anything but gaelic eh?
Your a credit to your country.(whatever it is)
regards
chic
Andy Mabbett
<chi...@zetnet.co.uk> writes
>The message <362d6557....@news.hw.ac.uk>
> from ia...@civ.hw.ac.uk (Iain Rae) contains these words:
>
>
>> On Fri, 9 Oct 1998 20:12:08 +0100, Charles Mcgregor
>> <chi...@zetnet.co.uk> wrote:
>Would it be democratic if a group in say the US decided to set up a
>newsgroup for the Wirral?
Why not? I dare say (for example) soc.genealogy.briatian was set up by
(and is used by) as many people from the USA as Britain.
>Currently the SNP look quite likely to form the Scottish government,
>their policy is to hold a referendum (this is a vote on an issue held
>amongst those whom it effects, just thought you'd like to know that
>since it is obviously new to you) on Scottish independence which in
>turn looks likely to be accepted. This may only be 2 years away.
And this has what to do with newsgroup creation *today*?
>Imperialist, seemingly.
!
[Massive snip - please write after the material you quote, which should
be trimmed to the minimum necessary to set context]
>Of course you could prove me wrong by creating two seperate borders
>groups (which could be cross-postable for anyone that wants to) and
>which are sensibly named e.g. uk.scottish-borders-with-england and
>uk.english-borders-with scotland.
What a ridiculous idea.
[massive snip; ditto]
>soc.culture.scottish is the main scottish group
[...]
Charles Mcgregor
from Andy Mabbett <amab...@bham-assist.demon.co.uk> contains these words:
> In article <199810092...@zetnet.co.uk>, Charles Mcgregor
> <chi...@zetnet.co.uk> writes
> [snip excessive quoting]
> [...]
> >You want to direct the franchise for your vote away from those whom
> >it concerns the most.
> Yeah, that's why the CFV was posted to uk.net.news.announce and
> scot.general...
Is this the same scot.general which one of your proponents ridiculed
for having only three posts in a week? soc.culture.scottish gets
around 200 per DAY.
> >Your motives can only be described as, at best, Imperialist.
> Rot.
Well, no competing with satire....
> >The name you have chosen is not even sensible on a simple clarity
> >basis,
> You have had ample opportunity to suggest alternatives, during the
> length and often heated RFD period.
That's the point. I haven't because I didn't know about it.
Are we getting a clue yet?
> > however I suspect that that is of little interest to you,
> >since your nasty motives are so apparent.
> "nasty motives"?
> >I urge people to vote against this in the name of decency.
> What is indecent about allowing people to have the newsgroup they want?
'They' haven't even been told about it.
> [Snip even more excessive quoting]
<snip unnecessary advice on snipping>
regards
chic
Charles Mcgregor
from Andy Mabbett <amab...@bham-assist.demon.co.uk> contains these words:
> In article <199810092...@zetnet.co.uk>, Charles Mcgregor
> <chi...@zetnet.co.uk> writes
> [...]
> >It is your unwillingness to test the opinion of those who are most
> >effected by this group, i.e. Scots, especially Borderers, that is so
> >reprehensible.
> In what way is an open vote "not willing to test" such an opinion?
It wasn't 'open' it was 'closed' or at best 'selective'.
> [...]
> >Seems like a perfectly pragmatic reason to me. Anyway, it is obvious
> >that the proposal FOR the group is politically motivated.
> Really? How?
As in ... a waste of time...comprende?
> >We've seen your recommended election ideology.
> Indeed - it's open, and was itself chosen by a democratic process. If
> you don't like it, you are welcome to make a formal proposal to change
> it.
Change it.
> What's your "recommended election ideology"?
Consult those effected.
> [...]
> >> That's a whole seperate thread, and a whole seperate argument. At the
> >> same time, a concensus seems to have been reached on uk.net.news.config,
> >> with Craig Cockburn being the sole voice of contention on that point.
> >
> >Speaking for myself, I have little interest in UK or British groups.
> >I suspect that few Scots do.
> Evidence from those who post in uk.* groups suggest otherwise. Besides,
> uk.* Is a*global* hierarchy, for discussion of UK-related issues.
Evidence please, I see little crossposting to 'UK' groups from s.c.s
> [...]
> >> If anything, the proposed groups would *increase* traffic in scot.*,
> >> albeit by increasing cross-posts.
> >
> >From where? The UK newsgroups where there is hardly any scots?
> Your evidence for this is..?
See last
regards
chic
Andy Mabbett
<bo...@purr.demon.co.uk> writes
>*You* didn't post it to ed.general, despite its clear relevance to the
>concerns of that group,
Edinburgh is in the Borders?
> which opens *you* to accusations of being a
>sneaky little weasel trying to worm your proposal through in secret.
Absolute tosh. The vote was clearly sign-posted in a low- traffic
announce group.
Blade-Runner
uk.net.news.config. Craig Cockburn <cr...@scot.demon.co.uk> wrote some
of this :
>Note that when I post using that position, I make it clear and do so
>with the agreement of the branch office bearers. I make no mention of
>that position in my signature and it is safe to assume that unless I
>specify otherwise I am not writing on behalf of the SNP in any capacity.
>I am also an office bearer in other non political organisations,
>including one community group and two charities. It is safe to assume
>I'm not writing on behalf of them too unless I specify otherwise.
And it is also safe to assume that when I post I do so not as an
Englishman, a Scot, or a Brit, but as a plain ordinary reader of
netnews.
See, I know you have the principle, Craig, how about putting it into
practice?
--
Geoff (Blade-Runner)
Put the cat out to reply via e-mail
North Staffs Oatcakes Page http://www.geocities.com/NapaValley/2333
Go placidly amid the toys and waste (sign on kids' bedroom door) [me]
Charles Mcgregor
from {R}@sunshine.tm (Richard Ashton) contains these words:
> In article <6vkofc$g3$1...@indiekid.freeserve.co.uk>
> ia...@onecooldude.com "Iain D. Kidd" writes:
> } *** WARNING! DO *NOT* VOTE USING THE FORM IN CRAIG'S MESSAGE! ***
> } In article <5UF71HAu...@scot.demon.co.uk>,
> } Craig Cockburn <cr...@scot.demon.co.uk> writes:
> [snip multiple hidden agenda]
> } > Please vote against this proposed group for the reasons detailed above.
> I wouldn't normally vote on a matter of little concern to me.
> As I object to your politicking, I voted YES.
> I recommend others who respect uk.* do the same.
Quite right, nothing to do with those Scottish b***ards let's go for it chaps!
Charles Mcgregor
from ia...@onecooldude.com (Iain D. Kidd) contains these words:
> In article <199810092...@zetnet.co.uk>,
> Charles Mcgregor <chi...@zetnet.co.uk> writes:
> > This is unbelievable. Are you the same bunch of fascists who are
> > proposing a local.UK group for Midlothian and banning Gaelic?
> No. *One Person* proposed a group for Midlothian which banned Gaelic. He
> was remonstrated for this, and has now proposed
Glad to hear it, but to whom has he proposed?
> Why? Are you the same bunch of fascists who threatened Leah Betts's
> parents and bullied them into reconsidering moving to Scotland, due to the
> fact they are English?
I don't even know what you are talking about!
> > You want to direct the franchise for your vote away from those whom
> > it concerns the most.
> B. O. Double-L. O. C. K. S. Exclamation mark.
> It is recommended that all readers of the uk.* hierarchy subscribe to
> uk.net.news.announce. Therefore, the very people that will be affected by
> the creation of this group should see it there. In addition, the
> proponent is allowed to nominate other groups to which the Call for Votes
> should be posted. It is up to him/her to select these groups. In the
> case of this RFD, it was posted to:
> uk.net.news.announce,uk.net.news.config,uk.local.geordie,uk.local.nw-england,scot.general
And one of your supporters (if it wasn't in fact you) ridiculed the
only scottish group on that list for having only 3 posts in a week.
Or was that the reason for it's choice? soc.culture.scottish gets
about 1000 in a week.
> Since Mr Cockburn felt that this was not a suitable collection of groups,
> he could have mailed the votetaker, and requested that it be reposted to a
> wider audience. However, he took matters into his own hands, despite the
> fact that the document he was reposting *specifically states that it
> should not be reposted*.
> > The name you have chosen
> You seem to have misspelt "The name that the proponent has chosen".
Your 'proponent' seems to have required considerable 'support'
> > I urge people to vote against this in the name of decency.
> Jesus. In the past when I've used the expression "In the name of
> decency", I've been trolling. Which is what I thought you were doing.
> Until I searched for you on Dejanews, and discovered you really are as
> small-minded and out of touch as this message makes you appear.
All I want, in common with millions of other scots, is normal
government for Scotland, i.e. independence. I realise you think that
this is small minded however I can't wait for Scotland to rejoin the
international community and make it's, what I'm sure will be valued,
contribution to the world.
You are the one who is out of touch, actually I would say anachronistic.
> Thank God I'm getting the hell out of this country.
I second that.
> Iain. (Scottish born and bread)
Chic (Scottish by culture and identity, place of birth and genetics
is irrelevant.)
Charles Mcgregor
from ia...@onecooldude.com (Iain D. Kidd) contains these words:
> In article <199810092...@zetnet.co.uk>,
> Charles Mcgregor <chi...@zetnet.co.uk> writes:
> > Seems like a perfectly pragmatic reason to me. Anyway, it is obvious
> > that the proposal FOR the group is politically motivated.
> The proposal for the group is so that people living in the Borders can
> have somewhere to chat about local stuff. What the hell does this have to
> do with politics?
> > Currently, about 60% of the population support independence in Scotland, 40%
> > for the SNP. Your florid description betrays yet again your hidden agenda.
> How do you know? Have you asked them all?
> Or are you relying on some highly dubious statistical analysis carried out
> on a survey of 1,000 people? Polls also predicted that we'd get a hung
> parliament in the 1992 General Election, and Labour would just scrape in
> in the 1997 GE.
Polls also suggested that scots would not vote for tax altering
powers and that only 60% would vote for devolution as opposed to the
75% that did.
What is your point?
> > Speaking for myself, I have little interest in UK or British groups.
> > I suspect that few Scots do.
> Yes, admittedly, the percentage of Scots who are even aware of the
> existence of netnews is microscopic. However, I imagine that a large
> proportion of Scots who use netnews regularly make use of the uk.*
> hierarchy.
> Perhaps Claire Speed could supply us with a regional breakdown of her
> excellent UK Internet Usage statistics?
> >> If anything, the proposed groups would *increase* traffic in scot.*,
> >> albeit by increasing cross-posts.
> >
> > From where? The UK newsgroups where there is hardly any scots?
> How do you know? How, exactly, can you tell by looking at a newsgroup how
> many "Scots" are posting there?
You don't have header reveal facility?
regards
chic (Why are all unionists called Ian?)
Blade-Runner
uk.net.news.config. Charles Mcgregor <chi...@zetnet.co.uk> wrote some
of this :
>Of course you could prove me wrong by creating two seperate borders
>groups (which could be cross-postable for anyone that wants to) and
>which are sensibly named e.g. uk.scottish-borders-with-england and
>uk.english-borders-with scotland.
>However short lived, at least this naming convention would make sense.
>Somehow I feel this solution is just not going to be viable somehow, right?
No, too many characters.
Besides being a load of bollocks, that is.
Blade-Runner
>Consult those effected.
ITYM 'affected'
Hey, yeah, we should like, mail every Scot with a 'puter, huh?
Dave Mayall
<al...@whirlnet.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>Craig Cockburn <cr...@scot.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>In article <36295394....@news.hw.ac.uk>, Iain Rae
>><ia...@civ.hw.ac.uk> writes
>>
>>> Either that or ask the votetaker to post an official ballot
>>>form to the various groups.
>>
>>I will do that.
>
>Craig has now contacted me about this. I have requested that he cancels
>his original article, and then I will post the CFV officially to the
>requested groups.
I object to the posting of a CFV to a group which has not seen the
RFD.
1) The RFD/CFV process presumes that people vote having had the
opportunity to participate in/read the discussion, posting a CFV
outside of the list of groups to which the RFD went is improper
practice.
2) It is for the proponent to request the groups to which the RFD/CFV
is sent, not Craig Cockburn.
--
Dave Mayall
This posting is made in a personal capacity, the views expressed
may not be those of the UK Usenet Committee.
Dave Mayall
<cr...@scot.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>I thought there was supposed to be elections to this group last month?
>What happened?
The nominations just opened. Are you standing?
Dave Mayall
<cr...@scot.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>One person, one vote. Am I doing something here which contradicts that?
YES you are.
The official CFV contains the RFD, voting instructions and a ballot
paper, it does not contain an additional statement urging people to
vote in a particular way.
You have of course shot yourself in the foot, as any votes which can
be identified as coming from your repost will be invalid.
Reposting a CFV is vote fraud.
Andy Mabbett
<chi...@zetnet.co.uk> writes
>> Yeah, that's why the CFV was posted to uk.net.news.announce and
>> scot.general...
>
>Is this the same scot.general which one of your proponents ridiculed
>for having only three posts in a week? soc.culture.scottish gets
>around 200 per DAY.
No, it's the scot.general which Craig Cockburn asked to be included in
the debate
[...]
>> You have had ample opportunity to suggest alternatives, during the
>> length and often heated RFD period.
>
>That's the point. I haven't because I didn't know about it.
If you are interested in uk.* issues, you should be reading
uk.net.news.announce. If you are not, what are you doing opposing a uk.*
group?
>Are we getting a clue yet?
I don't know. Are you?
[...]
>> What is indecent about allowing people to have the newsgroup they want?
>
>'They' haven't even been told about it.
The people who *want* the newsgroup obviously do know about it. Who are
you to deny them?
><snip unnecessary advice on snipping>
Necessary, obviously.