Why uk* ?
Heather Colquhoun
There exists to the best of my knowledge,
uk.local.birmingham
uk.local.channel-isles
uk.local.east-anglia
uk.local.geordie
uk.local.hampshire
uk.local.hereford
uk.local.isle-of-wight
uk.local.kent
uk.local.london
uk.local.midlands
uk.local.north-staffs
uk.local.north-wales
uk.local.nw-england
uk.local.south-wales
uk.local.southwest
uk.local.surrey
uk.local.thames-valley
uk.local.warwickshire
uk.local.yorkshire
And any day now uk.local.county-durham
on the other hand we have scot* which while I have never disputed its
existance or rights it has as far as I am aware:
scot.announce
scot.bairns
scot.birds
scot.business.internet
scot.environment
scot.followup
scot.general
scot.jobs
scot.politics
scot.scots
scot.test
and I do not have access but I believe there is a soccer one too.
My questions are:
where are the area groups?
are there any ?
why should mine be first?
is it fair to have a group that covers two *countries* in a single
*country* hierarchy, when there is a hierarchy that covers both?
--
Heather Colquhoun :)
>colquh...@zetnet.co.uk< http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/duns/
Si Je Puis (If I Can)
Kingsley Matthews
<colquh...@zetnet.co.uk> writes
Hmmm, I would like the uk.* hierarchy to become honest and call itself
the england.* hierarchy, however most English people seem incapable of
distinguishing.
Recently I, and a few others, tried to set up a wales.* hierarchy, but
it has, as yet, come to nought, mainly due to internal disagreements.
However, when the time is right, I'm sure we will get there.
--
Kingsley
Craig Cockburn
>
>My questions are:
>where are the area groups?
I know of ed.* but don't follow others. There are newsgroup description
files describing each group - these descriptions come from the newsgroup
creation message I understand and are available to download although I
don't have the location to hand at the moment. You could search this
list for relevant towns. I used the list to compile the following list
of groups
news:ed.accommodation - Edinburgh accommodation
news:ed.followup - Edinburgh - followups to articles
news:ed.general - General Edinburgh topics
news:ed.review - Reviews of events in Edinburgh
news:scot.announce - Scotland/North England Wide: General
Announcements
news:scot.bairns - Discussions about Scottish children
news:scot.birds - Birdwatching in Scotland
news:scot.business.internet - Internet related discussion for Scottish
business
news:scot.environment - Scottish environmental issues
news:scot.followup - Followups to scot.general articles
news:scot.general - Scotland/North England Wide: General Articles
news:scot.jobs - Jobs wanted and offered in Scotland.
news:scot.legal - Scottish legal issues
news:scot.politics - Scottish politics discussions.
news:scot.scots - Scots language discussions.
news:scot.sports.soccer - For the discussion of Scottish football.
news:scot.test - Test postings in the scot.* hierarchy
>are there any ?
Yes
>why should mine be first?
Define mine
>is it fair to have a group that covers two *countries* in a single
>*country* hierarchy, when there is a hierarchy that covers both?
>
scot.general has done so since its creation about 13 years ago. See
above.
--
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.
Ian Johnston
: Hmmm, I would like the uk.* hierarchy to become honest and call itself
: the england.* hierarchy,
But it isn't, except de facto in the uk.local.* area. Most of the uk.*
hierarchy is applicable to the whole of the uk - I can't see any sense
at all in splitting uk.rec.cars.classic into Scottish and English
branches?
Or are you seriously saying that there are lots of, for example, sailors out
there in Scotland who don't subscribe to uk.rec.sailing because they're
waiting for scot.sailing to come along?
Ian
Craig Cockburn
>*country* hierarchy, when there is a hierarchy that covers both?
>
associate the Borders with Scotland, no mention of the UK here.
Find in FolkWorld - the online music magazine an article about Border
traditions, Scots identity and Deaf Shepherds.
John Morran, the excellent singer of Scotland's liveliest and most
powerful traditional bands Deaf Shepherd, is an expert in the history
and traditions of Scotland and the Borders in particular.
You can find out more about it all in FolkWorld - the online music
magazine:
URL: http://www.worldmusic.de/folkworld/
(go to articles, interviews and live reviews)
--
To reply, remove the 'FolkWorld' from the e-mail address!
-------------------------------------------------------------------
FolkWorld - the online music magazine (English & German):
http://www.worldmusic.de/folkworld
Lesley Robertson
Kingsley Matthews wrote:
>
>
> Hmmm, I would like the uk.* hierarchy to become honest and call itself
> the england.* hierarchy, however most English people seem incapable of
> distinguishing.
>
> Recently I, and a few others, tried to set up a wales.* hierarchy, but
> it has, as yet, come to nought, mainly due to internal disagreements.
> However, when the time is right, I'm sure we will get there.
> --
Trouble with all these sub-groups is that only a limited number are
carried by international ISPs - we get 6 of the scot.* groups, 2 of the
ed.* groups, and only a few of the uk.* ones - reaction of our systems
manager to a request for more? "We can't carry everything, not many people
will want little groups like that, they're only for locals", etc, etc.
Unless you han generate a strong hierarchy (such as the soc.* and rec.*
ones), you will ghetto-ize your groups. Mind you, this may be a darstardly
plan to get rid of us ex-pats and assorted aliens....
Paranoia strikes!
Lesley Robertson
Andy Mabbett
<king...@kandam.demon.co.uk> writes
>Hmmm, I would like the uk.* hierarchy to become honest and call itself
>the england.* hierarchy, however most English people seem incapable of
>distinguishing.
That would be extremely *dishonest* and insulting to its many users from
Wales, Scotland and NI. Not to mention the folks of the uk.local.*-wales
groups...
Will you be changing your ISP soon, BTW?
--
Andy Mabbett, Development Manager, Birmingham Assist
Birmingham City Council - http://www.birmingham.gov.uk
!*!*!*! See our *new* web site, at the above address !*!*!*!
Ian Jelf
<king...@kandam.demon.co.uk> writes
>Hmmm, I would like the uk.* hierarchy to become honest and call itself
>the england.* hierarchy, however most English people seem incapable of
>distinguishing.
A sweeping and wholly inaccurate statement. And I know a bit about
what at least some English people think; being one of them!
I don't think making over-generalised statements based on people's
nationality is a good thing. Especially when it isn't true!
--
Ian Jelf http://www.bluebadge.demon.co.uk
Birmingham, UK
Registered "Blue Badge" Tourist Guide
for the Heart of England and London
Andy Mabbett
<engs...@sable.ox.ac.uk> writes
>Kingsley Matthews (king...@kandam.demon.co.uk) wrote:
>
>: Hmmm, I would like the uk.* hierarchy to become honest and call itself
>: the england.* hierarchy,
>
>But it isn't, except de facto in the uk.local.* area.
But it isn't there, either;
uk.local.north-wales
uk.local.south-wales
And I can't understand why we are accused of being an underhand
england.8 hierarchy on the one hand and criticised for welcoming
uk.lcoal.[parts of Scotland] on the other, seemingly by the same set of
people.
> Most of the uk.*
>hierarchy is applicable to the whole of the uk - I can't see any sense
>at all in splitting uk.rec.cars.classic into Scottish and English
>branches?
>Or are you seriously saying that there are lots of, for example, sailors out
>there in Scotland who don't subscribe to uk.rec.sailing because they're
>waiting for scot.sailing to come along?
Quite - my previous post on this subject:
<GHWlR+CD...@bham-assist.demon.co.uk>
refers.
Dave Thomas
<engs...@sable.ox.ac.uk> writes
>Kingsley Matthews (king...@kandam.demon.co.uk) wrote:
>
>: Hmmm, I would like the uk.* hierarchy to become honest and call itself
>: the england.* hierarchy,
>
>hierarchy is applicable to the whole of the uk - I can't see any sense
>at all in splitting uk.rec.cars.classic into Scottish and English
>branches?
There is surely room for both a uk and a Welsh hierarchy. Many topics
overlap and would fit well into the uk hierarchy but many do not. I am
thinking particularly of ngs which are specific to such topics as
history, literature, culture etc. NGs of this type are almost universaly
dedicated to English perspectives. Those that are not culturaly specific
such as "classic cars", would of course, sit quite comfortably within a
uk hierarchy.
>
>Or are you seriously saying that there are lots of, for example, sailors out
>there in Scotland who don't subscribe to uk.rec.sailing because they're
>waiting for scot.sailing to come along?
With respect, I think that you are missing the point. Wales has an
identity, a language, a history and a literary culture that is different
and solidly identifiable. The formation of a Welsh hierarchy would
greatly increase the ability of Welsh people and those who are
interested in the culture, to discuss those aspects which are Welsh
specific. I am sure that a Welsh hierarchy would greatly encourage the
development of many other facets of the culture, language, local
history, national history, genealogy, sports, media, literature, customs
etc. The reluctance to accept this is of some concern.
Hawddamor
dave
--
Dave Thomas
Tim Forcer
>
> Fact:
>
> There exists to the best of my knowledge,
>
>
>on the other hand we have scot* which while I have
>never disputed its existance or rights it has as
>far as I am aware:
>
>
>and I do not have access but I believe there is a
>soccer one too.
Is that soccer.something or scot.soccer?
>My questions are:
>where are the area groups?
>are there any ?
>why should mine be first?
>is it fair to have a group that covers two *countries*
>in a single *country* hierarchy, when there is a hierarchy
>that covers both?
By precedent, the answer to the last question has to be "Yes".
Southampton is covered by both uk.local.hampshire and solent.*
But then precedent can be a poor basis for judgement!
I suggest you ask your first two questions in scot.scots and/or
scot.general, as I presume those people would be in a good position to
give you an answer.
As your third question, the obvious answer is because yours is the first
such proposal? But the obvious can be very misleading.
HTH,
--
Tim Forcer t...@ecs.soton.ac.uk
The University of Southampton, UK
The University is not responsible for my opinions
Andy Mabbett
<Da...@qantam.demon.co.uk> writes
>The formation of a Welsh hierarchy would
>greatly increase the ability of Welsh people and those who are
>interested in the culture, to discuss those aspects which are Welsh
>specific.
In what way would it *increase* that ability, compared to, say,
uk.culture.welsh.* ?
(politics aside, of course)
Dave Thomas
<amab...@bham-assist.demon.co.uk> writes
>In article <4GBfDDAS...@qantam.demon.co.uk>, Dave Thomas
><Da...@qantam.demon.co.uk> writes
>>The formation of a Welsh hierarchy would
>>greatly increase the ability of Welsh people and those who are
>>interested in the culture, to discuss those aspects which are Welsh
>>specific.
>
>In what way would it *increase* that ability, compared to, say,
>uk.culture.welsh.* ?
Simply by opening up the diversity of topics that would appeal to a
wider group of people interested in specific aspects. More specific
topics such as welsh.history.mediaeval, welsh.literature.mediaeval, a
range of different level language ngs etc, administered within its own
hierarchy is to my mind a natural development into areas which are not
of general uk interest. There is an obvious need for forums which
encourage serious discussion of these sort of topics and perhaps they
would be better able to develop in a culture specific hierarchy.
I do not see that as needing to include general discussion groups which
may well decide that they would rather be part of a uk hierarchy.
>
>(politics aside, of course)
Why is it assumed that such an hierarchy would be politically based. I
would assume that the interest would be rather less political than
academic?
Would such a change really pose a problem to the uk hierarchy?
--
Dave Thomas
Andy Mabbett
<cr...@scot.demon.co.uk> writes
Craig seems to have omitted news.admin.hierarchies form the newsgroups
for that post, so, being helpful, I've added it, and snipped all but the
most relevant material:
>news:scot.announce - Scotland/North England Wide: General
>Announcements
>news:scot.general - Scotland/North England Wide: General
>Articles
Now, what was Henrietta saying..?
B.P. Gracey
> In article <704a6a$mnc$1...@news.ox.ac.uk>, Ian Johnston
> <engs...@sable.ox.ac.uk> writes
> >Kingsley Matthews (king...@kandam.demon.co.uk) wrote:
> >
> >: Hmmm, I would like the uk.* hierarchy to become honest and call itself
> >: the england.* hierarchy,
> >
> >But it isn't, except de facto in the uk.local.* area. Most of the uk.*
> >hierarchy is applicable to the whole of the uk - I can't see any sense
> >at all in splitting uk.rec.cars.classic into Scottish and English
> >branches?
>
> There is surely room for both a uk and a Welsh hierarchy. Many topics
> overlap and would fit well into the uk hierarchy but many do not. I am
> thinking particularly of ngs which are specific to such topics as
> history, literature, culture etc. NGs of this type are almost universaly
> dedicated to English perspectives. Those that are not culturaly specific
> such as "classic cars", would of course, sit quite comfortably within a
> uk hierarchy.
Umm, no, you're quite wrong... they're not 'dedicated' to some mysteriously
Anglocentric view (actually, as a north-westerner who lives just a mile from the
Welsh border, I'd say London-centred), they just were mainly set up by, and are
mainly visited by, people from that area of the country. I can't see any
problem with an ng called, say, 'uk.culture.literature.wales', or any reason why
Scots & Irish & Albanians should be excluded from posting to it...
> >Or are you seriously saying that there are lots of, for example, sailors out
> >there in Scotland who don't subscribe to uk.rec.sailing because they're
> >waiting for scot.sailing to come along?
>
> With respect, I think that you are missing the point. Wales has an
> identity, a language, a history and a literary culture that is different
> and solidly identifiable. The formation of a Welsh hierarchy would
> greatly increase the ability of Welsh people and those who are
> interested in the culture, to discuss those aspects which are Welsh
> specific. I am sure that a Welsh hierarchy would greatly encourage the
> development of many other facets of the culture, language, local
> history, national history, genealogy, sports, media, literature, customs
> etc. The reluctance to accept this is of some concern.
What it would accomplish, if it was at all successful (which is unlikely), is
the ghettoisation of Welsh culture within the hierarchy - as S4C has done with
Welsh TV drama, for example. The lack of propagation of 'local' groups not in
the uk.* hierarchy would also be a factor - I know of many folk overseas
(including Welsh speakers) who can get at least part of uk.* but nothing of
scot.*. I know this lack of propagation has been of some concern to users on
the Isle of Man (which is not exactly in the UK, and has its own ng & URL
organisation).
Btw, the points you make for Wales having a separate identity are also valid for
Yorkshire, and North Wales as a separate unit from Mid & South Wales.
-bpg-
Blade-Runner
uk.net.news.config. Dave Thomas <Da...@qantam.demon.co.uk> wrote some
of this :
>There is surely room for both a uk and a Welsh hierarchy.
There is surely room for both a uk and a North Staffs hierarchy. North
Staffs has an identity, a dialect, a history and a culture that is
different and solidly identifiable. The formation of a North Staffs
hierarchy would greatly increase the ability of North Staffs people and
those who are interested in the culture, to discuss those aspects which
are North Staffs specific. I am sure that a North Staffs hierarchy would
greatly encourage the development of many other facets of the culture,
dialect, local history, national history, genealogy, sports, media,
literature, customs etc. The reluctance to accept this is of some
concern.
Say thee
--
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]
James Coupe
>distinguishing.
You must have missed the two Welsh groups in the uk.local.* hierarchy.
HTH.
--
James Coupe "Blu-Tack - the undiscoved unifying force"
"je veux jouer a l'assassin
je veux jouer de l'orgue de Barbarie." - Jacques Prevert
Dave Thomas
d...@thecatgeocities.com> writes
>It was Thu, 15 Oct 1998 11:30:42 +0100. You remember? It was in
>uk.net.news.config. Dave Thomas <Da...@qantam.demon.co.uk> wrote some
>of this :
>
>>There is surely room for both a uk and a Welsh hierarchy.
>
>There is surely room for both a uk and a North Staffs hierarchy. North
>Staffs has an identity, a dialect, a history and a culture that is
>different and solidly identifiable. The formation of a North Staffs
>hierarchy would greatly increase the ability of North Staffs people and
>those who are interested in the culture, to discuss those aspects which
>are North Staffs specific. I am sure that a North Staffs hierarchy would
>greatly encourage the development of many other facets of the culture,
>dialect, local history, national history, genealogy, sports, media,
>literature, customs etc. The reluctance to accept this is of some
>concern.
>
>Say thee
>
the enlightenment.
--
Dave Thomas
JTC Murphy
> >
>
> Hmmm, I would like the uk.* hierarchy to become honest and call itself
> the england.* hierarchy, however most English people seem incapable of
> distinguishing.
>
Get real. Some stuff is almost certainly focused on England (sheer weight
of population) - and equally as bad focused on London or at least the
South East. But of the rest much is relevant to all of us on these
islands.
uk.local /may/ be a different matter
Murph
Adam Greenow
<banc...@shoebox.win-uk.net> writes
>Btw, the points you make for Wales having a separate identity are also valid
>for
>Yorkshire, and North Wales as a separate unit from Mid & South Wales.
>
>-bpg-
of Wales and has more in common with other parts of Wales than it does
with England. If Yorkshire people want to have there own hierarchy then
fine. That's an issue for them. Lets not muddy the waters and stick to
the issue at hand. The fact remains Wales is a nation, we have our own
language, culture, national sports teams and soon Assembly. I for one
want that recognised by having our own hierarchy. This would also make
the organisation of Welsh groups more navigable. Why shouldn't we have
our own hierarchy if we want it? What odds is it to you? No one is going
to force you to read it.
It makes much more sense to me for groups concerned with Wales to appear
under an easily recognised hierarchy, rather than have people searching
around to find different interests. The fact is usenet is growing all
the time and there will be increasing demand for more sub groups. If
interested parties overseas have trouble gaining access to this new
hierarchy then I'm sure they can take this up with their ISPs. In fact,
I believe overseas users of society.culture.wales have been some of the
strongest proponents of such a Welsh hierarchy in the past. They see the
formation of a Welsh hierarchy important both symbolically and
functionally as much as those of us resident in Wales, from my reading
of posts in the past. If this isn't the case and I'm wrong let them
speak.
If we accept usenet is going to grow then lets look at two scenarios.
Compare, off the top of my head:
Wales
*.culture
*.literature
*.language
*.music
*.language.learners
*.sport
*.sport.league.of.wales
*.sport.rugby
*'sport.football
*.sport.cricket
*.history
*.politics
*.assembly
*.community
*.expats
*.eisteddfod
*.baptist
etc. etc. etc.
compared with the same spread out under UK. and soc. and rec. and other
hierarchies etc. it is plainly obvious which is the most efficient and
sensible solution.
Please support a Wales hierarchy whatever your politics, it is clearly
needed. Better to get it under way now to save future confusion.
Wales exists, it has in the past and it will in the future. The
Government of the United Kingdom recognise Wales as a nation with the
Assembly referendum, and other initiatives, why can't usenet and why
can't you? Let's not confuse the issues, it's nothing to do with people
wanting a break up of the union or their personal politics, it's a
demand for a recognition of Wales as a nation as it stands now. And a
demand for a more functional and usable system. That's how I view it
anyway.
--
Adam
Craig Cockburn
<amab...@bham-assist.demon.co.uk> writes
>In article <3GsYh5Az...@scot.demon.co.uk>, Craig Cockburn
><cr...@scot.demon.co.uk> writes
>
>Craig seems to have omitted news.admin.hierarchies form the newsgroups
>for that post, so, being helpful, I've added it, and snipped all but the
>most relevant material:
I don't know why you felt it was helpful as I posted the full list there
a few weeks ago. You should have removed the news: part and the hyphen
to comply with the format there. Pay attention at the back!
>
>>news:scot.announce - Scotland/North England Wide: General
>>Announcements
>
>>news:scot.general - Scotland/North England Wide: General
>>Articles
>
Pretty big overlap with the proposed Borders group....
>Now, what was Henrietta saying..?
Why don't you quote her rather than trying to infer a level of support
which doesn't exist.
Craig Cockburn
<Da...@qantam.demon.co.uk> writes
>In article <rAEew+Ax...@bham-assist.demon.co.uk>, Andy Mabbett
><amab...@bham-assist.demon.co.uk> writes
>>>greatly increase the ability of Welsh people and those who are
>>>interested in the culture, to discuss those aspects which are Welsh
>>>specific.
>>
>>In what way would it *increase* that ability, compared to, say,
>>uk.culture.welsh.* ?
>
Welsh and Scottish culture, life and priorities are different to those
in the UK as a whole. In Wales there is an emphasis on the Welsh
language. In Scotland, there is a strong sense of nationalism in
politics. Neither of these really has a UK counterpart.
It may well be that if the Welsh wish to give priority to their language
they may wish a whole hierarchy of groups under wales.* either in Welsh
or in English about Welsh. e.g. wales.welsh.news or
cymru.cymraeg.newyddion. Accommodating such a structure under
uk.culture.welsh.cymraeg.newyddion not only runs into the problem of
overly long newsgroup names, but it also imposes uk.* hierarchical
priorities on issues that Welsh people may wish to prioritise in a
different way. From a UK perspective, Welsh language may be perceived as
a cultural issue whereas to Welsh communities it could be seen as simply
a method of communication with culture forming only part of a broader
picture.
This situation already exists today if you compare the differing
structures for related departments in the Scottish office and Welsh
office to those in the UK cabinet. In Scotland, there is a minister for
Gaelic separate to the person responsible for arts, but at a UK level
such a position (were England to have a minister for Cornish) would
probably be within Chris Smith's "Culture" dept.
This is not to say that usenet should follow the way government does
things, but it shows that given the freedom to organise things
structurally, Scotland (and I assume Wales) would rather assign their
own structure and priorities on things to reflect their own situations
rather than simply going along with what happens at a UK level.
Craig
Simon Gray
~ Hmmm, I would like the uk.* hierarchy to become honest and call itself
~ the england.* hierarchy, however most English people seem incapable of
~ distinguishing.
Considering that all the uk.* groups are as open to people from other
parts of the uk as they are to people from england, in what manner is
it an england.* rather than a uk.* ?
Oh, you wouldn't, perchance, be talking bollocks, would you ?
--
*.smau.fau.kn peaj
http://www.mahayana.demon.co.uk/ <--- All New Improved Washes-Cleaner-
Than-Clean New Formula !
Iain Rae
<cr...@scot.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <29RJvbBl...@bham-assist.demon.co.uk>, Andy Mabbett
><amab...@bham-assist.demon.co.uk> writes
>>In article <3GsYh5Az...@scot.demon.co.uk>, Craig Cockburn
>><cr...@scot.demon.co.uk> writes
>>
>>Craig seems to have omitted news.admin.hierarchies form the newsgroups
>>for that post, so, being helpful, I've added it, and snipped all but the
>>most relevant material:
>
>I don't know why you felt it was helpful as I posted the full list there
>a few weeks ago.
and Andy was expected to know that how? I'd refer you to his sig but
he's changed it.
>You should have removed the news: part and the hyphen
>to comply with the format there. Pay attention at the back!
>
erm... why did you format it incorrectly in the first place?
>>
>>>news:scot.announce - Scotland/North England Wide: General
>>>Announcements
>>
>>>news:scot.general - Scotland/North England Wide: General
>>>Articles
>>
>Pretty big overlap with the proposed Borders group....
Pretty big loss of moral high ground relating to various comments on
not stepping on other peoples patches..
Terrance Richard Boyes
> In article <4GBfDDAS...@qantam.demon.co.uk>, Dave Thomas
> <Da...@qantam.demon.co.uk> writes
>>The formation of a Welsh hierarchy would
>>greatly increase the ability of Welsh people and those who are
>>interested in the culture, to discuss those aspects which are Welsh
>>specific.
In which case go for it...
> In what way would it *increase* that ability, compared to, say,
> uk.culture.welsh.* ?
cymru.* ?
(apologies for my Welsh :)
--
<URL:http://www.pierrot.co.uk/> Team AMIGA
Wait.. is this a FUN THING or the END of LIFE in Petticoat Junction??
Terrance Richard Boyes
> In article <199810141...@zetnet.co.uk>, Heather Colquhoun
> <colquh...@zetnet.co.uk> writes
[snip list of newsgroups]
>>My questions are:
>>where are the area groups?
Which "area" groups.
>>are there any ?
>>why should mine be first?
???
>>is it fair to have a group that covers two *countries* in a single
>>*country* hierarchy, when there is a hierarchy that covers both?
Many hierarchies are not "country" based, many newsgroups overlap.
Some people may prefer one over the other.
> Hmmm, I would like the uk.* hierarchy to become honest and call itself
> the england.* hierarchy,
It isn't, many of the newsgroups are truly uk.*, that many of the
posters are southerners is purely socio-economic...
> however most English people seem incapable of
> distinguishing.
I may be English by birth (half-Welsh by descent), but I consider
myself to be British first, and a Northerner second... English is
well down on the list. In general therefore I'd prefer uk.* groups
over england.*.
> Recently I, and a few others, tried to set up a wales.* hierarchy, but
> it has, as yet, come to nought, mainly due to internal disagreements.
> However, when the time is right, I'm sure we will get there.
So sort out your disagreements... Though you may find that some
prefer posting in uk.local.north-wales, rather than wales.north.
--
<URL:http://www.pierrot.co.uk/> Team AMIGA
For people who like that kind of book, that is the kind of book they will like.
Craig Cockburn
<ag...@netcomuk.co.uk> writes
>Wales exists, it has in the past and it will in the future. The
>Government of the United Kingdom recognise Wales as a nation with the
>Assembly referendum, and other initiatives, why can't usenet and why
>can't you? Let's not confuse the issues, it's nothing to do with people
>wanting a break up of the union or their personal politics, it's a
>demand for a recognition of Wales as a nation as it stands now. And a
>demand for a more functional and usable system. That's how I view it
>anyway.
>
Craig Cockburn
<$simon$@star-one.org.uk> writes
>Down on uk.net.news.config street, the vibe from Kingsley Matthews is:
>
>~ Hmmm, I would like the uk.* hierarchy to become honest and call itself
>~ the england.* hierarchy, however most English people seem incapable of
>~ distinguishing.
>
>Considering that all the uk.* groups are as open to people from other
>parts of the uk as they are to people from england, in what manner is
>it an england.* rather than a uk.* ?
>
(more so than uk.*) and look at the English bias there...
Craig Cockburn
<ia...@civ.hw.ac.uk> writes
>On Thu, 15 Oct 1998 19:14:11 +0100, Craig Cockburn
><cr...@scot.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>In article <29RJvbBl...@bham-assist.demon.co.uk>, Andy Mabbett
>><amab...@bham-assist.demon.co.uk> writes
>>>In article <3GsYh5Az...@scot.demon.co.uk>, Craig Cockburn
>>><cr...@scot.demon.co.uk> writes
>>>
>>>Craig seems to have omitted news.admin.hierarchies form the newsgroups
>>>for that post, so, being helpful, I've added it, and snipped all but the
>>>most relevant material:
>>
>>I don't know why you felt it was helpful as I posted the full list there
>>a few weeks ago.
>
>and Andy was expected to know that how? I'd refer you to his sig but
>he's changed it.
>
so that you'd know your posting was on charter. Andy would know, because
he should have read the group before posting there.
>>You should have removed the news: part and the hyphen
>>to comply with the format there. Pay attention at the back!
>>
>
>erm... why did you format it incorrectly in the first place?
>
Because it was originally formatted for HTML purposes and on posting it
there I was informed of the separate formatting issues for
news.admin.hierarchies
>
>Pretty big loss of moral high ground relating to various comments on
>not stepping on other peoples patches..
>
Don't blame me, I played no part in the creation or naming of those
groups
I've already asked earlier today:
Although the descriptions of scot.general and scot.announce at the
moment currently covers Berwick and the North of England. Maybe we could
ask the people there how they feel about this and whether they're aware
of it?
Simon Gray
~ I don't think making over-generalised statements based on people's
~ nationality is a good thing. Especially when it isn't true!
Indeed, normally it is described as 'racism'.
Simon Gray
~ There is surely room for both a uk and a Welsh hierarchy.
There is indeed. Nobody in uk.net.* is preventing you from setting
one up.
~ The reluctance to accept this is of some concern.
See above.
Lyn David Thomas
>
> In article <4GBfDDAS...@qantam.demon.co.uk>, Dave Thomas
> <Da...@qantam.demon.co.uk> writes
> >The formation of a Welsh hierarchy would
> >greatly increase the ability of Welsh people and those who are
> >interested in the culture, to discuss those aspects which are Welsh
> >specific.
>
> uk.culture.welsh.* ?
It would be easier to create specific Welsh groups under one
hierarchy - I would imagine that uk.culture.welsh.politics would
be less than welcome and people would suggest that it should go
in uk.politics.welsh.
A welsh hierarchy is a likely development, and while hierarchies
are not mirrors of the real world they are influenced by events.
For example the proposal to create a 1 hour magazine programme
with regional opt outs to replace the 6 o'clock news on the BBC
has provoked the Welsh council of the BBC to say that they want
nothing to do with it and wish to have a 1 hour Welsh news programme.
Thus to a degree a Welsh agenda is emerging. So a welsh.* hierarchy
may well be an appropriate development - of course this in no way
interferes with the development of Welsh groups on the uk.* hierarchy
- in the same way as the creation of the uk.local.*-wales groups has
went hand in hand with the existing soc.culture.welsh group.
--
__
*Lyn David Thomas* \/
Web pages start at
http://www.stuffing.demon.co.uk/lyn
Jeff Lewis
<Andy Mabbett <amab...@bham-assist.demon.co.uk>> wrote :-
>
>That would be extremely *dishonest* and insulting to its many users from
>Wales, Scotland and NI. Not to mention the folks of the uk.local.*-wales
>groups...
>
>Will you be changing your ISP soon, BTW?
Immediately after the uls-w ng was created Kingsley posted to scw the
following message of support.
Quote :- "I hope it dies, because it is devisive".
His attitude would have denied us Welsh of a local group which currently
receives 60 - 70 posts a day.
BTW Kingsley lives in Scotland. :-)
--
Jeff "Ymswynwch rhag Gwyr y Gloran"
http://www.rhondda.demon.co.uk
.................. PGP KEY @ 0xDE609241 ..................
Jeff Lewis
>
>There is surely room for both a uk and a Welsh hierarchy. Many topics
>overlap and would fit well into the uk hierarchy but many do not. I am
>thinking particularly of ngs which are specific to such topics as
>history, literature, culture etc. NGs of this type are almost universaly
>dedicated to English perspectives. Those that are not culturaly specific
>such as "classic cars", would of course, sit quite comfortably within a
>uk hierarchy.
Dave, I agree that there is room for both uk* and wales* but I don't
understand why. You seem to be confusing the uk* hierarchy with some
sort of political agenda. The uk* hierarchy is a postal system which
will collect and deliver your post from most parts of the world.
The hierarchy is managed by all who subscribe to the config group,
Welsh, English, Scottish, Irish, in fact anyone regardless of where they
live. I used it to propose uls-w, and it worked fine.
If you want to create Welsh cultural groups the system is already in
place for you to do so. If you want Welsh language groups go for it, you
can even create the name in Welsh [1] but you may have to help the
committee out with some translations during the creation process. :-)
The uk hierarchy does not belong to the English, it belongs to you, me
and everyone else, and the sooner people accept that the better.
This tribalism is of no benefit in usenet. IMO.
[1] As long as the name starts with uk., for technical reasons.
Bryan K
>So what if it is? Though I would argue North Wales is part of the nation
>of Wales and has more in common with other parts of Wales than it does
>with England.
Blimey - I take it you haven't been anywhere near Rhyl lately then? I, and
many others living here, would argue that the North Wales coast from
Llandudno eastwards has *much* more in common with England than with Wales.
Surely it's better to split the difference and say we're all part of the UK
rather than get into such divisive categorisation though?
Bryan Kennerley mailto:b...@northwalesonline.freeserve.co.uk
North Wales Online - The Web Index for North Wales
http://www.northwalesonline.freeserve.co.uk/ (328 links and rising)
news:uk.local.north-wales
Bryan K
>Welsh and Scottish culture, life and priorities are different to those
>in the UK as a whole. In Wales there is an emphasis on the Welsh
>language. In Scotland, there is a strong sense of nationalism in
>politics. Neither of these really has a UK counterpart.
I can assure you that my life, having lived in North Wales for 25 of my 27
years, has not involved an emphasis on the Welsh language. I see none on
TV, hear virtually none on the street, and out of 30 or so work collegues,
precisely 5 speak Welsh. My culture certainly does not have a Welsh
orientation and neither does my life or my priorities. Like many others in
North Wales I watch Granada TV rather than the Wales oriented HTV, BBC
North West rather than BBC Wales, and Channel 4 over S4C.
>From a UK perspective, Welsh language may be perceived as
>a cultural issue whereas to Welsh communities it could be seen as simply
>a method of communication with culture forming only part of a broader
>picture.
ISTR that the Welsh capital has a Welsh speaking population of around 3%.
In North Wales it varies from 75% in Gwynedd (the highest in Wales) to less
than 15% in Wrexham. English is spoken by 99.999% of the population across
the country. Another relevent fact is that Welsh is a largely spoken
language, as opposed to a written one. The great majority of Welsh speakers
I have known are uncomfortable writing in Welsh, generally choosing not to
wherever possible. I feel it is unlikely that a Welsh language newsgroup
would be successful from a communication point of view.
Jeff Lewis
<Jeff Lewis <je...@rhondda.demon.co.uk>> wrote :-
> The uk* hierarchy is a postal system which
>will collect and deliver your post from most parts of the world.
Bugger!. I know it's not right, but you know what I mean. :-)
Andy Mabbett
>>In what way would it *increase* that ability, compared to, say,
>>uk.culture.welsh.* ?
>
>wider group of people interested in specific aspects.
In what way could this not be achieved under uk.*?
> More specific
>topics such as welsh.history.mediaeval,
uk.culture.welsh.history.mediaeval, uk.c.h.w.m or uk.c.h.m.w
> welsh.literature.mediaeval,
uk.c.l.m, uk.c.l.w.m or uk.c.l.m.w.
[...]
> There is an obvious need for forums which
>encourage serious discussion of these sort of topics and perhaps they
>would be better able to develop in a culture specific hierarchy.
The results of the uk.culture.* vote are pending.
[...]
>>(politics aside, of course)
>
>Why is it assumed that such an hierarchy would be politically based.
It isn't - leastways not by me - hence my above comment.
(Relevant ng only)
Andy Mabbett
<cr...@scot.demon.co.uk> writes
>>>>The formation of a Welsh hierarchy
[...]
>>>In what way would it *increase* that ability, compared to, say,
>>>uk.culture.welsh.* ?
>>
>
>in the UK as a whole.
And you ask why some people find you irritating - do *you* like being
patronised?
[...]
>It may well be that if the Welsh wish to give priority to their language
>they may wish a whole hierarchy of groups under wales.* either in Welsh
>or in English about Welsh. e.g. wales.welsh.news or
>cymru.cymraeg.newyddion.
Or uk.culture.welsh.language.* ...
> Accommodating such a structure under
>uk.culture.welsh.cymraeg.newyddion not only runs into the problem of
>overly long newsgroup names,
So choose a different model.
> but it also imposes uk.* hierarchical
>priorities on issues that Welsh people may wish to prioritise in a
>different way.
Ditto.
> From a UK perspective, Welsh language may be perceived as
>a cultural issue whereas to Welsh communities it could be seen as simply
>a method of communication with culture forming only part of a broader
>picture.
So propose uk.langauge.welsh.*/ u.l.w.cymraeg.* (if I've got that right)
>This situation already exists today if you compare the differing
>structures for related departments in the Scottish office and Welsh
>office to those in the UK cabinet.
That is not a situation on Usenet.
[...]
>This is not to say that usenet should follow the way government does
>things, but it shows that given the freedom to organise things
>structurally, Scotland (and I assume Wales) would rather assign their
>own structure and priorities on things to reflect their own situations
>rather than simply going along with what happens at a UK level.
There is noting to stop proponents of uk.* newsgroups proposing other
models, as per the examples I give above.
Andy Mabbett
<cr...@scot.demon.co.uk> writes
> also open to people from around the UK
>(more so than uk.*)
How so? (rather, not so!)
Steve Lewin
<cr...@scot.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <+PAqgFAJnjJ2Ew$k...@netcomuk.co.uk>, Adam Greenow
><ag...@netcomuk.co.uk> writes
>>Wales exists, it has in the past and it will in the future. The
>>Government of the United Kingdom recognise Wales as a nation with the
>>Assembly referendum, and other initiatives, why can't usenet and why
>>can't you? Let's not confuse the issues, it's nothing to do with people
>>wanting a break up of the union or their personal politics, it's a
>>demand for a recognition of Wales as a nation as it stands now. And a
>>demand for a more functional and usable system. That's how I view it
>>anyway.
>>
>Well said that man.
Perhaps you folks haven't noticed but nationhood is not directly
connected with top level domains in Usenet. Unless my geography is
even worse that I believed there are no rec, sci, com, alt etc,
nations.
It is quite possible for any group of people to organize a Usenet
domain for themselves. Pretty much all it takes is finding a name and
then persuading thousands of news admins across the Usenet world to
take it and you've cracked it. Go for it.
Where it gets controversial is when trying to tell the members of
other, older, better established domains what groups they can have.
Welsh , Scots, Yorkshiremen, Cornish, people from Tunstall, people
with green hair living in Dunstable are all welcome to start their own
specific domains. Where it gets silly is when they then insist that no
other domain should be allowed to have a group which might attract
"their" people. Usenet doesn't work like that and I hope it never
will.
You don't own an audience. You provide a facility, attempt to persuade
newsadmins to give it propagation and hope people will read it. If you
want a Welsh domain go get it organised. It has little or no impact on
the uk domain.
Steve
Andy Mabbett
<cr...@scot.demon.co.uk> writes
[...]
>You should have removed the news: part and the hyphen
>to comply with the format there.
I wouldn't dream if mis- quoting you.
[...]
>>Now, what was Henrietta saying..?
>
>Why don't you quote her rather than trying to infer a level of support
>which doesn't exist.
Because I'm not trying to infer anything of the kind.
Andy Mabbett
>he's changed it.
Not changed, just used one of several alternatives. I assume you refer
to this one:
--
Andy Mabbett: Personal view only - *not* my employers!
Visiting Birmingham? See the *new* site at: http://www.birmingham.gov.uk
Hint: Telepathy rarely functions correctly via Usenet
Blade-Runner
uk.net.news.config. Dave Thomas <Da...@qantam.demon.co.uk> wrote some
of this :
>>Say thee
>>
>Hmm, yes I think I am beginning to see what the problem is. Thanks for
>the enlightenment.
You're welcome <g>
--
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]
Blade-Runner
uk.net.news.config. Craig Cockburn <cr...@scot.demon.co.uk> wrote some
of this :
>Scotland (and I assume Wales) would rather assign their
>own structure and priorities on things to reflect their own situations
>rather than simply going along with what happens at a UK level.
Round and round we go. I don't have a problem with that. My problem is
why should that have anything to do with uk.*?
Kingsley Matthews
<i...@bluebadge.demon.co.uk> writes
>In article <C0UimkAq...@kandam.demon.co.uk>, Kingsley Matthews
><king...@kandam.demon.co.uk> writes
>>Hmmm, I would like the uk.* hierarchy to become honest and call itself
>>the england.* hierarchy, however most English people seem incapable of
>>distinguishing.
>
>what at least some English people think; being one of them!
>
>I don't think making over-generalised statements based on people's
Bit it is true!
--
Kingsley
Kingsley Matthews
<$simon$@star-one.org.uk> writes
>Down on uk.net.news.config street, the vibe from Ian Jelf is:
>
>~ I don't think making over-generalised statements based on people's
>~ nationality is a good thing. Especially when it isn't true!
>
>Indeed, normally it is described as 'racism'.
>
Even when it's true?
--
Kingsley
Kingsley Matthews
<ja...@nospam.demon.co.uk> writes
>In article <C0UimkAq...@kandam.demon.co.uk>, Kingsley Matthews
><king...@kandam.demon.co.uk> writes
>>Hmmm, I would like the uk.* hierarchy to become honest and call itself
>>the england.* hierarchy, however most English people seem incapable of
>>distinguishing.
>
>
>HTH.
>
No, I didn't.
--
Kingsley
Kingsley Matthews
<amab...@bham-assist.demon.co.uk> writes
>In article <C0UimkAq...@kandam.demon.co.uk>, Kingsley Matthews
><king...@kandam.demon.co.uk> writes
>>Hmmm, I would like the uk.* hierarchy to become honest and call itself
>>the england.* hierarchy, however most English people seem incapable of
>>distinguishing.
>
>Wales, Scotland and NI. Not to mention the folks of the uk.local.*-wales
>groups...
>
>Will you be changing your ISP soon, BTW?
Why should I change my ISP?
--
Kingsley
Kingsley Matthews
<je...@rhondda.demon.co.uk> writes
>On Thu, 15 Oct 1998, from the depths of soc.culture.welsh
><Andy Mabbett <amab...@bham-assist.demon.co.uk>> wrote :-
>><king...@kandam.demon.co.uk> writes
>>>Hmmm, I would like the uk.* hierarchy to become honest and call itself
>>>the england.* hierarchy, however most English people seem incapable of
>>>distinguishing.
>>
>>That would be extremely *dishonest* and insulting to its many users from
>>Wales, Scotland and NI. Not to mention the folks of the uk.local.*-wales
>>groups...
>>
>>Will you be changing your ISP soon, BTW?
>
>following message of support.
>
>Quote :- "I hope it dies, because it is devisive".
>
>His attitude would have denied us Welsh of a local group which currently
>receives 60 - 70 posts a day.
>
>BTW Kingsley lives in Scotland. :-)
>
--
Kingsley
Kingsley Matthews
<engs...@sable.ox.ac.uk> writes
>Kingsley Matthews (king...@kandam.demon.co.uk) wrote:
>
>: Hmmm, I would like the uk.* hierarchy to become honest and call itself
>: the england.* hierarchy,
>
>But it isn't, except de facto in the uk.local.* area. Most of the uk.*
>hierarchy is applicable to the whole of the uk - I can't see any sense
>at all in splitting uk.rec.cars.classic into Scottish and English
>branches?
>
>Or are you seriously saying that there are lots of, for example, sailors out
>there in Scotland who don't subscribe to uk.rec.sailing because they're
>waiting for scot.sailing to come along?
>
>Ian
Thanks Ian, the first intelligent response to my troll.
--
Kingsley
Kingsley Matthews
<Da...@qantam.demon.co.uk> writes
>In article <704a6a$mnc$1...@news.ox.ac.uk>, Ian Johnston
><engs...@sable.ox.ac.uk> writes
>>Kingsley Matthews (king...@kandam.demon.co.uk) wrote:
>>
>>: Hmmm, I would like the uk.* hierarchy to become honest and call itself
>>: the england.* hierarchy,
>>
>>But it isn't, except de facto in the uk.local.* area. Most of the uk.*
>>hierarchy is applicable to the whole of the uk - I can't see any sense
>>at all in splitting uk.rec.cars.classic into Scottish and English
>>branches?
>
>overlap and would fit well into the uk hierarchy but many do not. I am
>thinking particularly of ngs which are specific to such topics as
>history, literature, culture etc. NGs of this type are almost universaly
>dedicated to English perspectives. Those that are not culturaly specific
>such as "classic cars", would of course, sit quite comfortably within a
>uk hierarchy.
>>
>>there in Scotland who don't subscribe to uk.rec.sailing because they're
>>waiting for scot.sailing to come along?
>
>identity, a language, a history and a literary culture that is different
>and solidly identifiable. The formation of a Welsh hierarchy would
>greatly increase the ability of Welsh people and those who are
>interested in the culture, to discuss those aspects which are Welsh
>development of many other facets of the culture, language, local
>history, national history, genealogy, sports, media, literature, customs
>etc. The reluctance to accept this is of some concern.
>
>Hawddamor
>
>dave
Thank you too Dave, the debate is getting on now. You are, of course,
right. I posted to stir things up. There is some light being generated
amongst the heat.
--
Kingsley
Kingsley Matthews
<amab...@bham-assist.demon.co.uk> writes
>>greatly increase the ability of Welsh people and those who are
>>interested in the culture, to discuss those aspects which are Welsh
>>specific.
>
>uk.culture.welsh.* ?
>
Why are you opposed?
--
Kingsley
Kingsley Matthews
d...@thecatgeocities.com> writes
>It was Thu, 15 Oct 1998 11:30:42 +0100. You remember? It was in
>
>Staffs has an identity, a dialect, a history and a culture that is
>different and solidly identifiable. The formation of a North Staffs
>hierarchy would greatly increase the ability of North Staffs people and
>those who are interested in the culture, to discuss those aspects which
>greatly encourage the development of many other facets of the culture,
>literature, customs etc. The reluctance to accept this is of some
>concern.
>
>
Then go for it, who the hell is stopping you? I've never heard of any
Welsh or Scottish person opposing your idea.
--
Kingsley
Kingsley Matthews
>>overlap and would fit well into the uk hierarchy but many do not. I am
>>thinking particularly of ngs which are specific to such topics as
>>history, literature, culture etc. NGs of this type are almost universaly
>>dedicated to English perspectives. Those that are not culturaly specific
>>such as "classic cars", would of course, sit quite comfortably within a
>>uk hierarchy.
>
>understand why. You seem to be confusing the uk* hierarchy with some
>will collect and deliver your post from most parts of the world.
>
>Welsh, English, Scottish, Irish, in fact anyone regardless of where they
>live. I used it to propose uls-w, and it worked fine.
>
>If you want to create Welsh cultural groups the system is already in
>place for you to do so. If you want Welsh language groups go for it, you
>can even create the name in Welsh [1] but you may have to help the
>committee out with some translations during the creation process. :-)
>
>The uk hierarchy does not belong to the English, it belongs to you, me
>and everyone else, and the sooner people accept that the better.
>
>This tribalism is of no benefit in usenet. IMO.
>
>
>
>[1] As long as the name starts with uk., for technical reasons.
>
Then why are you so tribalist, Jeff?
--
Kingsley
Kingsley Matthews
<banc...@shoebox.win-uk.net> writes
>Btw, the points you make for Wales having a separate identity are also valid for
>Yorkshire, and North Wales as a separate unit from Mid & South Wales.
>
>-bpg-
If Yorkshire people want it, then there is now way it should opposed. A
similat point applies to North Wales. However, I have noticed that most
people in Yorkshire claim to be English, while most people in North
Wales claim to be Welsh.
If you want to change that I think you have an uphill task.
--
Kingsley
Kingsley Matthews
<t...@pierrot.co.uk> writes
>Kingsley Matthews <URL:mailto:king...@kandam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> In article <199810141...@zetnet.co.uk>, Heather Colquhoun
>> <colquh...@zetnet.co.uk> writes
>
>[snip list of newsgroups]
>
>>>My questions are:
>>>where are the area groups?
>
>Which "area" groups.
>
>>>are there any ?
>>>why should mine be first?
>
>???
>
>>>is it fair to have a group that covers two *countries* in a single
>>>*country* hierarchy, when there is a hierarchy that covers both?
>
>Many hierarchies are not "country" based, many newsgroups overlap.
>Some people may prefer one over the other.
>
>> Hmmm, I would like the uk.* hierarchy to become honest and call itself
>> the england.* hierarchy,
>
>posters are southerners is purely socio-economic...
>
>> however most English people seem incapable of
>> distinguishing.
>
>myself to be British first, and a Northerner second... English is
>well down on the list. In general therefore I'd prefer uk.* groups
>over england.*.
>
>> Recently I, and a few others, tried to set up a wales.* hierarchy, but
>> it has, as yet, come to nought, mainly due to internal disagreements.
>> However, when the time is right, I'm sure we will get there.
>
>So sort out your disagreements... Though you may find that some
>prefer posting in uk.local.north-wales, rather than wales.north.
>
That may be so, and I would have no problems with that.
--
Kingsley
Steve Lewin
<cr...@scot.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <364198c1....@news.demon.co.uk>, Simon Gray
><$simon$@star-one.org.uk> writes
>>Down on uk.net.news.config street, the vibe from Kingsley Matthews is:
>>
>>~ Hmmm, I would like the uk.* hierarchy to become honest and call itself
>>~ the england.* hierarchy, however most English people seem incapable of
>>~ distinguishing.
>>
>>Considering that all the uk.* groups are as open to people from other
>>parts of the uk as they are to people from england, in what manner is
>>it an england.* rather than a uk.* ?
>>
>Try reading soc.culture.british, also open to people from around the UK
>(more so than uk.*) and look at the English bias there...
SOC is a not very well propagated international domain. I'm not
convinced that more people FROM THE UK have access to it than to uk.*.
For example only one of the 3 ISPs I use carries it. They all carry
most if not all of uk.*.
But getting back to uk.*, what are you complaining about ?
Any "English bias" would appear to be because more English people can
read and are willing to contribute than any other group of people.
Usenet is organised by people having an interest and contributing. If
the Welsh, Scots, or any other self-selected group prefer not to
contribute that is their choice. Mind you I can't see it myself. There
seem to be quite a few unEnglish contributing to this newsgroup and
most of the others I read.
Steve
Philip Powell
Kingsley Matthews <king...@kandam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <199810141...@zetnet.co.uk>, Heather Colquhoun
><colquh...@zetnet.co.uk> writes
>>Fact:
>>
>>There exists to the best of my knowledge,
>>
[snipped a list of the uk.local.* groups - which is *not* the entire
uk.* group listing]
>>
>> on the other hand we have scot* which while I have never disputed
>> its existance or rights it has as far as I am aware:
>>
[snipped list of 11 scot.* groups]
>>
>>and I do not have access but I believe there is a soccer one too.
>>
>>My questions are:
>>where are the area groups?
>>are there any ?
>>why should mine be first?
>>is it fair to have a group that covers two *countries* in a single
>>*country* hierarchy, when there is a hierarchy that covers both?
>>
>>
>
> Hmmm, I would like the uk.* hierarchy to become honest and call
> itself the england.* hierarchy, however most English people seem
> incapable of distinguishing.
The uk.* hierarchy covers a wide range of topics, uk.local.* is a very
small part of it.
Excluding uk.local.* - which groups in uk.* are 'English'? I'll give
you uk.transport.london.
--
Philip Powell
Looking north across the Derwent Valley and Northumberland
to The Cheviot
PGP Key available on request
Philip Powell
Craig Cockburn <cr...@scot.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <199810141...@zetnet.co.uk>, Heather Colquhoun
><colquh...@zetnet.co.uk> writes
>
>>
>>My questions are:
>>where are the area groups?
[snip]
>news:scot.general - Scotland/North England Wide: General Articles
[snip]
>>why should mine be first?
>Define mine
If you don't know which 'mine' Heather is referring to, then you must
have missed the beginning of the thread (-:
>>is it fair to have a group that covers two *countries* in a single
>>*country* hierarchy, when there is a hierarchy that covers both?
>>
>scot.general has done so since its creation about 13 years ago. See
>above.
So it was ok for scot.* to cover two countries but it isn't ok for
uk.local.* to do likewise?
Andy Mabbett
<cr...@scot.demon.co.uk> writes
>>>I don't know why you felt it was helpful as I posted the full list there
>>>a few weeks ago.
>>and Andy was expected to know that how? I'd refer you to his sig but
>>he's changed it.
>>
>so that you'd know your posting was on charter.
Including all the archived posts on Dejanews? Or only people who lurk
from day one supposed to post?
> Andy would know, because
>he should have read the group before posting there.
For "a few weeks", reading *all* posts?
Perhaps you could cite a reference for this little known, and obviously
new, rule.
Andy Mabbett
<amab...@bham-assist.demon.co.uk> writes
[my sig]
>I assume you refer to this one:
Though this might apply:
--
Andy Mabbett: Personal view only - *not* my employers!
>The citizenry at large seems to have an unlimited right to offend _me_,
>but I don't have reciprocal rights. (Avedon Carol)
Dave Mayall
> Hmmm, I would like the uk.* hierarchy to become honest and call itself
> the england.* hierarchy, however most English people seem incapable of
> distinguishing.
I can distinguish England from The UK, uk.* is the honest name, as
it covers the whole UK, including Scotland, Wales and NI. In fact,
Wales is the only part of the UK which is fully covered, so far
as local groups go.
> Recently I, and a few others, tried to set up a wales.* hierarchy, but
> it has, as yet, come to nought, mainly due to internal disagreements.
> However, when the time is right, I'm sure we will get there.
I'm sure you will. You will suffer no criticism from me if you do, but
Welsh local groups will still be allowed in uk.*
--
Dave Mayall
The views expressed are mine and may not be those of my employer
Private e-mail to david....@ukonline.co.uk please
Kingsley Matthews
Robertson <l.a.ro...@stm.tudelft.nl.removethis> writes
>
>
>Kingsley Matthews wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Hmmm, I would like the uk.* hierarchy to become honest and call itself
>> the england.* hierarchy, however most English people seem incapable of
>> distinguishing.
>>
>> it has, as yet, come to nought, mainly due to internal disagreements.
>> However, when the time is right, I'm sure we will get there.
>
>Trouble with all these sub-groups is that only a limited number are
>carried by international ISPs - we get 6 of the scot.* groups, 2 of the
>ed.* groups, and only a few of the uk.* ones - reaction of our systems
>manager to a request for more? "We can't carry everything, not many people
>will want little groups like that, they're only for locals", etc, etc.
>Unless you han generate a strong hierarchy (such as the soc.* and rec.*
>ones), you will ghetto-ize your groups. Mind you, this may be a darstardly
>plan to get rid of us ex-pats and assorted aliens....
>Paranoia strikes!
>Lesley Robertson
>
There is no way I would want to get rid of such as you :)
--
Kingsley
Kingsley Matthews
<amab...@bham-assist.demon.co.uk> writes
>In article <wcZ53oAl...@scot.demon.co.uk>, Craig Cockburn
><cr...@scot.demon.co.uk> writes
>>>>>The formation of a Welsh hierarchy
>>>>In what way would it *increase* that ability, compared to, say,
>>>>uk.culture.welsh.* ?
>>>
>>
>>Welsh and Scottish culture, life and priorities are different to those
>>in the UK as a whole.
>
>And you ask why some people find you irritating - do *you* like being
>patronised?
>
Andy, do you have a problem, please explain it better. Why are people
in Birmingham concerned with Wales?
--
Kingsley
Kingsley Matthews
<use...@northwalesonline.freeserve.co.uk> writes
>Adam Greenow <ag...@netcomuk.co.uk> wrote
>>So what if it is? Though I would argue North Wales is part of the nation
>>of Wales and has more in common with other parts of Wales than it does
>>with England.
>
>Blimey - I take it you haven't been anywhere near Rhyl lately then? I, and
>many others living here, would argue that the North Wales coast from
>Llandudno eastwards has *much* more in common with England than with Wales.
>Surely it's better to split the difference and say we're all part of the UK
>rather than get into such divisive categorisation though?
>
>Bryan Kennerley mailto:b...@northwalesonline.freeserve.co.uk
>North Wales Online - The Web Index for North Wales
>http://www.northwalesonline.freeserve.co.uk/ (328 links and rising)
>news:uk.local.north-wales
>
>
>
Scouse git!
--
Kingsley
Kingsley Matthews
<f...@slewin.clara.net> writes
>On Thu, 15 Oct 1998 19:37:43 +0100, Craig Cockburn
><cr...@scot.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>In article <+PAqgFAJnjJ2Ew$k...@netcomuk.co.uk>, Adam Greenow
>><ag...@netcomuk.co.uk> writes
>>>Wales exists, it has in the past and it will in the future. The
>>>Government of the United Kingdom recognise Wales as a nation with the
>>>Assembly referendum, and other initiatives, why can't usenet and why
>>>can't you? Let's not confuse the issues, it's nothing to do with people
>>>wanting a break up of the union or their personal politics, it's a
>>>demand for a recognition of Wales as a nation as it stands now. And a
>>>demand for a more functional and usable system. That's how I view it
>>>anyway.
>>>
>>Well said that man.
>
>Perhaps you folks haven't noticed but nationhood is not directly
>connected with top level domains in Usenet. Unless my geography is
>even worse that I believed there are no rec, sci, com, alt etc,
>nations.
>
>It is quite possible for any group of people to organize a Usenet
>domain for themselves. Pretty much all it takes is finding a name and
>then persuading thousands of news admins across the Usenet world to
>take it and you've cracked it. Go for it.
>
>Where it gets controversial is when trying to tell the members of
>other, older, better established domains what groups they can have.
>Welsh , Scots, Yorkshiremen, Cornish, people from Tunstall, people
>with green hair living in Dunstable are all welcome to start their own
>specific domains. Where it gets silly is when they then insist that no
>other domain should be allowed to have a group which might attract
>"their" people. Usenet doesn't work like that and I hope it never
>will.
>
>You don't own an audience. You provide a facility, attempt to persuade
>newsadmins to give it propagation and hope people will read it. If you
>want a Welsh domain go get it organised. It has little or no impact on
>the uk domain.
>
>Steve
That was my point, but you put it more eloquently.
--
Kingsley
Rebecca and Rowland
[snip]
> Hmmm, I would like the uk.* hierarchy to become honest and call itself
> the england.* hierarchy, however most English people seem incapable of
> distinguishing.
Hmmm - smells like nationalist bigotry to me. Why not disinfect your
mind before posting?
[snip]
Rowland.
--
Remove the animal for my email address: reb...@astrid.dog.u-net.com
Sorry - the spam got to me. PGP pub key A680B89D
UK biker? Join MAG and help keep bureaucracy at bay
http://dredd.meng.ucl.ac.uk/www/mag/mag.html
Jeff Lewis
<Kingsley Matthews <king...@kandam.demon.co.uk>> wrote :-
>>This tribalism is of no benefit in usenet. IMO.
>
>Then why are you so tribalist, Jeff?
Please explain ?.
--
Jeff "Ymswynwch rhag Gwyr y Gloran"
http://www.rhondda.demon.co.uk
.................. PGP KEY @ 0xDE609241 ..................
Blade-Runner
uk.net.news.config. f...@slewin.clara.net (Steve Lewin) wrote some of
this :
> people from Tunstall
..when they get electric light...
Blade-Runner
uk.net.news.config. "Bryan K" <use...@northwalesonline.freeserve.co.uk>
wrote some of this :
>Blimey - I take it you haven't been anywhere near Rhyl lately then?
ROFL I went for a day trip and was surprised at all the Black Country
accents.
I was also surprised to see that you could get Stoke City rock. Still,
it has always been a traditional holiday destination for potters.
Blade-Runner
uk.net.news.config. Jeff Lewis <je...@rhondda.demon.co.uk> wrote some
of this :
>This tribalism is of no benefit in usenet. IMO
Well said.
Blade-Runner
uk.net.news.config. Kingsley Matthews <king...@kandam.demon.co.uk>
wrote some of this :
>I am sure that a North Staffs hierarchy would
>>greatly encourage the development of many other facets of the culture,
>>dialect, local history, national history, genealogy, sports, media,
>>literature, customs etc. The reluctance to accept this is of some
>>concern.
>>
>>Say thee
>>
>Then go for it, who the hell is stopping you? I've never heard of any
>Welsh or Scottish person opposing your idea.
>--
Tee hee.
Craig Cockburn
<use...@northwalesonline.freeserve.co.uk> writes
>ISTR that the Welsh capital has a Welsh speaking population of around 3%.
>In North Wales it varies from 75% in Gwynedd (the highest in Wales) to less
>than 15% in Wrexham. English is spoken by 99.999% of the population across
>the country. Another relevent fact is that Welsh is a largely spoken
>language, as opposed to a written one. The great majority of Welsh speakers
>I have known are uncomfortable writing in Welsh, generally choosing not to
>wherever possible. I feel it is unlikely that a Welsh language newsgroup
>would be successful from a communication point of view.
>
You may live in Wales, but you've admitted you aren't very involved with
Welsh language and culture. Evidently you're not aware there's been a
lively Welsh medium group on the Internet for several years. It's called
Welsh-L, send a message to list...@listserv.hea.ie containing the line
sub welsh-l yourfirstname yoursurname
to join.
The list also covers Cornish and Breton and was created as a sister list
to Gaelic-L, founded in 1989 (the first minority language list on the
Internet) and now with spin offs for Irish (2 levels); Scots Gaelic (2
levels) and Manx.
I feel your assertion that the Welsh can't communicate in Welsh simply
demonstrates how out of touch you are.
--
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.
Craig Cockburn
<amab...@bham-assist.demon.co.uk> writes
>In article <MbSGG2AJ...@scot.demon.co.uk>, Craig Cockburn
><cr...@scot.demon.co.uk> writes
>> also open to people from around the UK
>>(more so than uk.*)
>
Unless you quote enough to understand the context then people aren't
going to understand what you're blethering about.
I suggest you refer to the usenet guidelines on posting that you are so
often reminding others about.
Malcolm Ogilvie
<king...@kandam.demon.co.uk> writes
>In article <IL6mSxAK...@bham-assist.demon.co.uk>, Andy Mabbett
><amab...@bham-assist.demon.co.uk> writes
>>In article <wcZ53oAl...@scot.demon.co.uk>, Craig Cockburn
>><cr...@scot.demon.co.uk> writes
>>>>>>The formation of a Welsh hierarchy
>>[...]
>>>>>In what way would it *increase* that ability, compared to, say,
>>>>>uk.culture.welsh.* ?
>>>>
>>>Some information which I hope helps you to understand this:
>>>
>>>Welsh and Scottish culture, life and priorities are different to those
>>>in the UK as a whole.
>>
>>And you ask why some people find you irritating - do *you* like being
>>patronised?
>>
>Andy, do you have a problem, please explain it better. Why are people
>in Birmingham concerned with Wales?
You drink their water, I believe :-))
--
Malcolm
Iain Rae
<amab...@bham-assist.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <36264680....@news.hw.ac.uk>, Iain Rae
><ia...@civ.hw.ac.uk> writes
>>and Andy was expected to know that how? I'd refer you to his sig but
>>he's changed it.
>
>Not changed, just used one of several alternatives. I assume you refer
>to this one:
>--
>Andy Mabbett: Personal view only - *not* my employers!
>Visiting Birmingham? See the *new* site at: http://www.birmingham.gov.uk
>
>Hint: Telepathy rarely functions correctly via Usenet
you read my mind ;)
Andy Mabbett
<king...@kandam.demon.co.uk> writes
>>You must have missed the two Welsh groups in the uk.local.* hierarchy.
>No, I didn't.
So you'll be posting an RFD to rename uk.local.north-wales as
enlgand.local.north-wales? Ditto south-wales?
Thought not.
(Relevant ng only)
--
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
<king...@kandam.demon.co.uk> writes
>Andy, do you have a problem,
No.
>Why are people in Birmingham concerned with Wales?
Paging Lyn David Thomas, paging Lyn David Thomas...
(relevant ng only)
Andy Mabbett
<king...@kandam.demon.co.uk> writes
>>In what way would it *increase* that ability, compared to, say,
>>uk.culture.welsh.* ?
>>
>
>Why are you opposed?
To wales.*? I'm not.
(Relevant ng only)
Dave Thomas
<use...@northwalesonline.freeserve.co.uk> writes
>Adam Greenow <ag...@netcomuk.co.uk> wrote
>>So what if it is? Though I would argue North Wales is part of the nation
>>of Wales and has more in common with other parts of Wales than it does
>>with England.
>
>Blimey - I take it you haven't been anywhere near Rhyl lately then? I, and
>many others living here, would argue that the North Wales coast from
>Llandudno eastwards has *much* more in common with England than with Wales.
>Surely it's better to split the difference and say we're all part of the UK
>rather than get into such divisive categorisation though?
Cor blimey mate - by the same argument one might say that parts of
Birmingham have more in common with Pakistan. I fail to see your logic.
What has that to do with forming a hierarchy for the discussion of Welsh
topics that is controlled by people with an interest in Welsh culture.
You have expressed positively that you have absolutely no interest in
Welsh culture - Do you have a problem in accepting that there are a
number of people in Wales that do?
Hawddamor
--
Dave Thomas
Dave Thomas
>understand why. You seem to be confusing the uk* hierarchy with some
>sort of political agenda. The uk* hierarchy is a postal system which
>will collect and deliver your post from most parts of the world.
And Jeff, I do not understand why not. It is obvious that there are many
people who would subscribe to a Welsh hierarchy - in order to create a
forum which will enable the formation of a diverse variety of Welsh
topic ngs. At the moment such ngs would require the sanction of people
who have little or no interest in Welsh culture - my feeling is that
such decisions are of little interest to the general uk and rightfully
should be the provence of those who have a direct interest.
A Welsh hierarchy would not as I say, prevent the formation of any Welsh
ng that felt more comfortable within the uk hierarchy but it would
possibly help to stimulate deeper Welsh involvement by those who at the
moment find it difficult to find a Welsh forum for exploring specific
aspects in more depth.
It is likely that a distinct hierarchy would also reduce the plague of
cross posting (which I know is being addressed) and you never know it
may help to reduce troll targeting.
--
Dave Thomas
Philip Powell
Craig Cockburn <cr...@scot.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <36264680....@news.hw.ac.uk>, Iain Rae
><ia...@civ.hw.ac.uk> writes
[snip]
>>
>>Pretty big loss of moral high ground relating to various comments on
>>not stepping on other peoples patches..
>>
> Don't blame me, I played no part in the creation or naming of those
> groups
Typical politican's answer. Anyway, I thought you'd been on the net
since the year dot.
> I've already asked earlier today:
>
> Although the descriptions of scot.general and scot.announce at the
> moment currently covers Berwick and the North of England. Maybe we
> could ask the people there how they feel about this and whether
> they're aware of it?
Doesn't bother me Craig, so there is one answer from someone in the
'North of England' (-:
Philip Powell
Kingsley Matthews <king...@kandam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <fDZqQBA+...@rhondda.demon.co.uk>, Jeff Lewis
><je...@rhondda.demon.co.uk> writes
[snip]
>> Immediately after the uls-w ng was created Kingsley posted to scw
>> the following message of support.
>>
>> Quote :- "I hope it dies, because it is devisive".
>>
>> His attitude would have denied us Welsh of a local group which
>> currently receives 60 - 70 posts a day.
>>
>> BTW Kingsley lives in Scotland. :-)
>>
> And my residence denies me the right to say what I think?
None whatsoever according to the way uk.* is run - I can't speak for
other hierarchies (-:
Philip Powell
Craig Cockburn <cr...@scot.demon.co.uk> wrote:
[snip]
>This is not to say that usenet should follow the way government does
>things,
Oh. That seemed to be the very point you have been making for the last
few weeks since you appear determined to equate UK with uk.* and
Scotland with scot.*.
> but it shows that given the freedom to organise things structurally,
> Scotland (and I assume Wales) would rather assign their own
> structure and priorities on things to reflect their own situations
> rather than simply going along with what happens at a UK level.
Some Scots and some Welsh - possibly a majority, not being a politican
I don't know what *everyone* thinks (-:
Philip Powell
Craig Cockburn <cr...@scot.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <+PAqgFAJnjJ2Ew$k...@netcomuk.co.uk>, Adam Greenow
><ag...@netcomuk.co.uk> writes
>> Wales exists, it has in the past and it will in the future. The
>> Government of the United Kingdom recognise Wales as a nation with
>> the Assembly referendum, and other initiatives, why can't usenet
>> and why can't you? Let's not confuse the issues, it's nothing to
>> do with people wanting a break up of the union or their personal
>> politics, it's a demand for a recognition of Wales as a nation as
>> it stands now. And a demand for a more functional and usable
>> system. That's how I view it anyway.
>>
>Well said that man.
Has anyone stated in uk.net.news.config that there should not be a
scot.* or wales.* hierarchy?
AFAIK, comments with regard to the scot.* hierarchy have been that it
is entirely a matter for the scot.* users or, at worst, that it has
nothing to do with uk.* (since uk.* has no authority over and does not
seek any over scot.*).
Philip Powell
Craig Cockburn <cr...@scot.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <364198c1....@news.demon.co.uk>, Simon Gray
><$simon$@star-one.org.uk> writes
>> Down on uk.net.news.config street, the vibe from Kingsley Matthews
>> is:
>>
>>> Hmmm, I would like the uk.* hierarchy to become honest and call
>>> itself the england.* hierarchy, however most English people seem
>>> incapable of distinguishing.
>>
>> Considering that all the uk.* groups are as open to people from
>> other parts of the uk as they are to people from england, in what
>> manner is it an england.* rather than a uk.* ?
>>
> Try reading soc.culture.british, also open to people from around the
> UK (more so than uk.*) and look at the English bias there...
In what way is uk.* not open to those all around the UK?
Perhaps the reason for the perceived 'English' bias in
soc.culture.british is because there is a soc.culture.scottish and
soc.culture.welsh?
hea...@cf.ac.uk
Rod Begbie
In article <0xZo8UAn...@scot.demon.co.uk>,
Craig Cockburn <cr...@scot.demon.co.uk> writes:
> In article <705out$fad$3...@newsreader1.core.theplanet.net>, Bryan K
> <use...@northwalesonline.freeserve.co.uk> writes
>>ISTR that the Welsh capital has a Welsh speaking population of around 3%.
>>In North Wales it varies from 75% in Gwynedd (the highest in Wales) to less
>>than 15% in Wrexham. English is spoken by 99.999% of the population across
>>the country. Another relevent fact is that Welsh is a largely spoken
>>language, as opposed to a written one. The great majority of Welsh speakers
>>I have known are uncomfortable writing in Welsh, generally choosing not to
>>wherever possible. I feel it is unlikely that a Welsh language newsgroup
>>would be successful from a communication point of view.
>>
> You may live in Wales, but you've admitted you aren't very involved with
> Welsh language and culture. Evidently you're not aware there's been a
> lively Welsh medium group on the Internet for several years.
> [snip]
> I feel your assertion that the Welsh can't communicate in Welsh simply
> demonstrates how out of touch you are.
Craig -
This is a perfect example of a post that people find "irritating".
A person who lives in Wales has posted some statistics which show that a
small proportion of people living in Wales speak Welsh, and almost
everyone can speak English. He then makes a comment about Welsh being
mostly spoken, not written, following up with an example of the Welsh
speakers he knows.
And then you call him "out of touch", on the basis of there being an
Internet mailing list called Welsh-L. You don't say what percentage of
the people on that list can speak Welsh. You don't say what proportion of
postings are *in* Welsh. You don't give any idea of how many posters
there are on the list.
And by and large, you entirely miss the point that Bryan was making. As I
read it, he made no such assertion that "the Welsh can't communicate in
Welsh". He said that very few people in Wales speak Welsh, and that those
that he knows speak it, but prefer not to write it. Two very different
assertions.
[Please note that I'm not wanting any of these statistics (because we all
know how much you love your statistics). Just trying to point out to you
exactly why you irritate so many people]
Perhaps if you read what people write, rather than what you want to argue
against, you might not get on people's nerves quite so much.
Hope this helps,
Rod.
--
Rod Begbie @ http://www.begbie.com |
+----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| And in the end, the love you take
| Is equal to the love you make.
Andy Mabbett
>when can we have a uk.local.mid-wales?
As soon as you (or someone with sufficient interest) posts an RFD, and
after the subsequent debate and fast track or vote.
(FU to relevant ng only)
John EVANS
>
> I can assure you that my life, having lived in North Wales for 25 of my 27
> years, has not involved an emphasis on the Welsh language. I see none on
> TV,
fair enough, you don't have to watch any welsh programmes, it s your
life isn t it?
> hear virtually none on the street, and out of 30 or so work collegues,
> precisely 5 speak Welsh.
> My
your?
> culture certainly does not have a Welsh
> orientation and neither does my life or my priorities.
etc. etc.
And it would be extremely easy to write (with all honesty) the complete
opposite of this.
You don't consider Welsh important (and imply that nobody else in your
immediate vicinity does) but you can't speak for Wales.
James Coupe
<king...@kandam.demon.co.uk> writes
>In article <Q3Un1AAF...@obeah.demon.co.uk>, James Coupe
><ja...@nospam.demon.co.uk> writes
>>In article <C0UimkAq...@kandam.demon.co.uk>, Kingsley Matthews
>><king...@kandam.demon.co.uk> writes
>>>Hmmm, I would like the uk.* hierarchy to become honest and call itself
>>>the england.* hierarchy, however most English people seem incapable of
>>>distinguishing.
>No, I didn't.
Then it is clearly not an england.* hierarchy.
HAND.
--
James Coupe "Blu-Tack - the undiscoved unifying force"
"je veux jouer a l'assassin
je veux jouer de l'orgue de Barbarie." - Jacques Prevert
Iain Rae
<cr...@scot.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>I don't know why you felt it was helpful as I posted the full list there
>>>a few weeks ago.
>>
>>and Andy was expected to know that how? I'd refer you to his sig but
>>he's changed it.
>>
>Funny, I thought it was usual to read a group first before posting there
>so that you'd know your posting was on charter. Andy would know, because
>he should have read the group before posting there.
[*]
>
I took a quick look but didn't see your post (before following up
earlier on) so I assume it's been expired. Isn't it possible Andy did
the same?
>>>You should have removed the news: part and the hyphen
>>>to comply with the format there. Pay attention at the back!
>>>
>>
>>erm... why did you format it incorrectly in the first place?
>>
>Because it was originally formatted for HTML purposes and on posting it
>there I was informed of the separate formatting issues for
>news.admin.hierarchies
ah... see [*] above
>>
>>Pretty big loss of moral high ground relating to various comments on
>>not stepping on other peoples patches..
>>
>Don't blame me, I played no part in the creation or naming of those
>groups
>
>I've already asked earlier today:
>
>Although the descriptions of scot.general and scot.announce at the
>moment currently covers Berwick and the North of England. Maybe we could
>ask the people there how they feel about this and whether they're aware
>of it?
Nevertheless it seems odd that you have been arguing that uk.l.b
should not be created because it impinges on a "scottish" scot.*
hierarchy at the same time that the scot.* hierarchy is impinging on
uk.* (or the non-existant eng.*)
Adam Greenow
<f...@slewin.clara.net> writes
>Perhaps you folks haven't noticed but nationhood is not directly
>connected with top level domains in Usenet. Unless my geography is
>even worse that I believed there are no rec, sci, com, alt etc,
>nations.
There are domains dedicated to specific countries are there not?
>
>It is quite possible for any group of people to organize a Usenet
>domain for themselves. Pretty much all it takes is finding a name and
>then persuading thousands of news admins across the Usenet world to
>take it and you've cracked it. Go for it.
Thanks for the support.
>
>Where it gets controversial is when trying to tell the members of
>other, older, better established domains what groups they can have.
>Welsh , Scots, Yorkshiremen, Cornish, people from Tunstall, people
>with green hair living in Dunstable are all welcome to start their own
>specific domains. Where it gets silly is when they then insist that no
>other domain should be allowed to have a group which might attract
>"their" people. Usenet doesn't work like that and I hope it never
>will.
Has anyone made such a demand?
>
>You don't own an audience. You provide a facility, attempt to persuade
>newsadmins to give it propagation and hope people will read it. If you
>want a Welsh domain go get it organised. It has little or no impact on
>the uk domain.
>
>Steve
Well said.
--
Adam
Adam Greenow
<r...@begbie.com> writes
>> I feel your assertion that the Welsh can't communicate in Welsh simply
>> demonstrates how out of touch you are.
>
>Craig -
>
>This is a perfect example of a post that people find "irritating".
>
>A person who lives in Wales has posted some statistics which show that a
>small proportion of people living in Wales speak Welsh, and almost
>everyone can speak English. He then makes a comment about Welsh being
>mostly spoken, not written, following up with an example of the Welsh
>speakers he knows.
According to the 1991 census 508,000 people speak Welsh in Wales, 18.7%
of the population.
83% of the Welsh public feel that public bodies should be able to deal
with people in both Welsh and English. NOP March 1993
Recent trends suggest the language is growing, especially among young
people. Among 3-15 year olds 32.4% speak Welsh.
Considering the Prime Minister had to announce to parliament on the 13th
July that *Welsh was an official language of Wales*, demonstrates the
enduring nature of the language.
Hopefully the days when children went through school not learning a word
about their history or language are long over.
>
>And then you call him "out of touch", on the basis of there being an
>Internet mailing list called Welsh-L. You don't say what percentage of
>the people on that list can speak Welsh. You don't say what proportion of
>postings are *in* Welsh. You don't give any idea of how many posters
>there are on the list.
The list is almost 100% in Welsh. In fact there are three lists
dedicated to the Welsh language which shows the amount of interest there
is.
--
Adam
Adam Greenow
<ag...@netcomuk.co.uk> writes
>
>Considering the Prime Minister had to announce to parliament on the 13th
>July that *Welsh was an official language of Wales*, demonstrates the
>enduring nature of the language.
1993
--
Adam
Jeff Lewis
<Dave Thomas <Da...@qantam.demon.co.uk>> wrote :-
>In article <wAmRgGAC...@rhondda.demon.co.uk>, Jeff Lewis
><je...@rhondda.demon.co.uk> writes
>>
>>Dave, I agree that there is room for both uk* and wales* but I don't
>>understand why. You seem to be confusing the uk* hierarchy with some
>>sort of political agenda. The uk* hierarchy is a postal system which
>>will collect and deliver your post from most parts of the world.
>
>And Jeff, I do not understand why not. It is obvious that there are many
>people who would subscribe to a Welsh hierarchy - in order to create a
>forum which will enable the formation of a diverse variety of Welsh
>topic ngs. At the moment such ngs would require the sanction of people
>who have little or no interest in Welsh culture - my feeling is that
>such decisions are of little interest to the general uk and rightfully
>should be the provence of those who have a direct interest.
I am not against a wales.* hierarchy, if you proposed one I would
probably support it. All I'm saying is that if a mechanism is already in
place for you, or anyone else, to create ng's of your choice then why
not take advantage of it.
I don't understand your comments "...would require the sanction of...".
The uk* hierarchy is not an us and them scenario. If enough people want
a group or groups on Welsh culture then they would be created. There
have been no instances, that I've witnessed, where people with no
interest in a group have stopped its creation.
The creation of groups in a wales* hierarchy would be subject to certain
rules/criteria, I hope, and as such would/should require a consensus
before creation. How do you propose to restrict those with no interest
in a wales* group from voting against ?.
>
>A Welsh hierarchy would not as I say, prevent the formation of any Welsh
>ng that felt more comfortable within the uk hierarchy
I'm glad to hear that. :-)
>but it would
>possibly help to stimulate deeper Welsh involvement by those who at the
>moment find it difficult to find a Welsh forum for exploring specific
>aspects in more depth.
How ?. A group is a group, whatever hierarchy it's in. It's only an
address, not a way of life.
>It is likely that a distinct hierarchy would also reduce the plague of
>cross posting (which I know is being addressed) and you never know it
>may help to reduce troll targeting.
How ?. Unless a group is moderated, its door is wide open.
Dave, I think you are looking for a wales* hierarchy for the wrong
reasons. As I said before, if you want a wales* hierarchy for the good
of its users then I would support it, but it *could* create a Welsh
gheto. Our culture is for sharing, and we should allow it to propagate
as far as possible.
Hwyl fawr
--
Jeff "Ymswynwch rhag Gwyr y Gloran"
http://www.rhondda.demon.co.uk
.................. PGP KEY @ 0xDE609241 ..................
Kingsley Matthews
>when can we have a uk.local.mid-wales?
>
>hea...@cardiff.ac.uk
Because that would thoroughly the issue, it's bad enough now :)
--
Kingsley
Kingsley Matthews
<amab...@bham-assist.demon.co.uk> writes
>
>
>So you'll be posting an RFD to rename uk.local.north-wales as
>enlgand.local.north-wales? Ditto south-wales?
>
>Thought not.
>
>(Relevant ng only)
Do you have some sort of problem with Wales?
--
Kingsley
Bryan K
>>Blimey - I take it you haven't been anywhere near Rhyl lately then? I,
and
>>many others living here, would argue that the North Wales coast from
>>Llandudno eastwards has *much* more in common with England than with
Wales.
>>Surely it's better to split the difference and say we're all part of the
UK
>>rather than get into such divisive categorisation though?
>
>Cor blimey mate - by the same argument one might say that parts of
>Birmingham have more in common with Pakistan.
You mean they don't? My point is that if the Birmingham Pakistani community
wanted a newsgroup then it would be best named
uk.local.birmingham.pakistani rather than creating a whole new top-level
hierarchy and going for like pakistani.birmingham.local.
>I fail to see your logic.
>What has that to do with forming a hierarchy for the discussion of Welsh
>topics that is controlled by people with an interest in Welsh culture.
Why is it important who controls it? The whole argument has come down to
who controls the hierarchy when at the end of the day all we need are
sensibly named groups that serve the needs of those who want to use them.
The uk.* hierarchy does this very well - if it's not broke, why fix it?
At the risk of repeating statements done over the last month, I see myself
as a citizen of the UK - I'm not English, not Welsh, I'm British (if
anything). Personally I'd say I'm a human being living in the UK, I am not
a label. uk.* is established and it works, so why waste so much time and
effort setting up other top-levels? As someone pointed out a while ago -
"They're only bloody newsgroups".
>You have expressed positively that you have absolutely no interest in
>Welsh culture - Do you have a problem in accepting that there are a
>number of people in Wales that do?
None at all, I would encourage them to. But I think that we may have
different ideas of what "Welsh culture" is - is it women dressed as dolls
in big hats or reading Welsh poetry in an overly-animated way, or is it
Coronation Street, fish & chips, clubbin' it on a Saturday night and
complaining about the weather? Classical "Welsh culture" may well generate
enough interest for a group or two, but a whole hierarchy?
Bryan Kennerley mailto:b...@northwalesonline.freeserve.co.uk
North Wales Online - The Web Index for North Wales
http://www.northwalesonline.freeserve.co.uk/ (328 links and rising)
news:uk.local.north-wales