Ping: The Committee

[Stephen Thomas Cole]

Hello. I was just wondering on whether the Comittee has an official line
on how they desire UK.* to progress? Tony has, several times that I've
noticed, expressed that he thinks that the best path would be for the
hierarchy to collapse somewhat, to return to general topic groups rather
than very specific ones. Molly too, from what I can gather, seems to feel
likewise, or is, at the least, sceptical of further expansion.

If this is true of the Committee as a whole, does the committee feel that
there are any worthy exceptions to this? As you're all likely to know, I'm
the proponent for a new moderated amateur radio newsgroup, serving what
will, naturally, be a niche audience. I don't mind admitting that I've
felt a little exasperated at what I've perceived to be a quite
close-minded attitude at times from some to this expansion. The way I see
it is, given that there's already an unmoderated amateur radio newsgroup,
there's a provable potential audience already, perhaps in the dozens,
perhaps a little higher, but an audience all the same. An alternate free
of the anarchy of ukra *will* certainly benefit a proportion of that
existing audience. Now, the voting guidelines set, quite sensibly, a high
bar for success, a majority plus 12. This obviously prevents frivolous
expansion, but is it necessarily the best approach for a group that has a
provable potential audience already using the hierarchy? Does it best
serve the hierarchy to deny the creation of a group that will certainly
have an audience, if that group misses out on its majority slightly? Does
the status quo not sometimes harm the hierarchy more than making an
exception may?

I'm not looking for a flame war, I'm just thinking out loud (although that
has already got me in trouble once tonight...). I'm very interested in the
dynamics of all this, the whole thing is fascinating. Frankly, I'm a
little surprised to find such entrenched positions against expansion of
the hierarchy, although I'm just a newbie and I'm sure you all you
veterans have your perfectly sensible reasons.

Anyway, I hope no one takes offense!

--
-------------------
Stephen Thomas Cole
Remove the obvious to send e-mail: REMOVEste...@REMOVEgmail.com
-------------------

[Sara]

In article <REMOVEsteve.t.col...@192.168.0.139>,

REMOVEste...@REMOVEgmail.com (Stephen Thomas Cole) wrote:

>
> Anyway, I hope no one takes offense!

Offence? Nah. You've been keeping me faintly amused for weeks.

--
Billy doesn't clean his paws often enough. Mucky cat.

[Paul Cummins]

In article <REMOVEsteve.t.col...@192.168.0.139>,
REMOVEste...@REMOVEgmail.com (Stephen Thomas Cole) wrote:

> I was just wondering on whether the Comittee has an official line
> on how they desire UK.* to progress?

I'm going to wait for a few committee members to reply, before putting my
reasoned response to this.

Executive summary - I am in favour of contraction to an active core.

--
Paul Cummins - Always a NetHead
Wasting Bandwidth since 1981

---- If it's below this line, I didn't write it ----

[Sara]

In article <memo.2013052...@postmaster.cix.co.uk>,

uset...@stedtelephone.invalid (Paul Cummins) wrote:

> In article <REMOVEsteve.t.col...@192.168.0.139>,
> REMOVEste...@REMOVEgmail.com (Stephen Thomas Cole) wrote:
>
> > I was just wondering on whether the Comittee has an official line
> > on how they desire UK.* to progress?
>
> I'm going to wait for a few committee members to reply, before putting my
> reasoned response to this.
>
> Executive summary - I am in favour of contraction to an active core.

Do the committee need an official line? Different committee members will
have their own personal views, but as they have explained many times
recently, that's not their job.

[Molly Mockford]

At 20:01:31 on Tue, 21 May 2013, Stephen Thomas Cole
<REMOVEste...@REMOVEgmail.com> wrote in
<REMOVEsteve.t.col...@192.168.0.139>:

>Hello. I was just wondering on whether the Comittee has an official line
>on how they desire UK.* to progress?

The Committee as an entity does not enter into discussions in unnm (or
elsewhere). Individual Committee members express their individual
opinions, which may or may not mesh with each other. If you have a
question on which you want an official ruling from the Committee, the
way to go is to send an e-mail; the Committee members will then discuss
the matter on the internal mailing list and produce a response on behalf
of the Committee itself.
--
Molly - I don't speak for the Committee. I speak for me.
Nature loves variety. Unfortunately, society hates it. (Milton
Diamond Ph.D.)
My Reply-To address *is* valid, though may not be so for ever.

[Stephen Thomas Cole]

Molly Mockford <nospam...@mollymockford.me.uk> wrote:
> At 20:01:31 on Tue, 21 May 2013, Stephen Thomas Cole
> <REMOVEste...@REMOVEgmail.com> wrote in
> <REMOVEsteve.t.col...@192.168.0.139>:
>
>> Hello. I was just wondering on whether the Comittee has an official line
>> on how they desire UK.* to progress?
>
> The Committee as an entity does not enter into discussions in unnm (or
> elsewhere). Individual Committee members express their individual
> opinions, which may or may not mesh with each other. If you have a
> question on which you want an official ruling from the Committee, the way
> to go is to send an e-mail; the Committee members will then discuss the
> matter on the internal mailing list and produce a response on behalf of
> the Committee itself.

Oh, I don't want an official ruling (although I may yet take you up on
that), was just musing. I find the whole debate interesting, feels like
this old clunky thing is about to change into something else to take it
into the future. Like I said, fascinating.

If you're happy to, I'd love to hear your thoughts, Molly. If not, no
worries.

--
Stephen Thomas Cole - Sent from my iPhone so please forgive any spelling
mistakes or botched snipping.

[Stephen Thomas Cole]

Sara <sarame...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <REMOVEsteve.t.col...@192.168.0.139>,
> REMOVEste...@REMOVEgmail.com (Stephen Thomas Cole) wrote:
>
>>
>> Anyway, I hope no one takes offense!
>
> Offence? Nah. You've been keeping me faintly amused for weeks.

Happy to be of service.

[Molly Mockford]

At 19:34:21 on Tue, 21 May 2013, Stephen Thomas Cole
<REMOVEste...@REMOVEgmail.com> wrote in
<207690383390857426.898969REMO...@news.eternal
-september.org>:

I am in favour of removing as many unused groups as possible; the
namespace has to be kept pruned, so that people are not put off by
trying empty group after empty group. Concomitantly, I am not in favour
of the creation of new groups at this time unless there is a clear and
proven need for them, in the form of people who need a group to discuss
a subject which is either not on-topic in other groups, or is
overwhelming an existing group whose remit is wider. "Build it and they
will come" has been shown, over and over again, not to work no matter
how optimistic the proponent may be.

[Stephen Thomas Cole]

In article <mvsS2Cie...@molly.mockford>, Molly Mockford

<usene...@mollymockford.me.uk> wrote:

>
> I am in favour of removing as many unused groups as possible; the
> namespace has to be kept pruned, so that people are not put off by
> trying empty group after empty group.

This makes sense and I thoroughly agree with you.

>Concomitantly, I am not in favour
> of the creation of new groups at this time

Why not "at this time"? Is there a future time that you expect that the
creation of new groups will be appropriate in? If so, what is different
about then and now?

>unless there is a clear and
> proven need for them, in the form of people who need a group to discuss
> a subject which is either not on-topic in other groups, or is
> overwhelming an existing group whose remit is wider.

OK, all sounds sensible, but, looking at the amateur radio group as a for
example, there *are* issues there, beyond the crapflood, that render it
difficult to use, alienating a part of its audience who are only looking
at it as their interests are of the niche that the group is designed to
serve and will not be satisfied by any other group in the hierarchy. A
moderated group will offer an alternative for those who do not wish to
engage in fending off abuse. Does this not serve to make UK.* a stronger
hierarchy, having the unfiltered anarcy alongside the sanitised "clean
feed", giving a home to those who otherwise would not post? Now, I know
that the immediate comparison to make in this instance is urc/urcm, but,
as Tony (I think, I may be wrong...) pointed out a while ago, despite the
very noisy storm that surrounds it, urcm does actually fulfill its
function; the facilitation of discsussion of cycling.

> "Build it and they
> will come" has been shown, over and over again, not to work no matter
> how optimistic the proponent may be.

Again, my proposal for the moderated amateur group does not actually say
that at any point. It is aimed to serve the provable potential audience
that already uses or reads ukra. It is, however, perfectly reasonable to
expect a successfull and well run new moderated group to attract new
users, whether they be lapsed ukra users or new to the hierarchy
altogether.

[Paul Cummins]

In article <memo.2013052...@postmaster.cix.co.uk>,
uset...@stedtelephone.invalid (Paul Cummins) wrote:

> *From:* uset...@stedtelephone.invalid (Paul Cummins)
> *Date:* Tue, 21 May 2013 20:10 +0100 (BST)

>
> In article <REMOVEsteve.t.col...@192.168.0.139>,
> REMOVEste...@REMOVEgmail.com (Stephen Thomas Cole) wrote:
>
> > I was just wondering on whether the Comittee has an official line
> > on how they desire UK.* to progress?
>
> I'm going to wait for a few committee members to reply, before
> putting my
> reasoned response to this.
>
> Executive summary - I am in favour of contraction to an active core.

OK.

I've been using Usenet since at least 1998, and I still consider myself a
newbie among luminaries such as Clive Feather, Charles Lindsey and others.
Usenet has existed far longer, of course, since early 1980.

I've seen groups grow, i've seen them die, and I've seen the gradual
contraction of the number of group users down from the tens of thousands
to the tens of hundreds, certainly in UK. I've tried to create groups,
I've helped to kill some where required, and throughout this time, I've
taken an active role in UK.*

The thing about UK Usenet to me is this. We (TINW) are allowed a little
bit of a number of global servers, that we can call our own. We control
it, we manage it and we decide what goes on in it. This was initially
because BT, Pipex, Demon and a fourth provider were the biggest 4 Usenet
suppliers to the UK, and we (again, TINW) agreed with them to set up a
committee to manage this little bit of space on the Internet.

This happened back in 1995, so this is approaching 20 years of history.

And we manage this little bit of the Internet. We don't simply sit and
stagnate, we create, we destroy, we tend and nurture if needed. We, the
users of the uk hierarchy, manage the uk hierarchy.

This is why he have the Guidelines you appeared to have dismissed so
readily, this is why we have the group charters, the committee, Control
with his "magic" keys. And because we manage it, it is respected. We make
very few demands on the Usenet suppliers - a UK full feed amounts to
about 25MB a day - Tony keeps activity logs for the hierarchy, I don't
bother even though I take a full feed from several sources.

My first post to unnc was in 1999. I was using a different email address
then, now long since spammed to eternity, but still the same basic sig as
I do today. I note that my first ever committee election where I took
part was 2001, and that is the year when I consider that I became an
"active" participant in the UK Hierarchy. Along the way I have made
acquaintance with many people, some of whom I would like to consider
friends, none of whom I would consider genuine enemies, though there are
adversaries out there.

I have said before, there is no-one in unnc/m who I would not happily buy
a drink for, though there are some (very few now) who would not be
allowed to drink it.

This is, ultimately, a safe and friendly place. The fact I am a dog
doesn't matter. The fact I vanished, twice, without what some would call
"valid cause" doesn't matter. The fact I am a (insert preferred epithet)
doesn't matter. I am ultimately accepted as someone who wants to take
part, and my views are as respected, or derided, as anyone else's.

In my mind, this changed somewhat in 2009. I do not intend to rehash the
year, suffice to say that the Chiabal did not succeed in their
reverse-takeover, and the result is the URCM abortion.

I give you this little potted history of my Usenet experience to show you
in reasoned terms why I think your proposal is hasty, misguided and
ill-motivated.

Coming to your specific question now - the UK hierarchy should contract,
to focus the value of its users into effective groups that remain. There
is no point in diluting activity by setting up unnecessary moderated
groups. If you are offended by what someone does here, killfile them,
don't force other people to change their ways just because it doesn't
suit yours. UKRA works as it is.

Your RFD *is* a "build it and they will come" RFD but ultimately, they
are *not* coming to Usenet. You are firmly in the minority, as a relative
newcomer, and you seem to think that Usenet exists as the back-end of
Google Groups, or that it exists as the Front-End of usenet. This is not
the case, Google Groups does not add to Usenet, in the same way that
AOL's Eternal September of 1993 did not add to Usenet. A newcomer will
try both groups, find that neither is very active (only 80,000 licensed
amateurs in the UK) and leave again.

Many (groups and participants) have fallen by the wayside in this
hierarchy. Only a few remain. Please, remain, but do not try to make your
own, that which is our heritage.

Finally, the committee's job is to do as little as is necessary to keep
things running smoothly, not to actively promote or proscribe. I would
consider it a very successful year if the committee did not have to
actually announce anything other than the next elections.

[Stephen Thomas Cole]

In article <memo.2013052...@postmaster.cix.co.uk>,
Usenet....@gstgroup.co.uk wrote:
<snip>

>
> Coming to your specific question now - the UK hierarchy should contract,
> to focus the value of its users into effective groups that remain. There
> is no point in diluting activity by setting up unnecessary moderated
> groups. If you are offended by what someone does here, killfile them,
> don't force other people to change their ways just because it doesn't
> suit yours. UKRA works as it is.

Whilst ukra certainly *functions*, in that it receives messages posted by
radio amateurs, it is a stretch to suggest that it serves some
constructive purpose, other than acting as a playpen for a few individuals
and their pretty whacky behaviour. There remains a hardcore of users who
post to the group, the majority of their output consists of flames of
varying intensity. There are the odd threads each week that stay largely
on-topic and sensible but they are all a gant's pube away from being
derailed and sent into abusive nonsense. This is a sorry state of affairs.

Going to your more general point, the contraction of UK.*, would you
envisage the CB group being contracted back into ukra? Or ukra contracted
back into uk.tech? What would, do you think, be the reaction of the great
and good of ukra to these changes? How would the denizens of uk.tech feel
about all of a sudden accomodating ukra?

I agree with the point that dead, specialized groups are worthless and
that there is no harm in removing them, but ukra is active and serves an
audience, so to remove it would do them a disservice. However, there is a
section of that audience who are no longer adaquetely served by ukra and
for whom the moderated group would offer a welcome alternative. Their
interest is niche and is not met by any other group in the hierarchy.
Maintaining the status quo offers them nothing and UK.* will eventually
lose these users, permanently. is this good for the hierarchy?

>
> Your RFD *is* a "build it and they will come" RFD but ultimately, they
> are *not* coming to Usenet.

It is not, at all. Such a sentiment is not a part of the RFD. I do,
howevr, believe that it is a perfectly reasonable statement to say that a
well run, civilized and active moderated group may eventually attract new
users.

You are firmly in the minority, as a relative
> newcomer, and you seem to think that Usenet exists as the back-end of
> Google Groups, or that it exists as the Front-End of usenet.

I do not at all. The importance that I see in the Google Groups portal is
that its archived Usenet postings are often returned quite high in search
results, leading to a relatively high level of exposure.

>This is not
> the case, Google Groups does not add to Usenet, in the same way that
> AOL's Eternal September of 1993 did not add to Usenet. A newcomer will
> try both groups, find that neither is very active (only 80,000 licensed
> amateurs in the UK) and leave again.
>

Only 80,000 amateurs in the UK... If 0.1% of those used ukram I would be
elated and we would have a successfull group on our hands.

> Many (groups and participants) have fallen by the wayside in this
> hierarchy. Only a few remain. Please, remain, but do not try to make your
> own, that which is our heritage.

Why not try and make my own? Which I'm not doing, actually. I'm trying to
make a group that will benefit myself and others who are sick of the
current state of ukra. If you pore through the ukra archive you will find
multiple occaisions where people in ukra have suggested exactly what I am
doing, but they have *always* been shouted down. There is an audience for
this moderated group, that much is provable, There is also a wider benefit
for UK.* insofar as a portion of its users could potentially be prevented
from giving up on the thing for a while yet.

And, ultimately, what is there to lose? If it all pans out as you predict
and the group goes nowhere, what is the damage? All that will need to
happen is for an RFD to be posted requesting its removal as a dead group.
No big deal, right? The only possible flaw I can see in this is that some
servers may not honour the remove request, so it may linger on in some
zombie form in some places. But if the alternative possibility is a
successfull, useful, active group is formed, isn't thisa risk worth
taking? I'm happy to admit my relative ignorance on how Usenet and UK.*
works and will happily hear any fine detail that puts this into greater
perspective.

>
> Finally, the committee's job is to do as little as is necessary to keep
> things running smoothly, not to actively promote or proscribe. I would
> consider it a very successful year if the committee did not have to
> actually announce anything other than the next elections.

Sounds like a cushy number! Also sounds like a recipe for entropy. At some
point somebody has to get proactive, or this whole thing will simply
wither into stagnation. Tony has already produced figures that predict a
total dearth of activity within a few short years, isn't anybody thinking
of ways to arrest that?

[Stephen Thomas Cole]

In article <REMOVEsteve.t.col...@192.168.0.139>,
REMOVEste...@REMOVEgmail.com (Stephen Thomas Cole) wrote:

> a gant's pube

Gnat's pube, obv. Bloody speed-typing ain't what it was.

[Paul Cummins]

In article <REMOVEsteve.t.col...@192.168.0.139>,
REMOVEste...@REMOVEgmail.com (Stephen Thomas Cole) wrote:

> However, there is a
> section of that audience who are no longer adaquetely served by
> ukra and for whom the moderated group would offer a welcome
> alternative.

I haven't seen a single current user of ukra agree with you, and several
admitted lurkers (mollie being one) have also contradicted you.

> Which I'm not doing, actually. I'm trying to
> make a group that will benefit myself and others who are sick of the
> current state of ukra.

They support you in email then?

> If you pore through the ukra archive you will find
> multiple occaisions where people in ukra have suggested exactly
> what I am doing, but they have *always* been shouted down.

Exactly - there is no need.

> But if the alternative possibility is a
> successfull, useful, active group is formed, isn't thisa risk worth
> taking?

You are missing the third alternative - that it forms yet another
moderated group that quickly falls into disrepute. Did you read what I
said about managing the hierarchy?

> Tony has already produced figures that predict a
> total dearth of activity within a few short years, isn't anybody
> thinking of ways to arrest that?

Usenet is no longer offered by most ISPs in the US or the UK, and those
that do normally outsource it to Gradwell, Giganews or similar.

It's not us killing it. Nor is it my job to make other people use it.

[Stephen Thomas Cole]

In article <memo.2013052...@postmaster.cix.co.uk>,
Usenet....@gstgroup.co.uk wrote:

> In article <REMOVEsteve.t.col...@192.168.0.139>,
> REMOVEste...@REMOVEgmail.com (Stephen Thomas Cole) wrote:
>
> > However, there is a
> > section of that audience who are no longer adaquetely served by
> > ukra and for whom the moderated group would offer a welcome
> > alternative.
>
> I haven't seen a single current user of ukra agree with you, and several
> admitted lurkers (mollie being one) have also contradicted you.

Then you haven't been paying enough attention. Please re-read the 1st RFD
thread and the Summary of Discussion.

>
> > Which I'm not doing, actually. I'm trying to
> > make a group that will benefit myself and others who are sick of the
> > current state of ukra.
>
> They support you in email then?

A couple of individuals have, yes. Probably not willing to put their heads
above the parapet for fear of taking a flaming.

>
> > If you pore through the ukra archive you will find
> > multiple occaisions where people in ukra have suggested exactly
> > what I am doing, but they have *always* been shouted down.
>
> Exactly - there is no need.

This doesn't suggest that at all. It merely shows that, so far,
individuals looking for an alternative have decided to not fight against
the shrieks of disapproval. I'm more stubborn than that.

>
> > But if the alternative possibility is a
> > successfull, useful, active group is formed, isn't thisa risk worth
> > taking?
>
> You are missing the third alternative - that it forms yet another
> moderated group that quickly falls into disrepute. Did you read what I
> said about managing the hierarchy?

You say "yet another" group. Which other groups are you referring to? The
Yorkshire one failed, and urcm is *supposedly* in trouble, but then again,
I'm sure that there will be many users of urcm who will say the opposite.
So, we are left with one failed moderated group. That's not a convincing
arguement, Paul.

>
> > Tony has already produced figures that predict a
> > total dearth of activity within a few short years, isn't anybody
> > thinking of ways to arrest that?
>
> Usenet is no longer offered by most ISPs in the US or the UK, and those
> that do normally outsource it to Gradwell, Giganews or similar.
>
> It's not us killing it. Nor is it my job to make other people use it.

I never said that it was *your* job. I was asking if anybody was thinking
of ways that this supposed terminal decline could be arrested. *You* can't
and won't be forced to do anything, but you should not actively stand in
the way of those who wish to try and make a difference. I just don't see
the sense in accepting that the thing will be dead in a few years and not
giving a fuck about it.

[kat]

And I think much the same.

I would add though, that while removing dead groups is desirable, I am not
keen on amalgamating existing groups, as long as they are still used,
however small the user base might be. Groups have their own identity and
culture, and shoe horning a few new people in doesn't always work. It's a
good way to just lose posters, and risks the overwhelming of one topic or
another.

As to the merits or otherwise of adding moderated versions alongside
existing groups - some work, some don't, some seem to cause more trouble
than they are worth. Let's keep the discussion of your proposal in one
place.


--
kat
>^..^<

[Stephen Thomas Cole]

In article <b03bhn...@mid.individual.net>, "kat"

<little...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> I would add though, that while removing dead groups is desirable, I am not
> keen on amalgamating existing groups, as long as they are still used,
> however small the user base might be.

This is an interesting point. How small does an audience have to be for a
group to be considered dead/inactive? Is it absolute zero, sustained for
many months? If there are two posters who exchange messages once or twice
every six months, is that to be considered still active? Whilst I do not
disagree with trashing truly dead groups, I think that there is a danger
that small, maybe very niche, audiences are in danger of not being served
by the hierarchy if groups are deleted or compressed too readily.

>
> As to the merits or otherwise of adding moderated versions alongside
> existing groups - some work, some don't, some seem to cause more trouble
> than they are worth.

In what circumstances do you think that some moderated groups are doomed
to failure and are there cases where this can be predicted before
creation?

[Mike Bristow]

In article <REMOVEsteve.t.col...@192.168.0.139>,

Stephen Thomas Cole <REMOVEste...@REMOVEgmail.com> wrote:
> This is an interesting point. How small does an audience have to be for a
> group to be considered dead/inactive?

It depends on what the purpose of the group is. An announcement
group can have very few posts and still be useful (indeed, one could
argue that they key thing about such a group is that it is a low
volume group).

Discussion groups, on the other hand, are rather poinless if there
is no discussion in them - but even there, traffic can flow and
change with the season. One could imagine a group discussing
football being much quieter in the summer than the winter, for
example.

I think it is foolish to make hard-and-fast rules.

> Is it absolute zero, sustained for
> many months?

No. See, e.g., my proposal to remove uk.local.london.info. It has
posts that are (arguably!) on topic monthly, but the consensus is
(so far!) that the group is dead.

> If there are two posters who exchange messages once or twice
> every six months, is that to be considered still active? Whilst I do not
> disagree with trashing truly dead groups, I think that there is a danger
> that small, maybe very niche, audiences are in danger of not being served
> by the hierarchy if groups are deleted or compressed too readily.

I think the danger you highlight is very real, but as proposals to
remove groups are posted to the groups themselves, it is unlikely
to be realized: if folk pop up in the discussion following the RFD
and say "Oi! I use this group! leave it alone!", then I don't
believe the group would be deleted unless the community feels that
their usage of the group was abusive.

>> As to the merits or otherwise of adding moderated versions alongside
>> existing groups - some work, some don't, some seem to cause more trouble
>> than they are worth.
>
> In what circumstances do you think that some moderated groups are doomed
> to failure and are there cases where this can be predicted before
> creation?

That's a good question. TL;DW: experience will predict it.

--
Mike Bristow mi...@urgle.com

[Paul Cummins]

In article <memo.2013052...@postmaster.cix.co.uk>,
uset...@stedtelephone.invalid (Paul Cummins) wrote:

> (mollie being one)

I apologise profusely - that's MollY, of course...

[Paul Cummins]

In article <REMOVEsteve.t.col...@192.168.0.139>,
REMOVEste...@REMOVEgmail.com (Stephen Thomas Cole) wrote:

> A couple of individuals have, yes. Probably not willing to put
> their heads above the parapet for fear of taking a flaming.

So that's three...

I know you have at least 2 votes against you, so as it stands you need 11
more.

And if they can't take a flaming, this is the wrong frying pan for them
too.

[kat]

Stephen Thomas Cole wrote:
> In article <b03bhn...@mid.individual.net>, "kat"
> <little...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> I would add though, that while removing dead groups is desirable, I
>> am not keen on amalgamating existing groups, as long as they are
>> still used, however small the user base might be.
>
> This is an interesting point. How small does an audience have to be
> for a group to be considered dead/inactive? Is it absolute zero,
> sustained for many months? If there are two posters who exchange
> messages once or twice every six months, is that to be considered
> still active? Whilst I do not disagree with trashing truly dead
> groups, I think that there is a danger that small, maybe very niche,
> audiences are in danger of not being served by the hierarchy if
> groups are deleted or compressed too readily.

I wouldn't like to get into specifics of how many posters and how often they
post. That is why we discuss each removal, as in other than obviously dead
groups, the circumstances will vary.

>
>>
>> As to the merits or otherwise of adding moderated versions alongside
>> existing groups - some work, some don't, some seem to cause more
>> trouble than they are worth.
>
> In what circumstances do you think that some moderated groups are
> doomed to failure and are there cases where this can be predicted
> before creation?

First define failure. The posters to urcm might consider the group has
done what they wanted, if what they wanted was a group free of squabbling.
To my mind all it did was shift squabbles to other groups which are not in
the least interested. That fails the hierarchy. The legal group was formed
for similar reasons, but works just fine alongside the unmoderated version.
The moderation policy and the way it is applied would seem to be the
difference in those two cases. In hindsight the outcome of the creation of
urcm was probably clear. That hindsight is certain to be applied to other
proposals, by at least some of the people interested enough to vote.


--
kat
>^..^<

[Mike Bristow]

In article <b03g28...@mid.individual.net>,

kat <little...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> To my mind all it did was shift squabbles to other groups which are not in
> the least interested.

If they're uninteresting, why don't you killfile them and move on? Wasn't
that the argument?

--
Mike Bristow mi...@urgle.com

[Stephen Thomas Cole]

In article <slrnkpp1f...@cheddar.urgle.com>, Mike Bristow

<mi...@urgle.com> wrote:

> It depends on what the purpose of the group is. An announcement
> group can have very few posts and still be useful (indeed, one could
> argue that they key thing about such a group is that it is a low
> volume group).
>
> Discussion groups, on the other hand, are rather poinless if there
> is no discussion in them - but even there, traffic can flow and
> change with the season. One could imagine a group discussing
> football being much quieter in the summer than the winter, for
> example.
>
> I think it is foolish to make hard-and-fast rules.

Agreed.

>
> I think the danger you highlight is very real, but as proposals to
> remove groups are posted to the groups themselves, it is unlikely
> to be realized: if folk pop up in the discussion following the RFD
> and say "Oi! I use this group! leave it alone!", then I don't
> believe the group would be deleted unless the community feels that
> their usage of the group was abusive.

That's the hope, certainly. In practice, though, would one or two lone
voices be enough to halt the monolithic juggernaut of an RFD? Consensus
rules, but in these cases does it not actually potentially disenfranchise
small audiences?

> >
> > In what circumstances do you think that some moderated groups are doomed
> > to failure and are there cases where this can be predicted before
> > creation?
>
> That's a good question. TL;DW: experience will predict it.

And the experience that I gather most will refer to is urcm which, going
by the general tone that's prevalent, does not bode well for many future
groups being successfull, certainly not without a terrific fight (as I'm
currently embroiled in with the radio RFD...). Which I think is a real
shame, and can very easily result in total stagnation.

[Stephen Thomas Cole]

In article <b03g28...@mid.individual.net>, "kat"
<little...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> First define failure. The posters to urcm might consider the group has
> done what they wanted, if what they wanted was a group free of squabbling.
> To my mind all it did was shift squabbles to other groups which are not in
> the least interested. That fails the hierarchy.

Well, is the group to serve its audience or the hierarchy? If there is a
community of users that are perfectly happy with the group, does that not
outweigh the collateral damage?

>The legal group was formed
> for similar reasons, but works just fine alongside the unmoderated version.
> The moderation policy and the way it is applied would seem to be the
> difference in those two cases. In hindsight the outcome of the creation of
> urcm was probably clear. That hindsight is certain to be applied to other
> proposals, by at least some of the people interested enough to vote.

Yes, I think that there is much to be learned from the urcm saga,
primarily in transpancy of moderation, if only to utterly disarm those
that seek to disrupt the group.

[kat]

Mike Bristow wrote:
> In article <b03g28...@mid.individual.net>,
> kat <little...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> To my mind all it did was shift squabbles to other groups which are
>> not in the least interested.
>
> If they're uninteresting, why don't you killfile them and move on?
> Wasn't that the argument?

As a member of the committee I really don't think I should killfile people
in the management groups. The same goes for subjects. The complaint
leading to the squabbling can be genuine.


--
kat
>^..^<

[Stephen Thomas Cole]

In article <memo.2013052...@postmaster.cix.co.uk>,
Usenet....@gstgroup.co.uk wrote:

> In article <REMOVEsteve.t.col...@192.168.0.139>,
> REMOVEste...@REMOVEgmail.com (Stephen Thomas Cole) wrote:
>
> > A couple of individuals have, yes. Probably not willing to put
> > their heads above the parapet for fear of taking a flaming.
>
> So that's three...

Oh, Paul. More than 2 people have emailed me their support. Through RFD 1
there were also a good number of individuals voicing their support.

>
> I know you have at least 2 votes against you, so as it stands you need 11
> more.

Oh, there's more than 2 against, old chap, let's not kid ourselves. If the
vote fails, which it may well do due to the high bar for success set by
the guidelines, then I will be disappointed, sure, but not as disappointed
as I would have been had I done nothing. As it goes, I'm conducting the
process properly, submitting evolutions of the proposal to the community,
listening to their feedback and revising until such time that I feel the
proposal is as strong as it can be. It's then over to the community to
decide. Whatever comes of it, I think it will be fair to say that I've
added something constructive to the UK.* hierarchy, even if only
temporarily. Can you hand on heart say the same for your UK.* tenure?

>
> And if they can't take a flaming, this is the wrong frying pan for them
> too.

I don't really know what you mean here. Is this to be construed as a
threat against those who choose to post/vote in favour of the moderated
group, that you will flame them if they do? Because it looks that way to
me, and that would be despicable, Paul.

[kat]

Stephen Thomas Cole wrote:
> In article <b03g28...@mid.individual.net>, "kat"
> <little...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> First define failure. The posters to urcm might consider the group
>> has done what they wanted, if what they wanted was a group free of
>> squabbling. To my mind all it did was shift squabbles to other
>> groups which are not in the least interested. That fails the
>> hierarchy.
>
> Well, is the group to serve its audience or the hierarchy? If there
> is a community of users that are perfectly happy with the group, does
> that not outweigh the collateral damage?

One annot make hard and fast rules over that either. There are many things
in any society which a set of people like but society as a whole doesn't
want. Some don't matter, some are harmful. But if the hierarchy falls into
disrepute it doesn't do the group any good. It might be extreme, but if the
news service providers decide they don't like uk anymore the group won't get
propagated.

>
>> The legal group was formed
>> for similar reasons, but works just fine alongside the unmoderated
>> version. The moderation policy and the way it is applied would seem
>> to be the difference in those two cases. In hindsight the outcome
>> of the creation of urcm was probably clear. That hindsight is
>> certain to be applied to other proposals, by at least some of the
>> people interested enough to vote.
>
> Yes, I think that there is much to be learned from the urcm saga,
> primarily in transpancy of moderation, if only to utterly disarm those
> that seek to disrupt the group.

You might like to start by committing the policy to ignoring who is posting
and caring only about what they are posting. And even then to only banning
abusive posts. I don't care how strict that bit is - people can learn to
stay within the limits - but a policy designed to remove certain people, or
on topic subjects, will cause trouble, however transparent it is.


--
kat
>^..^<

[Stephen Thomas Cole]

In article <b03ikt...@mid.individual.net>, "kat"

<little...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> One annot make hard and fast rules over that either. There are many things
> in any society which a set of people like but society as a whole doesn't
> want. Some don't matter, some are harmful. But if the hierarchy falls into
> disrepute it doesn't do the group any good. It might be extreme, but if the
> news service providers decide they don't like uk anymore the group won't get
> propagated.
>

Noted, and point conceded. One imagines that there would have to be
*major* disruption, though, before this could become a reality, far more
than the upset associated with urcm, no?

> You might like to start by committing the policy to ignoring who is posting
> and caring only about what they are posting. And even then to only banning
> abusive posts. I don't care how strict that bit is - people can learn to
> stay within the limits - but a policy designed to remove certain people, or
> on topic subjects, will cause trouble, however transparent it is.

Yes, this does seem a foolish practice, and one that I will not emulate in
the radio group proposal.

[kat]

Stephen Thomas Cole wrote:
> In article <slrnkpp1f...@cheddar.urgle.com>, Mike Bristow
> <mi...@urgle.com> wrote:
>
>> It depends on what the purpose of the group is. An announcement
>> group can have very few posts and still be useful (indeed, one could
>> argue that they key thing about such a group is that it is a low
>> volume group).
>>
>> Discussion groups, on the other hand, are rather poinless if there
>> is no discussion in them - but even there, traffic can flow and
>> change with the season. One could imagine a group discussing
>> football being much quieter in the summer than the winter, for
>> example.
>>
>> I think it is foolish to make hard-and-fast rules.
>
> Agreed.
>
>>
>> I think the danger you highlight is very real, but as proposals to
>> remove groups are posted to the groups themselves, it is unlikely
>> to be realized: if folk pop up in the discussion following the RFD
>> and say "Oi! I use this group! leave it alone!", then I don't
>> believe the group would be deleted unless the community feels that
>> their usage of the group was abusive.
>
> That's the hope, certainly. In practice, though, would one or two lone
> voices be enough to halt the monolithic juggernaut of an RFD?
> Consensus rules, but in these cases does it not actually potentially
> disenfranchise small audiences?
>

No-one dies if the group is given ( say ) a 6 month reprieve and removal
revisited later on. The proponent would have to hate the group to continue
with RFDs and votes if folk do want to use it.


--
kat
>^..^<

[Paul Cummins]

In article <REMOVEsteve.t.col...@192.168.0.139>,
REMOVEste...@REMOVEgmail.com (Stephen Thomas Cole) wrote:

> Can you hand on heart say the same for your UK.* tenure?

Yes.

> I don't really know what you mean here.

Usenet is a place where robust argument occurs. Flaming, and being flamed,
is part of that, and has been for many years. I have suffered my share.

> Is this to be construed as a
> threat against those who choose to post/vote in favour of the
> moderated group, that you will flame them if they do?

That is a gutter comment sir, and earns you a place in my killfile
outside of he management froups.

[kat]

Stephen Thomas Cole wrote:
> In article <b03ikt...@mid.individual.net>, "kat"
> <little...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> One annot make hard and fast rules over that either. There are many
>> things in any society which a set of people like but society as a
>> whole doesn't want. Some don't matter, some are harmful. But if
>> the hierarchy falls into disrepute it doesn't do the group any good.
>> It might be extreme, but if the news service providers decide they
>> don't like uk anymore the group won't get propagated.
>>
>
> Noted, and point conceded. One imagines that there would have to be
> *major* disruption, though, before this could become a reality, far
> more than the upset associated with urcm, no?
>

For sure. I said it was extreme. Allowing the few their desire is fine if
it causes no harm. But we have to limit harm.


--
kat
>^..^<

[Stephen Thomas Cole]

In article <memo.2013052...@postmaster.cix.co.uk>,
Usenet....@gstgroup.co.uk wrote:

> > I don't really know what you mean here.
>
> Usenet is a place where robust argument occurs. Flaming, and being flamed,
> is part of that, and has been for many years. I have suffered my share.
>

Moderation has also been a part of Usenet for many years, is there a
reason why you are for one supposed vital element of Usenet but against
another? You see, if you're saying "Flaming is part of Usenet, deal with
it" then the response must surely be "So's moderation, you deal with
that!".

> > Is this to be construed as a
> > threat against those who choose to post/vote in favour of the
> > moderated group, that you will flame them if they do?
>
> That is a gutter comment sir, and earns you a place in my killfile
> outside of he management froups.

There was more than enough ambiguity in your statement for that
interpretation to be made, so I had to call you on it for no reason other
than to be able to refer back to it in the future should any ghastly
action such as that take place. I do hope it is not the case, Paul, but I
have seen some borderline behaviour from you on UK.* in the past (recent
and further out) and I would not necessarily discount it as a possibility
entirely. At the least, you confirming that you will not flame those who
vote for the group should act as a clarification of your statement for all
concerned and you should be pleased to have made it.

[Mike Bristow]

In article <REMOVEsteve.t.col...@192.168.0.139>,
Stephen Thomas Cole <REMOVEste...@REMOVEgmail.com> wrote:

>> I think the danger you highlight is very real, but as proposals to
>> remove groups are posted to the groups themselves, it is unlikely
>> to be realized: if folk pop up in the discussion following the RFD
>> and say "Oi! I use this group! leave it alone!", then I don't
>> believe the group would be deleted unless the community feels that
>> their usage of the group was abusive.
>
> That's the hope, certainly. In practice, though, would one or two lone
> voices be enough to halt the monolithic juggernaut of an RFD?

one or two lone voices merely have to convince half-a-dozen folk to abstain
to make the CVF to fail due to a lack of support (or half that to actively
vote against).

> Consensus
> rules, but in these cases does it not actually potentially disenfranchise
> small audiences?

There is a built in bias towards the status-quo to help counter that
tendancy.

--
Mike Bristow mi...@urgle.com

[Paul Cummins]

In article <REMOVEsteve.t.col...@192.168.0.139>,
REMOVEste...@REMOVEgmail.com (Stephen Thomas Cole) wrote:

> I do hope it is not the case, Paul, but I
> have seen some borderline behaviour from you on UK.* in the past
> (recent and further out)

Last time I looked, I did not answer to you.

> you confirming that you will not flame those who
> vote for the group should act as a clarification of your statement
> for all concerned and you should be pleased to have made it.

Those who vote as they do are active participants. I may flame them for
other reasons, but not for their vote.

[Stephen Thomas Cole]

In article <memo.2013052...@postmaster.cix.co.uk>,
Usenet....@gstgroup.co.uk wrote:

> In article <REMOVEsteve.t.col...@192.168.0.139>,
> REMOVEste...@REMOVEgmail.com (Stephen Thomas Cole) wrote:
>
> > I do hope it is not the case, Paul, but I
> > have seen some borderline behaviour from you on UK.* in the past
> > (recent and further out)
>
> Last time I looked, I did not answer to you.

I never said that you did. I merely pointed out that behaviour from you
such as flaming the for-voters would not come as a complete shock to me.

>
> > you confirming that you will not flame those who
> > vote for the group should act as a clarification of your statement
> > for all concerned and you should be pleased to have made it.
>
> Those who vote as they do are active participants. I may flame them for
> other reasons, but not for their vote.

What reasons would you harrass these people for then? I'm interested to
understand where you think the line exists after which you feel justified
in attacking people.

[Paul Cummins]

In article <REMOVEsteve.t.col...@192.168.0.139>,
REMOVEste...@REMOVEgmail.com (Stephen Thomas Cole) wrote:

> What reasons would you harrass these people for then?

I have not suggested at any point that I would harass anyone.

I submit that you are giving away who your puppet-master is with such
comments.

[Stephen Thomas Cole]

In article <memo.2013052...@postmaster.cix.co.uk>,
Usenet....@gstgroup.co.uk wrote:

> I have not suggested at any point that I would harass anyone.

You said that you would flame them for unspecified reasons.

>
> I submit that you are giving away who your puppet-master is with such
> comments.

If you insist, you're more than welcome to believe anything you like! Or
you could just accept that many of your posts have an undercurrent of
menace beneath the surface. IMO, of course.

[Paul Cummins]

In article <REMOVEsteve.t.col...@192.168.0.139>,
REMOVEste...@REMOVEgmail.com (Stephen Thomas Cole) wrote:

> You said that you would flame them for unspecified reasons.

I said I "May" flame them...

When will you stop beating your wife?

[Tony]

On 2013-05-22, Paul Cummins <uset...@stedtelephone.invalid> wrote:

> Usenet is no longer offered by most ISPs in the US or the UK, and those
> that do normally outsource it to Gradwell, Giganews or similar.

For reference, Gradwell outsourced their news service to readnews a
couple of years ago (maybe longer, I forget), and so don't provide any
Usenet service beyond that.

--
Tony Evans
Saving trees and wasting electrons since 1993
blog -> http://perceptionistruth.com/
books -> http://www.bookthing.co.uk/
[ anything below this line wasn't written by me ]

[Stephen Thomas Cole]

In article <memo.2013052...@postmaster.cix.co.uk>,
Usenet....@gstgroup.co.uk wrote:

> I said I "May" flame them...

Why may you harrass them, though? What could provoke such in you and why
can you so comfortably predict that it may happen?

>
> When will you stop beating your wife?

Oh, let's not get silly now, Paul. I made no threats to beat my wife. You
did make a threat that you may harrass people, for unspecified reasons.

[Paul Cummins]

In article <slrnkpphg...@matrix.darkstorm.co.uk>,

to...@darkstorm.invalid (Tony) wrote:

> For reference, Gradwell outsourced their news service to readnews a
> couple of years ago (maybe longer, I forget), and so don't provide
> any Usenet service beyond that.

Which only goes to further support my point.

I'm seriously considering setting up a public news server, on the basis
that no-one else seems to have them in the UK any more.

[Judith]

On Tue, 21 May 2013 21:43 +0100 (BST), uset...@stedtelephone.invalid (Paul
Cummins) wrote:

<snip>

> throughout this time, I've taken an active role in UK.*


You are a card.


--
Wearing a cycle helmet will not kill you.

[Judith]

On Wed, 22 May 2013 11:00 +0100 (BST), uset...@stedtelephone.invalid (Paul
Cummins) wrote:

>In article <REMOVEsteve.t.col...@192.168.0.139>,
>REMOVEste...@REMOVEgmail.com (Stephen Thomas Cole) wrote:
>
>> Can you hand on heart say the same for your UK.* tenure?
>
>Yes.

Can you now hand on heart explain to us what you believe your "uk.* tenure"
actually is?

[Judith]

On Wed, 22 May 2013 14:40:10 +0100, REMOVEste...@REMOVEgmail.com (Stephen
Thomas Cole) wrote:

>In article <memo.2013052...@postmaster.cix.co.uk>,
>Usenet....@gstgroup.co.uk wrote:
>
>> I said I "May" flame them...
>
>Why may you harrass them, though? What could provoke such in you and why
>can you so comfortably predict that it may happen?
>
>>
>> When will you stop beating your wife?
>
>Oh, let's not get silly now, Paul. I made no threats to beat my wife. You
>did make a threat that you may harrass people, for unspecified reasons.

he is a fuckwit - you are wasting your time talking to him, never mind about
trying to understand what he says.

[Stephen Thomas Cole]

In article <06kpp8h2pcf9b1pdm...@4ax.com>, Judith

<jmsmi...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:

> Can you now hand on heart explain to us what you believe your "uk.* tenure"
> actually is?

Actually, I was looking for constructive achievements in his UK.* tenure.

[Paul Cummins]

In article <REMOVEsteve.t.col...@192.168.0.139>,

REMOVEste...@REMOVEgmail.com (Stephen Thomas Cole) wrote:

> Oh, let's not get silly now, Paul.

Says the person who accuses me of harassment...

If you think I'm harassing someone, go report me.

Otherwise, go take your silly proposals and your puerile accusations to
somewhere that cares.

I'm voting against you - deal with it.

[Stephen Thomas Cole]

Paul Cummins <uset...@stedtelephone.invalid> wrote:
> In article <REMOVEsteve.t.col...@192.168.0.139>,
> REMOVEste...@REMOVEgmail.com (Stephen Thomas Cole) wrote:
>
>> Oh, let's not get silly now, Paul.
>
> Says the person who accuses me of harassment...
>
> If you think I'm harassing someone, go report me.
>
> Otherwise, go take your silly proposals and your puerile accusations to
> somewhere that cares.
>
> I'm voting against you - deal with it.

You seem quite touchy.

--
Stephen Thomas Cole - Sent from my iPhone so please forgive any spelling
mistakes or botched snipping.

[Clive George]

On 22/05/2013 10:05, kat wrote:

> First define failure. The posters to urcm might consider the group has
> done what they wanted, if what they wanted was a group free of squabbling.
> To my mind all it did was shift squabbles to other groups which are not in
> the least interested.

Ahem - there's lots of interest in URCM related squabbles in UNNM.
People keep talking about it, you included.

(though I notice things have calmed down in the past couple of months)

[Judith]

On Wed, 22 May 2013 14:54 +0100 (BST), uset...@stedtelephone.invalid (Paul
Cummins) wrote:

>In article <slrnkpphg...@matrix.darkstorm.co.uk>,
>to...@darkstorm.invalid (Tony) wrote:
>
>> For reference, Gradwell outsourced their news service to readnews a
>> couple of years ago (maybe longer, I forget), and so don't provide
>> any Usenet service beyond that.
>
>Which only goes to further support my point.
>
>I'm seriously considering setting up a public news server, on the basis
>that no-one else seems to have them in the UK any more.

You will need to get someone technically competent to run it for you.

[Paul Cummins]

In article
<952404316390928936.644748REMO...@news.eternal-
september.org>, REMOVEste...@REMOVEgmail.com (Stephen Thomas Cole)
wrote:

> You seem quite touchy.

I suggest you ask your fellow man of Kent to lay off...

[Tony]

Paul, your news client is broken, it appears to randomly truncate the
references header.

For example,

References:
<952404316390928936.644748REMO...@news.eternal-septe>

the original post had,

Message-ID:
<952404316390928936.644748REMO...@news.eternal-september.org>

[Stephen Thomas Cole]

Paul Cummins <uset...@stedtelephone.invalid> wrote:
> In article
> <952404316390928936.644748REMO...@news.eternal-
> september.org>, REMOVEste...@REMOVEgmail.com (Stephen Thomas Cole)
> wrote:
>
>> You seem quite touchy.
>
> I suggest you ask your fellow man of Kent to lay off...

That's quite the fantasy world you live in, Paul.

[Paul Cummins]

In article <kniqbs$qla$1...@matrix.darkstorm.co.uk>, to...@darkstorm.invalid

(Tony) wrote:

> Paul, your news client is broken, it appears to randomly truncate
> the references header.

Not randomly, it's at the 72 character wrap point.

I'll raise it as a bug with AmeolDev.

[Percy Picacity]

On 2013-05-22 16:18:22 +0000, Stephen Thomas Cole said:

> Paul Cummins <uset...@stedtelephone.invalid> wrote:
>> In article
>> <952404316390928936.644748REMO...@news.eternal-
>> september.org>, REMOVEste...@REMOVEgmail.com (Stephen Thomas Cole)
>> wrote:
>>
>>> You seem quite touchy.
>>
>> I suggest you ask your fellow man of Kent to lay off...
>
> That's quite the fantasy world you live in, Paul.

As far as the other man of Kent is involved, it is in fact a sordid
world of reality. Of course, the only connection between you two may
be that he is an enthusiastic supporter of yours. But as you are both
connected by a minority hobby and geography it would not be wildly
unreasonable to at least wonder whether there was any other connection.

This is especially so as the other Kentish person referred to has often
stated that other members of the group are his social inferiors (he
appears to be an admirer of right-wing fringe views) and that he would
favour moderation or some similar arrangement to reduce his exposure to
their comments.

Of course, the case is not proven, but I don't think it is a wild
conspiracy theory either.

--

Percy Picacity

[Stephen Thomas Cole]

In article <6jfjof....@news.alt.net>, Percy Picacity

<k...@under.the.invalid> wrote:
>
> As far as the other man of Kent is involved, it is in fact a sordid
> world of reality. Of course, the only connection between you two may
> be that he is an enthusiastic supporter of yours. But as you are both
> connected by a minority hobby and geography it would not be wildly
> unreasonable to at least wonder whether there was any other connection.

Well, other than the niche interest and our locality, I can assure you
that those are the only links between us, other than the fact that we both
post on Usenet. I had never heard of Mr Reay until after I started
participating in ukra. Since then, I have exchanged messages with him in
the group, maybe a dozen or so emails as well on various matters and have
spoken with him on-air a couple of times, on the Strood 2m repeater,
GB3IK. Other than the on-air bit, I've done the same with a few gents from
ukra. It's nothing out of the ordinary.

And I wouldn't say that Brian is an enthusiastic supporter of mine. He has
said, quite a few times, that he is against the proposal. We have also
clashed swords on matters of politics quite a few times and I fear that he
views me as somewhat of a left-wing lunatic. But we manage to get along
fine in spite of that.

>
> This is especially so as the other Kentish person referred to has often
> stated that other members of the group are his social inferiors (he
> appears to be an admirer of right-wing fringe views) and that he would
> favour moderation or some similar arrangement to reduce his exposure to
> their comments.

Well, I'm not familiar exactly with what you refer to, but Brian's views
are his own and he is entitled to them, whether they're right or wrong.

>
> Of course, the case is not proven, but I don't think it is a wild
> conspiracy theory either.

No, and I can understand why not. But all I can do is say that it isn't
the case at all. I am my own man. And before someone accuses me of being a
Mason, I'm not. They wouldn't have me anyway, I understand, what with my
being an atheist. Not to mention a left-wing lunatic.

In closing, Paul and Spike will doubtless continue to make these
accusations. It bothers me not one jot as I know that they are barking up
the wrong tree entirely. They can believe whatever they like.

[Paul Cummins]

In article <REMOVEsteve.t.col...@192.168.0.139>,

REMOVEste...@REMOVEgmail.com (Stephen Thomas Cole) wrote:

> In closing, Paul and Spike will doubtless continue to make these
> accusations.

I take it you are classing me a troll again then?

[Stephen Thomas Cole]

Paul Cummins <uset...@stedtelephone.invalid> wrote:
> In article <REMOVEsteve.t.col...@192.168.0.139>,
> REMOVEste...@REMOVEgmail.com (Stephen Thomas Cole) wrote:
>
>> In closing, Paul and Spike will doubtless continue to make these
>> accusations.
>
> I take it you are classing me a troll again then?

Well, that depends on whether you actually believe your own memes. If you
don't, you're a troll. If you do, you're simply a kook. I haven't been able
to determine yet.

[Paul Cummins]

In article
<1030317360390939836.978557REMO...@news.eternal
-september.org>, REMOVEste...@REMOVEgmail.com (Stephen Thomas Cole)
wrote:

> Well, that depends on whether you actually believe your own memes.
> If you don't, you're a troll. If you do, you're simply a kook. I
> haven't been able to determine yet.

As against you, a person incapable of receiving clue.

We call them Fuckwits.

And as one of thw Four Fuckwits of the Apocalypse, I am well placed to
identify miy own kind...

[Stephen Thomas Cole]

Paul Cummins <uset...@stedtelephone.invalid> wrote:
> In article
> <1030317360390939836.978557REMO...@news.eternal
> -september.org>, REMOVEste...@REMOVEgmail.com (Stephen Thomas Cole)
> wrote:
>
>> Well, that depends on whether you actually believe your own memes.
>> If you don't, you're a troll. If you do, you're simply a kook. I
>> haven't been able to determine yet.
>
> As against you, a person incapable of receiving clue.
>

Qualify that statement, please, because I think that you're talking a lot
of bollocks there.

[Percy Picacity]

On 2013-05-22 19:01:00 +0000, Paul Cummins said:

> In article
> <1030317360390939836.978557REMO...@news.eternal
> -september.org>, REMOVEste...@REMOVEgmail.com (Stephen Thomas Cole)
> wrote:
>
>> Well, that depends on whether you actually believe your own memes.
>> If you don't, you're a troll. If you do, you're simply a kook. I
>> haven't been able to determine yet.
>
> As against you, a person incapable of receiving clue.
>
> We call them Fuckwits.
>
> And as one of thw Four Fuckwits of the Apocalypse, I am well placed to
> identify miy own kind...

Personally I am inclined to believe that Mr Reay and Mr Cole are not
working together. Despite a common tendency to be inordinately
sensitive to any criticism, and a sense of superiority which is
certainly not justified by the facts in the case the one of them we
know best, they seem to have very little else in common. (Did Mr Reay
really oppose the formation of the new moderated group? - I can't be
bothered to look back.)

--

Percy Picacity

[kat]

Clive George wrote:
> On 22/05/2013 10:05, kat wrote:
>
>> First define failure. The posters to urcm might consider the group
>> has done what they wanted, if what they wanted was a group free of
>> squabbling. To my mind all it did was shift squabbles to other
>> groups which are not in the least interested.
>
> Ahem - there's lots of interest in URCM related squabbles in UNNM.
> People keep talking about it, you included.

Some of it is interesting, some of it is relevant. Not all of it is
anything to do with moderation, the topic of interest in the group.

>
> (though I notice things have calmed down in the past couple of months)

Really?


--
kat
>^..^<

[Stephen Thomas Cole]

In article <6jg02i....@news.alt.net>, Percy Picacity

<k...@under.the.invalid> wrote:

> Personally I am inclined to believe that Mr Reay and Mr Cole are not
> working together.

Thank you.

> Despite a common tendency to be inordinately
> sensitive to any criticism,

Fuck off!*

> and a sense of superiority which is
> certainly not justified by the facts in the case the one of them we
> know best, they seem to have very little else in common.

Indeed. We're both radio amateurs, we both live in Medway, we both use
Usenet, we're both male. That seems to be about it! Like I said, though,
Brian and I seem to get along perfectly fine despite our differences. He's
never done or said anything to upset me, and vice versa.

>(Did Mr Reay
> really oppose the formation of the new moderated group? - I can't be
> bothered to look back.)

Yes, a few times, at least. His objection was one of necessity, insofar as
there are already various other moderated forums online that serve this
purpose. As I explained in response, Usenet is not the same as the web
and, IMO, will be well served by a UK moderated amateur radio group.

*Just to be sure that no-one takes this the wrong way, that was a joke...

[Clive George]

On 22/05/2013 23:15, kat wrote:

>> (though I notice things have calmed down in the past couple of months)
>
> Really?

Isn't it obvious? One could maybe draw a graph of the rolling weekly
average of the number of posts related to URCM in UNNMod, and I believe
that would demonstrate that fairly well, or one could just rely on gut
feel about number of posts, which seems to do a pretty good job of
demonstrating the same.

Of course there could be a certain amount of time-biding going on, but
at the moment it's refreshingly quiet and URCM seems to be pottering
along quite happily too.

[kat]

I have around 700 messages in unnm in the last couple of months. I know
some refer to uklm, but even so the majority are in connection with ( that
is, the thread started off about) urcm. That might be quieter than it has
been , but I wouldn't call it "refreshingly quiet".


--
kat
>^..^<

[Mike Fleming]

In article <REMOVEsteve.t.col...@192.168.0.139>,

REMOVEste...@REMOVEgmail.com (Stephen Thomas Cole) writes:

> In article <06kpp8h2pcf9b1pdm...@4ax.com>, Judith
> <jmsmi...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > Can you now hand on heart explain to us what you believe your "uk.* tenure"
> > actually is?
>
> Actually, I was looking for constructive achievements in his UK.* tenure.

He provides the comic relief in the committee elections.

--
Mike Fleming

[Paul Cummins]

In article <ge21q8hs53m75oghh...@4ax.com>,

{mike}@tauzero.co.uk (Mike Fleming) wrote:

> > Actually, I was looking for constructive achievements in his UK.*
> tenure.
>
> He provides the comic relief in the committee elections.

I prefer to think of it as a "none of the above" option...

[Judith]

On Wed, 22 May 2013 16:23:59 +0100, Clive George <cl...@xxxx-x.fsnet.co.uk>
wrote:

<snip>

>(though I notice things have calmed down in the past couple of months)

I wonder why