FINAL RFD: recharter us.military.army
RTO Trainer
unmoderated group us.military.army
There having been no serious dispute as to provisions of the third
RFD, this is the final Request for Discussion (RFD) to replace the
charter of an existing newsgroup in the us.* hierarchy,
us.military.army. This is not a call for votes. Charter amendment is
by consensus in us.config. Procedures for conducting the discussion
are detailed below at the end of this RFD. This final RFD contains
minor tweaking of the proposed charter of the third RFD: clarification
of enforcement responsibility, grammar of the top-posting provision is
improved and a variety of small grammar, capitalization and
punctuation errors have been corrected.
Newsgroups line:
us.military.army Life and work in the US Army
Rationale: us.military.army
us.military.army is an unmoderated newsgroup created by accident in
June 1997 in response to a proposal made to us.config and alt.config
prior to the adoption of a formal procedure for newsgroup creation in
the us.* hierarchy. A formal charter was never adopted because the
group was doing well and there didn't seem to be a great need to
formalize the charter. Later, traffic increased dramatically and
questions were raised about the purpose of the group, formalization of
the original proposal was undertaken in mid-2000. The result,
however, was not reflective of the use or needs of the group which
should have been taken more fully into account, especially in light of
the group's long unchartered status and ad hoc origins.
****BEGIN CHARTER****
CHARTER: us.military.army Model M-3A
The newsgroup us.military.army is an unmoderated group for, about and
pertaining to the United States Army, its personnel present or past,
their families, friends and any other parties that have a genuine
interest in the US Army.
This group is intended as both a social and a topical newsgroup that
will allow soldiers and their families, members of sister services and
civilians a way to meet new people, within and without the services,
with like interests and to enrich their military related experience.
The following types of articles are on-topic for the newsgroup:
- General information about all components of the US Army.
- Military Occupational Specialties (MOS) and opportunities for
promotion within a MOS.
- Duty stations and deployments overseas.
- Conditions in actual or potential combat zones.
- Morale, Welfare and Recreation programs and facilities and benefits
of service available to US Army personnel.
- The fundamental purpose or need for a given deployment for a
contingency operation.
- Military rules and regulations affecting Army personnel.
- Human relations issues related to Army life.
- Family matters and their impact on Army careers.
- Current events that directly impact the US Army.
- Customs traditions and ceremonies of the US Army.
- Short advertisements for stateside duty swaps.
- Discussions about military history of direct bearing to otherwise
topical subjects that have affected, or will affect, the US Army
- Discussions of US Army folklore and common experiences shared by
Soldiers or their dependents
- Official announcements from the US Army on matters of concern to
readers of the newsgroup.
- Weapons, equipment, tactics and strategies of the US Army.
- General topics of interest related to the US Army or US Army
experiences.
The following types of articles are off-topic for the newsgroup:
- Articles primarily related to other branches of the military
service.
- Postings by "defense consultants" or other commercial operations
promoting their commercial interests.
- Discussions of past historical events not pertaining to the US Army.
- Excessive personal attacks directed by a subscriber against another.
- Partisan politics not relating to military affairs.
- International affairs not directly related to the US Army
- Domestic affairs not directly related to the US Army or military
- Articles containing binaries or other attachments (use a link to
such instead)
- Commercial solicitations to include advertising, auction notices or
solicitations for charity.
Note: Articles of a political nature or that are primarily about
history, including military history, are strongly discouraged in this
newsgroup, and anyone who wishes that type of discussion is requested
to participate in the many other forums available on the internet. We
can recommend us.politics and us.military.history respectively.
This newsgroup is a forum that is governed by normal rules for
decorum, civility, and debate. One is encouraged to review and comply
with these rules that are posted in several places throughout the
Internet.
Operational Security (OPSEC) guidelines should be considered before
posting any information which when revealed might cause harm to US
military personnel.
Posting Guidelines
The most recent version of the us.* hierarchy posting rules apply to
this newsgroup. Violations of this charter or the hierarchy rules may
result in action being taken against the offender and articles
determined to be abuse OF the net may be cancelled without warning.
Responsibility for enforcement shall belong solely to the us.*
Administration.
Crossposting:
The us.* hierarchy rules allow for a five newsgroup crosspost limit.
Not more than 3 newsgroups is the desired norm for us.military.army
whenever practical.
Language:
As in actual practice in the US Army, foul language is not banned nor
encouraged.
Top-Posting:
The use of top posting is discouraged, as many believe it is
inappropriate, but it is not forbidden.
This newsgroup has, to date, been very active and represents many
years of collective military service. Newcomers are always welcome and
any on topic question receives the benefit of that experience.
Regular posters have the responsibility to direct newsgroup users to
follow this charter and to bring to the attention any violation or
abuse OF the net to the attention of the us.* hierarchy administrator
who is charged with maintaining good order.
Six-month trial:
As provided by us.* hierarchy rules, this charter shall remain in full
force and effect for at least six months. At the end of the six-month
trial period, amendments may be proposed by participants in the
newsgroup in accordance with procedures outlined in the us.* hierarchy
newsgroup creation rules.
Thank you for reading the UMA charter.
*****END CHARTER*****
FRONT TOWARD ENEMY
Procedures
Newsgroup creation in the us.* hierarchy is by consensus in us.config.
As provided by the us.* hierarchy rules, this proposal shall remain on
the table for seven days, to and including 5 September 2003. The
hierarchy administrator may decide to extend the time for discussion
or take other actions. Refer to
http://www.usenetnews.us/us-create.shtml for further information.
Distribution: us.config, us.military.army
Proponent: SPC Robert White <bill....@us.army.mil> Oklahoma Army
National Guard
Secondary Proponents: 1SG Colin Campbell, California Army National
Guard; Airman Jeff Bedard, Former-US Air Force; SPC Richard C. Adams,
California Army National Guard; SPC Jennifer O'Malley, Army Inactive
Ready Reserve; SGT David Casey, New Mexico National Guard; LTC Sydney
T. H. Chock US Army Inactive Ready Reserve; Cpl Cindi Prudhomme,
Canadian Armed Forces (Army)
Host: TBD
Daryl Hunt
Since this may be read by News Admins, you just file 13nd it on the first
line.
Can you spell AFM? It exists. Just leave this out.
Once again, this is NOT the US Army. I don't see a single thing written
anywhere that the United States Army has officially adopted this as their
official News Group.
I think enough have stated you could leave this out with better results than
leaving it in. The Dacorum of the Usenet already covers this anyway and you
already mentioned this. Leaving this in really means that the Charter allows
it.
>
> Top-Posting:
>
> The use of top posting is discouraged, as many believe it is
> inappropriate, but it is not forbidden.
Once again, you just gave permission. Fix this and we can live with it.
Don't fix and I see a few that won't.
>
> This newsgroup has, to date, been very active and represents many
> years of collective military service. Newcomers are always welcome and
> any on topic question receives the benefit of that experience.
>
> Regular posters have the responsibility to direct newsgroup users to
> follow this charter and to bring to the attention any violation or
> abuse OF the net to the attention of the us.* hierarchy administrator
> who is charged with maintaining good order.
Give it a break. I just had another bit of netcopping by one of yours come
to my attention. So drop this completely. I won't netcop if you won't.
And you have to admit, I am one up on your bunch on being affective at it.
>
> Six-month trial:
>
> As provided by us.* hierarchy rules, this charter shall remain in full
> force and effect for at least six months. At the end of the six-month
> trial period, amendments may be proposed by participants in the
> newsgroup in accordance with procedures outlined in the us.* hierarchy
> newsgroup creation rules.
>
> Thank you for reading the UMA charter.
>
> *****END CHARTER*****
> FRONT TOWARD ENEMY
Bounced, Bounced and Bounced.
>
> Procedures
>
> Newsgroup creation in the us.* hierarchy is by consensus in us.config.
> As provided by the us.* hierarchy rules, this proposal shall remain on
> the table for seven days, to and including 5 September 2003. The
> hierarchy administrator may decide to extend the time for discussion
> or take other actions. Refer to
> http://www.usenetnews.us/us-create.shtml for further information.
Since you are NOT the us Admin, you don't have the right to extend the time.
HKT can only do that.
RTO Trainer
Tell Henrietta. She wrote it.
Fact is that AFM is moribund. Folklore gets discussed in UMA. Don't
see any reason to go out of my way to support an alt.*. Do see a
reason to minimize the "you're off-topic" crowd.
Didn't claim it was.
> I don't see a single thing written
> anywhere that the United States Army has officially adopted this as their
> official News Group.
>
So what?
> I think enough have stated you could leave this out with better results than
> leaving it in.
I think I've stated each time that I disagree. No one's been
persuasive on the issue yet.
> The Dacorum of the Usenet already covers this anyway and you
> already mentioned this. Leaving this in really means that the Charter allows
> it.
>
Now you've got it.
>
> >
> > Top-Posting:
> >
> > The use of top posting is discouraged, as many believe it is
> > inappropriate, but it is not forbidden.
>
> Once again, you just gave permission.
You've got it again.
> Fix this and we can live with it.
> Don't fix and I see a few that won't.
>
I don't see anyone that "won't," a few that say they'd rather not, but
hey, that's what six-month trail periods are for. If no one can offer
a persuasuve argumet in theory, I might be persuaded by adverse result
in practice.
>
> >
> > This newsgroup has, to date, been very active and represents many
> > years of collective military service. Newcomers are always welcome and
> > any on topic question receives the benefit of that experience.
> >
> > Regular posters have the responsibility to direct newsgroup users to
> > follow this charter and to bring to the attention any violation or
> > abuse OF the net to the attention of the us.* hierarchy administrator
> > who is charged with maintaining good order.
>
> Give it a break. I just had another bit of netcopping by one of yours come
> to my attention. So drop this completely. I won't netcop if you won't.
> And you have to admit, I am one up on your bunch on being affective at it.
>
This charter isn't in effect yet.
>
> >
> > Six-month trial:
> >
> > As provided by us.* hierarchy rules, this charter shall remain in full
> > force and effect for at least six months. At the end of the six-month
> > trial period, amendments may be proposed by participants in the
> > newsgroup in accordance with procedures outlined in the us.* hierarchy
> > newsgroup creation rules.
> >
> > Thank you for reading the UMA charter.
> >
> > *****END CHARTER*****
> > FRONT TOWARD ENEMY
>
> Bounced, Bounced and Bounced.
>
That's not persuasive.
>
>
> >
> > Procedures
> >
> > Newsgroup creation in the us.* hierarchy is by consensus in us.config.
> > As provided by the us.* hierarchy rules, this proposal shall remain on
> > the table for seven days, to and including 5 September 2003. The
> > hierarchy administrator may decide to extend the time for discussion
> > or take other actions. Refer to
> > http://www.usenetnews.us/us-create.shtml for further information.
>
> Since you are NOT the us Admin, you don't have the right to extend the time.
> HKT can only do that.
>
Its a flaw in the rules. The proponent is charged with posting
initial, subsequent and final RFDs but then it says that only the
admin can extend discussion time. I suppose that HKT could declare a
subsequent or final RFD a dead-ball, I don't know that she ever has
and it'd proabably generate quite a counter-productive controversy if
she did.
Daryl Hunt
"RTO Trainer" <bill....@us.army.mil> wrote in message
news:ed856011.03083...@posting.google.com...
Then climb all over HKT for something She has done instead of all the things
she hasn't done. If she wrote this, the Admins will see it, check to see if
a charter is in place (it's there) in isc.org and shitcan this one due to it
not being factual.
One can become quite anal in worrying about Super NetCopping. Let's face
it, the biggest netcops come from your group. You use a little of your
persuasion to minimize that and there really isn't a problem. I was
contacted by a couple of Net Admins and all had to do was show a couple of
emails from your group where you attempted to Netcop me on my own system.
BTW, there are many ways to netcop and Group Mission Posting is just one of
them. Get a handle on that and I don't think there will be a problem at
all. Besides, after the past bouts, your major Netcoppers are just file
13nd with the Net Admins so there can be no harm done in that area.
By leaving it out, there is no conpetition with another group and a little
Folklore really doesn't hurt a thing. A lot of it and you need to rewrite
the Charter.
Actually you did with "As in actual practice in the US Army"
>
> > I don't see a single thing written
> > anywhere that the United States Army has officially adopted this as
their
> > official News Group.
> >
>
> So what?
Still clinging onto the idea that this IS the US Army.
>
> > I think enough have stated you could leave this out with better results
than
> > leaving it in.
>
> I think I've stated each time that I disagree. No one's been
> persuasive on the issue yet.
I can think of some that have stated the same thing including the one person
that has to give the final approval. leave it in if you wish but don't
expect all to agree and possibly jeapordise the project.
>
> > The Dacorum of the Usenet already covers this anyway and you
> > already mentioned this. Leaving this in really means that the Charter
allows
> > it.
> >
>
> Now you've got it.
Yet you fight to leave it in. Tomarrow may be the day.
>
> >
> > >
> > > Top-Posting:
> > >
> > > The use of top posting is discouraged, as many believe it is
> > > inappropriate, but it is not forbidden.
> >
> > Once again, you just gave permission.
>
> You've got it again.
Can you spell, "F-A-I--L-U-R_E" over something so simple?
>
> > Fix this and we can live with it.
> > Don't fix and I see a few that won't.
> >
>
> I don't see anyone that "won't," a few that say they'd rather not, but
> hey, that's what six-month trail periods are for. If no one can offer
> a persuasuve argumet in theory, I might be persuaded by adverse result
> in practice.
That is what deadlines for a finished Proposes Charter is for. And that
deadline (unless extended) is tomarrow. I haven't seen anything but a
rewrite that says exactly the same thing. Or pretty darned close.
>
> >
> > >
> > > This newsgroup has, to date, been very active and represents many
> > > years of collective military service. Newcomers are always welcome and
> > > any on topic question receives the benefit of that experience.
> > >
> > > Regular posters have the responsibility to direct newsgroup users to
> > > follow this charter and to bring to the attention any violation or
> > > abuse OF the net to the attention of the us.* hierarchy administrator
> > > who is charged with maintaining good order.
> >
> > Give it a break. I just had another bit of netcopping by one of yours
come
> > to my attention. So drop this completely. I won't netcop if you won't.
> > And you have to admit, I am one up on your bunch on being affective at
it.
> >
>
> This charter isn't in effect yet.
At this pace, it will never be.
Oh, since it favors you to not pay any attention to the rules already laid
out where all can understand it, you just change it yourself? Says volumes
of your group actually following anything in your new shiny Charter.
ssn...@earthlink.net
news:<bipqa3$buom1$1...@ID-203896.news.uni-berlin.de>...
> > > - Discussions of US Army folklore and common
experiences shared by
> > > Soldiers or their dependents
> >
> >
> > Can you spell AFM? It exists. Just leave this out.
> >
>
> Fact is that AFM is moribund. Folklore gets discussed in
UMA. Don't
> see any reason to go out of my way to support an alt.*.
Do see a
> reason to minimize the "you're off-topic" crowd.
>
and others) that this is a current usage in uma and that it
should be recognized. The fact that there may be an alt.*
group for military folklore does not mean necessarily that
the discussion of US Army folklore should be off topic in
uma. The charter provides assurance to posters that this
type of topic is specifically allowed in uma thereby
clearing up any question as to topicality and preventing
spurions arguments between posters.
> >
<snip>
> > > Language:
> > >
> > > As in actual practice in the US Army, foul language is
not banned nor
> > > encouraged.
> >
> > Once again, this is NOT the US Army.
>
> Didn't claim it was.
>
is neither forbidden or promoted. This is because everyone
posting in uma uses foul language at one time or another
including yourself. This particular clause of the charter
creates a "safe haven" for that usage which as anyone who
reads the group for any length of time will occur regardless
of the charter and cannot be enforced against generally,
because it is classified as abuse_on_the_net rather than
abuse_OF_the_net.
> > I don't see a single thing written
> > anywhere that the United States Army has officially
adopted this as their
> > official News Group.
> >
>
> So what?
>
No one said that it was. But the group is for and about the
US Army and its personnel, their experiences and life in the
US Army or other topics pertaining to the US Army. So why
wouldn't the US Army be used as an example of the policy
being promulgated in this charter?
> > I think enough have stated you could leave this out with
better results than
> > leaving it in.
>
> I think I've stated each time that I disagree. No one's
been
> persuasive on the issue yet.
>
A clear majority of the people posting to uma have
determined that it is a reasonable statement. Some think
that it may be stating the obvious. But, others who were
around in early 2001, and remember a short series of
exchanges regarding profanity in uma being allowed or not
think that this wording will prevent similar exchanges in
the future.
> > The Dacorum of the Usenet already covers this anyway and
you
> > already mentioned this. Leaving this in really means
that the Charter allows
> > it.
> >
>
> Now you've got it.
>
> >
> > >
> > > Top-Posting:
> > >
> > > The use of top posting is discouraged, as many believe
it is
> > > inappropriate, but it is not forbidden.
> >
> > Once again, you just gave permission.
>
> You've got it again.
>
Let's hope he did in both cases.
> > Fix this and we can live with it.
> > Don't fix and I see a few that won't.
> >
>
> I don't see anyone that "won't," a few that say they'd
rather not, but
> hey, that's what six-month trail periods are for. If no
one can offer
> a persuasuve argumet in theory, I might be persuaded by
adverse result
> in practice.
>
I agree.
> >
> > >
> > > This newsgroup has, to date, been very active and
represents many
> > > years of collective military service. Newcomers are
always welcome and
> > > any on topic question receives the benefit of that
experience.
> > >
> > > Regular posters have the responsibility to direct
newsgroup users to
> > > follow this charter and to bring to the attention any
violation or
> > > abuse OF the net to the attention of the us.*
hierarchy administrator
> > > who is charged with maintaining good order.
> >
> > Give it a break. I just had another bit of netcopping
by one of yours come
> > to my attention. So drop this completely. I won't
netcop if you won't.
> > And you have to admit, I am one up on your bunch on
being affective at it.
> >
>
> This charter isn't in effect yet.
>
It is only the final RFD for this charter. It will take a
few more days before it goes into effect.
I hope that essentially the procedures as published are
followed.
Snark
Daryl Hunt
"ssn...@bangserver.na" <ssn...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:wBv4b.3593$tw6....@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
> "RTO Trainer" <bill....@us.army.mil> wrote in message
> news:ed856011.03083...@posting.google.com...
> > "Daryl Hunt" <dh...@i70west.nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:<bipqa3$buom1$1...@ID-203896.news.uni-berlin.de>...
> <snip>
> > > > - Discussions of US Army folklore and common
> experiences shared by
> > > > Soldiers or their dependents
> > >
> > >
> > > Can you spell AFM? It exists. Just leave this out.
> > >
> >
> > Fact is that AFM is moribund. Folklore gets discussed in
> UMA. Don't
> > see any reason to go out of my way to support an alt.*.
> Do see a
> > reason to minimize the "you're off-topic" crowd.
> >
> It is the general consensus of those that post to uma (404th
> and others) that this is a current usage in uma and that it
> should be recognized. The fact that there may be an alt.*
> group for military folklore does not mean necessarily that
> the discussion of US Army folklore should be off topic in
> uma. The charter provides assurance to posters that this
> type of topic is specifically allowed in uma thereby
> clearing up any question as to topicality and preventing
> spurions arguments between posters.
It's a duplication. I suggest you reread the us.config rules one more time.
This is where your bunch originally came from in the first place. You
running from Otis and Vox? You didn't get away from them but the area
certainly is deader than a doornail. I don't wonder why.
> > >
> <snip>
> > > > Language:
> > > >
> > > > As in actual practice in the US Army, foul language is
> not banned nor
> > > > encouraged.
> > >
> > > Once again, this is NOT the US Army.
> >
> > Didn't claim it was.
> >
> It basically allows that *like* the US Army, such language
> is neither forbidden or promoted. This is because everyone
> posting in uma uses foul language at one time or another
> including yourself. This particular clause of the charter
> creates a "safe haven" for that usage which as anyone who
> reads the group for any length of time will occur regardless
> of the charter and cannot be enforced against generally,
> because it is classified as abuse_on_the_net rather than
> abuse_OF_the_net.
As long as it states "As in actual practice in the US Army" it's improper.
>
> > > I don't see a single thing written
> > > anywhere that the United States Army has officially
> adopted this as their
> > > official News Group.
> > >
> >
> > So what?
> >
> No one said that it was. But the group is for and about the
> US Army and its personnel, their experiences and life in the
> US Army or other topics pertaining to the US Army. So why
> wouldn't the US Army be used as an example of the policy
> being promulgated in this charter?
Except it's more than that. It's not about the Army, For the Army and only
the Army.
>
> > > I think enough have stated you could leave this out with
> better results than
> > > leaving it in.
> >
> > I think I've stated each time that I disagree. No one's
> been
> > persuasive on the issue yet.
> >
>
> A clear majority of the people posting to uma have
> determined that it is a reasonable statement. Some think
> that it may be stating the obvious. But, others who were
> around in early 2001, and remember a short series of
> exchanges regarding profanity in uma being allowed or not
> think that this wording will prevent similar exchanges in
> the future.
If it doesn't pass the muster of the one person you people have climbed all
over then it doesn't how may trolls vote for it.
>
> > > The Dacorum of the Usenet already covers this anyway and
> you
> > > already mentioned this. Leaving this in really means
> that the Charter allows
> > > it.
> > >
> >
> > Now you've got it.
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Top-Posting:
> > > >
> > > > The use of top posting is discouraged, as many believe
> it is
> > > > inappropriate, but it is not forbidden.
> > >
> > > Once again, you just gave permission.
> >
> > You've got it again.
> >
> Let's hope he did in both cases.
>
> > > Fix this and we can live with it.
> > > Don't fix and I see a few that won't.
> > >
> >
> > I don't see anyone that "won't," a few that say they'd
> rather not, but
> > hey, that's what six-month trail periods are for. If no
> one can offer
> > a persuasuve argumet in theory, I might be persuaded by
> adverse result
> > in practice.
> >
> I agree.
A few of us don't.
>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > This newsgroup has, to date, been very active and
> represents many
> > > > years of collective military service. Newcomers are
> always welcome and
> > > > any on topic question receives the benefit of that
> experience.
> > > >
> > > > Regular posters have the responsibility to direct
> newsgroup users to
> > > > follow this charter and to bring to the attention any
> violation or
> > > > abuse OF the net to the attention of the us.*
> hierarchy administrator
> > > > who is charged with maintaining good order.
> > >
> > > Give it a break. I just had another bit of netcopping
> by one of yours come
> > > to my attention. So drop this completely. I won't
> netcop if you won't.
> > > And you have to admit, I am one up on your bunch on
> being affective at it.
> > >
> >
> > This charter isn't in effect yet.
> >
> It is only the final RFD for this charter. It will take a
> few more days before it goes into effect.
How presumptious. There has not been an extension granted yet. It's not
your call nor is it mine.
If they were, your bunch would have been placed on ignore in here a very
long time ago. You were given preferencial treatment. Anyone else would
have been placed in the Troll alert and ignored. You have had many times
the extensions that are normally granted, been more abusive to others than
any other group I have seen since the 1997 alt.config bunch. (btw, I
noticed that alt.config even cleaned that pig sty up). HKT is correct.
This last episode does make the US the laughing stock of the Usenets.
But, if it passes, it's because you and yours finally decided to drop
certain things all the way an reword it IAW what is the accepted norm of the
us.config and Hiarachy. Not your idea what the US Army would expect.
>
> Snark
>
>
Henrietta K Thomas
wrote, in us.config:
>"Daryl Hunt" <dh...@i70west.nospam.com> wrote in message news:
<bipqa3$buom1$1...@ID-203896.news.uni-berlin.de>...
<...>
>> > Rationale: us.military.army
>> >
>> > us.military.army is an unmoderated newsgroup created by accident in
>> > June 1997 in response to a proposal made to us.config and alt.config
>> > prior to the adoption of a formal procedure for newsgroup creation in
>> > the us.* hierarchy. A formal charter was never adopted because the
>> > group was doing well and there didn't seem to be a great need to
>> > formalize the charter. Later, traffic increased dramatically and
>> > questions were raised about the purpose of the group, formalization of
>> > the original proposal was undertaken in mid-2000. The result,
>> > however, was not reflective of the use or needs of the group which
>> > should have been taken more fully into account, especially in light of
>> > the group's long unchartered status and ad hoc origins.
>>
>> Since this may be read by News Admins, you just file 13nd it on the first
>> line.
>>
>
>Tell Henrietta. She wrote it.
Not quite. The first part came directly from my original RFD
to charter us.military.army, but the second part was added by
RTO. Compare:
>From: Henrietta K. Thomas <usa...@wwa.com>
>Subject: [RFD] Proposal to charter us.military.army
>Date: 2000/05/29
>Message-ID: <uv36jsg6g7r0ia2rb...@4ax.com>
<...>
>Rationale: us.military.army
>
>us.military.army is an unmoderated newsgroup created by accident in
>June 1997 in response to a proposal made to us.config and alt.config
>prior to the adoption of a formal procedure for newsgroup creation in
>the us.* hierarchy. A formal charter was never adopted because the
>group was doing well and there didn't seem to be a great need to
>formalize the charter. But, in the last few months, questions have been
>raised about the purpose of the group, so it appears to be time to review
>and formalize the original proposal.
<...>
>> > - Discussions of US Army folklore and common experiences
>> >shared by Soldiers or their dependents
>>
>>
>> Can you spell AFM? It exists. Just leave this out.
>>
>
>Fact is that AFM is moribund. Folklore gets discussed in UMA. Don't
>see any reason to go out of my way to support an alt.*. Do see a
>reason to minimize the "you're off-topic" crowd.
Then why don't you just scrap the list and make _everything_
on topic?
<...>
>> > Language:
>> >
>> > As in actual practice in the US Army, foul language is not banned nor
>> > encouraged.
>>
>> Once again, this is NOT the US Army.
>
>Didn't claim it was.
Then why do you use the US Army to justify the use of
foul language in a Usenet newsgroup?
>> I don't see a single thing written
>> anywhere that the United States Army has officially adopted this as their
>> official News Group.
>>
>
>So what?
So maybe you should stop using the US Army as an excuse
to justify rude behavior.
>> I think enough have stated you could leave this out with better
>>results than leaving it in.
>
>I think I've stated each time that I disagree. No one's been
>persuasive on the issue yet.
It's really not our job to talk you out of it -- it's your job to
convince -us- that the rule is necessary, and so far, you
haven't done that.
>> The Dacorum of the Usenet already covers this anyway and you
>> already mentioned this. Leaving this in really means that the Charter
>> allows it.
>>
>
>Now you've got it.
Still no justification as to why foul language should be specifically
allowed in the charter.
>> > Top-Posting:
>> >
>> > The use of top posting is discouraged, as many believe it is
>> > inappropriate, but it is not forbidden.
>>
>> Once again, you just gave permission.
>
>You've got it again.
And again, where is your justification?
>> Fix this and we can live with it.
>> Don't fix and I see a few that won't.
>>
>
>I don't see anyone that "won't," a few that say they'd rather not, but
>hey, that's what six-month trail periods are for. If no one can offer
>a persuasuve argumet in theory, I might be persuaded by adverse
>result in practice.
Why wait? Take it out now and save yourself the trouble later on.
>> > This newsgroup has, to date, been very active and represents many
>> > years of collective military service. Newcomers are always welcome and
>> > any on topic question receives the benefit of that experience.
>> >
>> > Regular posters have the responsibility to direct newsgroup users to
>> > follow this charter and to bring to the attention any violation or
>> > abuse OF the net to the attention of the us.* hierarchy administrator
>> > who is charged with maintaining good order.
>>
>> Give it a break. I just had another bit of netcopping by one of yours come
>> to my attention. So drop this completely. I won't netcop if you won't.
>> And you have to admit, I am one up on your bunch on being affective at it.
>>
>
>This charter isn't in effect yet.
And it won't go into effect until it is properly done.
>> > Six-month trial:
>> >
>> > As provided by us.* hierarchy rules, this charter shall remain in full
>> > force and effect for at least six months. At the end of the six-month
>> > trial period, amendments may be proposed by participants in the
>> > newsgroup in accordance with procedures outlined in the us.* hierarchy
>> > newsgroup creation rules.
>> >
>> > Thank you for reading the UMA charter.
>> >
>> > *****END CHARTER*****
>> > FRONT TOWARD ENEMY
>>
>> Bounced, Bounced and Bounced.
>>
>
>That's not persuasive.
Neither are your arguments for leaving this stuff in.
You were advised to take -all- of it outside the charter,
yet you have refused to do so.
>>
>>
>> >
>> > Procedures
>> >
>> > Newsgroup creation in the us.* hierarchy is by consensus in us.config.
>> > As provided by the us.* hierarchy rules, this proposal shall remain on
>> > the table for seven days, to and including 5 September 2003. The
>> > hierarchy administrator may decide to extend the time for discussion
>> > or take other actions. Refer to
>> > http://www.usenetnews.us/us-create.shtml for further information.
>>
>> Since you are NOT the us Admin, you don't have the right to extend the time.
>> HKT can only do that.
>>
>
>Its a flaw in the rules. The proponent is charged with posting
>initial, subsequent and final RFDs but then it says that only the
>admin can extend discussion time. I suppose that HKT could declare a
>subsequent or final RFD a dead-ball, I don't know that she ever has
>and it'd proabably generate quite a counter-productive controversy if
>she did.
Don't tempt me, RTO. There is no flaw in the rules. You get
an extension of time only -if- the admin thinks it will help move
the process forward. Proponents aren't allowed to extend
their own time. Ed Ohare understood this when he worked
on his headline-news proposal, why don't you?
This is not the time for a FINAL RFD, because the conditions
have not been met. [1] I suggest you go back to the 3rd RFD
and answer Jim Riley's questions. For that purpose, the time
limit on the 3rd RFD is extended another week, to and including
September 7, 2003.
Thank you for your time,
Henrietta
[1] The initial discussion period will be ten days, during which time the
proponent may revise and re-post at any time based on any feedback
received. If after ten days, all revisions have been made and there are
no serious objections to the group, the proponent should post the
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
final product with the following Subject line: [FINAL RFD] <name of
newsgroup>, and the newgroup control message will be issued by
the hierarchy maintainer after a final week (7 days) has passed and
no major objections are heard.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Source: www.usenetnews.us/us-create.shtml
Daryl Hunt
"Henrietta K Thomas" <hk...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:i575lv0d6lpedl2eg...@4ax.com...
That's fine and your call but as I said before, these folks have been given
many times the leeway than any other I have ever seen in us or alt config in
history. At some point, I suggest you just end it and let them know prior
that this is it. Otherwise, it goes on and and on. If you wish to put up
with the abuse, then so be it. It goes on forever.
Henrietta K Thomas
<dh...@i70west.nospam.com> wrote, in us.config:
>
>"Henrietta K Thomas" <hk...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>news:i575lv0d6lpedl2eg...@4ax.com...
<...>
>> This is not the time for a FINAL RFD, because the conditions
>> have not been met. [1] I suggest you go back to the 3rd RFD
>> and answer Jim Riley's questions. For that purpose, the time
>> limit on the 3rd RFD is extended another week, to and including
>> September 7, 2003.
>
>That's fine and your call but as I said before, these folks have been given
>many times the leeway than any other I have ever seen in us or alt config in
>history. At some point, I suggest you just end it and let them know prior
>that this is it. Otherwise, it goes on and and on. If you wish to put up
>with the abuse, then so be it. It goes on forever.
The guidelines only allow for two extensions, so this will be the
last for the rechartering of uma. Another extension may also be
granted for the removal of umn-g. Then it becomes decision time
for both proposals.
ht
RTO Trainer
> wrote, in us.config:
>
> >"Daryl Hunt" <dh...@i70west.nospam.com> wrote in message news:
> <bipqa3$buom1$1...@ID-203896.news.uni-berlin.de>...
>
> <...>
>
> >> > Rationale: us.military.army
> >> >
> >> > us.military.army is an unmoderated newsgroup created by accident in
> >> > June 1997 in response to a proposal made to us.config and alt.config
> >> > prior to the adoption of a formal procedure for newsgroup creation in
> >> > the us.* hierarchy. A formal charter was never adopted because the
> >> > group was doing well and there didn't seem to be a great need to
> >> > formalize the charter. Later, traffic increased dramatically and
> >> > questions were raised about the purpose of the group, formalization of
> >> > the original proposal was undertaken in mid-2000. The result,
> >> > however, was not reflective of the use or needs of the group which
> >> > should have been taken more fully into account, especially in light of
> >> > the group's long unchartered status and ad hoc origins.
> >>
> >> Since this may be read by News Admins, you just file 13nd it on the first
> >> line.
> >>
> >
> >Tell Henrietta. She wrote it.
>
> Not quite. The first part came directly from my original RFD
> to charter us.military.army, but the second part was added by
> RTO. Compare:
>
The first line is what was objected to. What is the difference?
> >From: Henrietta K. Thomas <usa...@wwa.com>
> >Subject: [RFD] Proposal to charter us.military.army
> >Date: 2000/05/29
> >Message-ID: <uv36jsg6g7r0ia2rb...@4ax.com>
> <...>
> >Rationale: us.military.army
> >
> >us.military.army is an unmoderated newsgroup created by accident in
> >June 1997 in response to a proposal made to us.config and alt.config
> >prior to the adoption of a formal procedure for newsgroup creation in
> >the us.* hierarchy. A formal charter was never adopted because the
> >group was doing well and there didn't seem to be a great need to
> >formalize the charter. But, in the last few months, questions have been
> >raised about the purpose of the group, so it appears to be time to review
> >and formalize the original proposal.
>
> <...>
>
> >> > - Discussions of US Army folklore and common experiences
> >> >shared by Soldiers or their dependents
> >>
> >>
> >> Can you spell AFM? It exists. Just leave this out.
> >>
> >
> >Fact is that AFM is moribund. Folklore gets discussed in UMA. Don't
> >see any reason to go out of my way to support an alt.*. Do see a
> >reason to minimize the "you're off-topic" crowd.
>
> Then why don't you just scrap the list and make _everything_
> on topic?
>
> <...>
>
Not everything. Just everything we talk about now to prevent certain
individuals from getting all pedantic about it.
> >> > Language:
> >> >
> >> > As in actual practice in the US Army, foul language is not banned nor
> >> > encouraged.
> >>
> >> Once again, this is NOT the US Army.
> >
> >Didn't claim it was.
>
> Then why do you use the US Army to justify the use of
> foul language in a Usenet newsgroup?
>
Why did you use the US Army to justfy creating a group?
> >> I don't see a single thing written
> >> anywhere that the United States Army has officially adopted this as their
> >> official News Group.
> >>
> >
> >So what?
>
> So maybe you should stop using the US Army as an excuse
> to justify rude behavior.
>
How many times would you like me to state the purpose of the
provision?
> >> I think enough have stated you could leave this out with better
> >>results than leaving it in.
> >
> >I think I've stated each time that I disagree. No one's been
> >persuasive on the issue yet.
>
> It's really not our job to talk you out of it -- it's your job to
> convince -us- that the rule is necessary, and so far, you
> haven't done that.
>
That's because it deprives trolls of an opportunity to disrupt UMA and
you wouldn't want that.
> >> The Dacorum of the Usenet already covers this anyway and you
> >> already mentioned this. Leaving this in really means that the Charter
> >> allows it.
> >>
> >
> >Now you've got it.
>
> Still no justification as to why foul language should be specifically
> allowed in the charter.
>
It isn't specifically allowed. Its simply not condemned.
> >> > Top-Posting:
> >> >
> >> > The use of top posting is discouraged, as many believe it is
> >> > inappropriate, but it is not forbidden.
> >>
> >> Once again, you just gave permission.
> >
> >You've got it again.
>
> And again, where is your justification?
>
And again, to deprive trolls of the opportunity to disrupt UMA.
> >> Fix this and we can live with it.
> >> Don't fix and I see a few that won't.
> >>
> >
> >I don't see anyone that "won't," a few that say they'd rather not, but
> >hey, that's what six-month trail periods are for. If no one can offer
> >a persuasuve argumet in theory, I might be persuaded by adverse
> >result in practice.
>
> Why wait? Take it out now and save yourself the trouble later on.
>
You already said it was okay. Sorry. No take-backs.
> >> > This newsgroup has, to date, been very active and represents many
> >> > years of collective military service. Newcomers are always welcome and
> >> > any on topic question receives the benefit of that experience.
> >> >
> >> > Regular posters have the responsibility to direct newsgroup users to
> >> > follow this charter and to bring to the attention any violation or
> >> > abuse OF the net to the attention of the us.* hierarchy administrator
> >> > who is charged with maintaining good order.
> >>
> >> Give it a break. I just had another bit of netcopping by one of yours come
> >> to my attention. So drop this completely. I won't netcop if you won't.
> >> And you have to admit, I am one up on your bunch on being affective at it.
> >>
> >
> >This charter isn't in effect yet.
>
> And it won't go into effect until it is properly done.
>
Show me improper.
> >> > Six-month trial:
> >> >
> >> > As provided by us.* hierarchy rules, this charter shall remain in full
> >> > force and effect for at least six months. At the end of the six-month
> >> > trial period, amendments may be proposed by participants in the
> >> > newsgroup in accordance with procedures outlined in the us.* hierarchy
> >> > newsgroup creation rules.
> >> >
> >> > Thank you for reading the UMA charter.
> >> >
> >> > *****END CHARTER*****
> >> > FRONT TOWARD ENEMY
> >>
> >> Bounced, Bounced and Bounced.
> >>
> >
> >That's not persuasive.
>
> Neither are your arguments for leaving this stuff in.
> You were advised to take -all- of it outside the charter,
> yet you have refused to do so.
>
You reading my posts with the same policy you use on UMA? You might
at least reply to the arguments I've already made instead of making me
trot them out again.
> >>
> >>
> >> >
> >> > Procedures
> >> >
> >> > Newsgroup creation in the us.* hierarchy is by consensus in us.config.
> >> > As provided by the us.* hierarchy rules, this proposal shall remain on
> >> > the table for seven days, to and including 5 September 2003. The
> >> > hierarchy administrator may decide to extend the time for discussion
> >> > or take other actions. Refer to
> >> > http://www.usenetnews.us/us-create.shtml for further information.
> >>
> >> Since you are NOT the us Admin, you don't have the right to extend the time.
> >> HKT can only do that.
> >>
> >
> >Its a flaw in the rules. The proponent is charged with posting
> >initial, subsequent and final RFDs but then it says that only the
> >admin can extend discussion time. I suppose that HKT could declare a
> >subsequent or final RFD a dead-ball, I don't know that she ever has
> >and it'd proabably generate quite a counter-productive controversy if
> >she did.
>
> Don't tempt me, RTO. There is no flaw in the rules. You get
> an extension of time only -if- the admin thinks it will help move
> the process forward. Proponents aren't allowed to extend
> their own time. Ed Ohare understood this when he worked
> on his headline-news proposal, why don't you?
>
Seems I do. Or you don't think I'm playing by the rules?
> This is not the time for a FINAL RFD, because the conditions
> have not been met. [1] I suggest you go back to the 3rd RFD
> and answer Jim Riley's questions. For that purpose, the time
> limit on the 3rd RFD is extended another week, to and including
> September 7, 2003.
>
I've been answering all questions right along. Jim: Correct me if
I'm wrong, but the impression I've had from the tone of you questions
was that you desired clarification rather than were expressing
reservations or complaints.
> Thank you for your time,
>
> Henrietta
>
> [1] The initial discussion period will be ten days, during which time the
> proponent may revise and re-post at any time based on any feedback
> received. If after ten days, all revisions have been made and there are
> no serious objections to the group, the proponent should post the
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Show me "serious."
> final product with the following Subject line: [FINAL RFD] <name of
> newsgroup>, and the newgroup control message will be issued by
> the hierarchy maintainer after a final week (7 days) has passed and
> no major objections are heard.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Show me "major."
> Source: www.usenetnews.us/us-create.shtml
RTO Trainer
EDIT: Cut above two paragraphs and replace with--
The newsgroup us.military.army is an unmoderated group for discussion
of the United States Army. This group is intended as both a social
and a topical newsgroup that will allow soldiers and their families,
members of sister services and civilians a way to meet new people,
within and without the services, with like interests and to enrich
their military related experience. This newsgroup has, to date, been
very active and represents many years of collective military service.
Newcomers are always welcome and any on topic question will receive
EDIT: Cut Above Paragraph.
ssn...@earthlink.net
we should incorporate it into model M-5.
Also Ok by me and should be incorporated in the next
re-write.
Army Individual
> > Ready Reserve*; SGT David Casey, New Mexico National
Guard; LTC Sydney
> > T. H. Chock US Army Individual Ready Reserve*; Cpl Cindi
Prudhomme,
> > Canadian Armed Forces (Army)
> > Host: TBD
* Note change Inactive to Individual Ready Reserve (my
mistake for having missed this. Also, IIRC you may wish to
ad CPL Thomas Hart - former US Army per his request.
Snark
Replacement_Tommel
>>says...
>
(snip)
>On 31 Aug 2003 09:03:33 -0700, bill....@us.army.mil (RTO Trainer)
>wrote, in us.config:
>
>>
>>Fact is that AFM is moribund. Folklore gets discussed in UMA. Don't
>>see any reason to go out of my way to support an alt.*. Do see a
>>reason to minimize the "you're off-topic" crowd.
>
>Then why don't you just scrap the list and make _everything_
>on topic?
>
Military folklore isn't part of daily life in the US Army?
-Tom
"Everybody has the right to express what he thinks. That, of course, lets the
crackpots in. But if you cannot tell a crackpot when you see one, you ought to
be taken in." - Harry S. Truman
ssn...@earthlink.net
>
<snip>
> > >> > - Discussions of US Army folklore and common
experiences
> > >> >shared by Soldiers or their dependents
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Can you spell AFM? It exists. Just leave this out.
> > >>
> > >
> > >Fact is that AFM is moribund. Folklore gets discussed
in UMA. Don't
> > >see any reason to go out of my way to support an alt.*.
Do see a
> > >reason to minimize the "you're off-topic" crowd.
> >
> > Then why don't you just scrap the list and make
_everything_
> > on topic?
We are speaking of the inclusion of US Army folklore.
Which, while it could be construed quite broadly, would not,
despite your protestation to the contrary, make
_everything_ on topic in uma.
Snark
Daryl Hunt
You are talking about including a group that your bunch originally came from
that was overrun by trolls, xposters and spammers. Sounds quite familiar,
doesn't it.
Replacement_Tommel
>
(snip)
>
>You are talking about including a group that your bunch originally came from
>that was overrun by trolls, xposters and spammers. Sounds quite familiar,
>doesn't it.
>
Daryl knows quite a bit about the spamming part... ;-P
ssn...@earthlink.net
Army and not about a moribund group in the alt.* hierarchy.
So that people like Mike P, Big_Gun, or Old Fool or anyone
else for that matter can reminice about their experiences
and lessons learned in the US Army.
Do you object to that? Have you forgotten that Old Fool
had some poster come down on him for posting his reminisces
just last summer? Personally, I like to hear what some of
these fellows have to say. It may or may not apply to the
Army today but, it provides a connection with our past.
Snark
Daryl Hunt
"Replacement_Tommel"
<replaceme...@404LemmingsREMOVE.com_IT'SINVALIDBABY> wrote in message
news:bj03p...@drn.newsguy.com...
> >In article <bivut0$do2fs$1...@ID-203896.news.uni-berlin.de>, Daryl Hunt
says...
> >
>
> (snip)
>
> >
> >You are talking about including a group that your bunch originally came
from
> >that was overrun by trolls, xposters and spammers. Sounds quite
familiar,
> >doesn't it.
> >
>
> Daryl knows quite a bit about the spamming part... ;-P
Glad you are getting called up. Maybe a bit of humanity will result from it.
If not, no problem. Just one less Group Mission Troll to have around for a
bit.
Daryl Hunt
My lessons from the Army are quite different than yours. I have a much
better memory than I see in here. But I can tell the difference between
reality and manufacutured reality so no real harm done.
> Do you object to that? Have you forgotten that Old Fool
> had some poster come down on him for posting his reminisces
> just last summer? Personally, I like to hear what some of
> these fellows have to say. It may or may not apply to the
> Army today but, it provides a connection with our past.
Since I am not the one that came down on Old Fool, you don't have much a
point. A little never hurt a thing. But let's look at what it really is.
You are using "Folklore" in the place of History and we already have a place
for that. Do you want UMA to replace everything? If so, we need to expand
the Charter to read where it allows everything.
ssn...@earthlink.net
Snark
ssn...@earthlink.net
And you served in what Army?
I have a much
> better memory than I see in here.
You can't even remember who Tommel6 is as opposed to someone
else.
But I can tell the difference between
> reality and manufacutured reality so no real harm done.
>
Can you? Couldn't prove it by what anyone has seen here or
anywhere else.
Perhaps you'd care to explain these then with your perfect
memory.
http://groups.google.com/groups?num=100&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&o
e=UTF-8&q=Daryl+Hunt&sa=N&tab=wg
or because it wraps.
http://makeashorterlink.com/?Q4E3212C5
Tell us about these would you please?
>
> > Do you object to that? Have you forgotten that Old
Fool
> > had some poster come down on him for posting his
reminisces
> > just last summer? Personally, I like to hear what some
of
> > these fellows have to say. It may or may not apply to
the
> > Army today but, it provides a connection with our past.
>
> Since I am not the one that came down on Old Fool, you
don't have much a
> point.
It doesn't matter who did. In fact that person was roundly
criticized by all of the regular posters. What does matter
is that it happened and we don't want it to happen again.
Why does everything have to center around you?
A little never hurt a thing. But let's look at what it
really is.
>
> You are using "Folklore" in the place of History and we
already have a place
> for that.
No, I'm using folklore in the same sense as defined by the
dictionary.
{definition follows]
FOLKLORE
Pronunciation: 'fowk`lowr
WordNet Dictionary
Definition: [n] the unwritten literature (stories and
proverbs and riddles and songs) of a culture
See Also: folk tale, folktale, lore, traditional
knowledge
[end definition]
Do you want UMA to replace everything?
No, we, as in everyone else posting in uma and interested in
the new uma charter, simply wish to assure ourselves that
the kind of incident that prompted someone to rebuke another
poster for posting US Army folklore will not be repeated.
If so, we need to expand
> the Charter to read where it allows everything.
>
That's not what that line states.
Snark
>
>
Henrietta K Thomas
<ssn...@earthlink.net> wrote, in us.config:
Please don't blame Daryl for something -I- said.
Daryl Hunt
You already stated you NEVER ask that. I just wondered how long it would
take you. I served WITH the Army on many exercises. And how many AF
exercises did you serve on? While you guys played in the bush, your Bus
Drivers played cards, made good buddies out of YOUR cooks and never
complained. If you heard us complain, run very fast.
>
>
> I have a much
> > better memory than I see in here.
>
> You can't even remember who Tommel6 is as opposed to someone
> else.
I don't care. That's the difference. One group Mission Troll is the same
as another.
>
> But I can tell the difference between
> > reality and manufacutured reality so no real harm done.
> >
> Can you? Couldn't prove it by what anyone has seen here or
> anywhere else.
> Perhaps you'd care to explain these then with your perfect
> memory.
>
> http://groups.google.com/groups?num=100&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&o
> e=UTF-8&q=Daryl+Hunt&sa=N&tab=wg
Give it a friggin rest. You lost this whole thing by your own actions.
Either do the actions to succeed or just bask in the warm feeling of
failure.
>
> >
> > > Do you object to that? Have you forgotten that Old
> Fool
> > > had some poster come down on him for posting his
> reminisces
> > > just last summer? Personally, I like to hear what some
> of
> > > these fellows have to say. It may or may not apply to
> the
> > > Army today but, it provides a connection with our past.
> >
> > Since I am not the one that came down on Old Fool, you
> don't have much a
> > point.
>
> It doesn't matter who did. In fact that person was roundly
> criticized by all of the regular posters. What does matter
> is that it happened and we don't want it to happen again.
Your idea of criticing is everyone elses idea of group mission trolling.
>
> Why does everything have to center around you?
You would rather it centered around you.
>
>
> A little never hurt a thing. But let's look at what it
> really is.
Your reality is straight out of the Movie of the Month.
> >
> > You are using "Folklore" in the place of History and we
> already have a place
> > for that.
>
> No, I'm using folklore in the same sense as defined by the
> dictionary.
> {definition follows]
> FOLKLORE
> Pronunciation: 'fowk`lowr
It does not apply.
>
> WordNet Dictionary
>
> Definition: [n] the unwritten literature (stories and
> proverbs and riddles and songs) of a culture
>
> See Also: folk tale, folktale, lore, traditional
> knowledge
> [end definition]
>
> > Do you want UMA to replace everything?
>
> No, we, as in everyone else posting in uma and interested in
> the new uma charter, simply wish to assure ourselves that
> the kind of incident that prompted someone to rebuke another
> poster for posting US Army folklore will not be repeated.
If that were the case, you would already have it done. From this point on,
if it's not done very quickly, it ends and you can go back to group mission
trolling somewhere else other than in here. HKT has already ruled. Sept
7th is it. Either make it where it works or not. Either way, that's the
end of it. Your standard method of wearing down the other side didn't work
this time and cooler heads will prevail.
>
> If so, we need to expand
> > the Charter to read where it allows everything.
> >
> That's not what that line states.
Fix it or lose it.
Daryl Hunt
We both said about the same thing. I don't take the blame anymore than you
should. The real word is, "Credit".
Henrietta K Thomas
On 1 Sep 2003 07:39:24 -0700, bill....@us.army.mil (RTO Trainer)
wrote, in us.config:
>bill....@us.army.mil (RTO Trainer) wrote in message news:<ed856011.03082...@posting.google.com>...
>> Request for Discussion
>> unmoderated group us.military.army
>>
>> There having been no serious dispute as to provisions of the third
>> RFD, this is the final Request for Discussion (RFD) to replace the
>> charter of an existing newsgroup in the us.* hierarchy,
>> us.military.army. This is not a call for votes. Charter amendment is
>> by consensus in us.config. Procedures for conducting the discussion
>> are detailed below at the end of this RFD. This final RFD contains
>> minor tweaking of the proposed charter of the third RFD: clarification
>> of enforcement responsibility, grammar of the top-posting provision is
>> improved and a variety of small grammar, capitalization and
>> punctuation errors have been corrected.
This part will have to be redone, with standard boilerplate at
the top, followed by a statement of changes from previous RFD.
<...>
>> CHARTER: us.military.army Model M-3A
>>
>> The newsgroup us.military.army is an unmoderated group for, about and
>> pertaining to the United States Army, its personnel present or past,
>> their families, friends and any other parties that have a genuine
>> interest in the US Army.
>>
>> This group is intended as both a social and a topical newsgroup that
>> will allow soldiers and their families, members of sister services and
>> civilians a way to meet new people, within and without the services,
>> with like interests and to enrich their military related experience.
>>
>
>EDIT: Cut above two paragraphs and replace with--
>The newsgroup us.military.army is an unmoderated group for discussion
>of the United States Army. This group is intended as both a social
>and a topical newsgroup that will allow soldiers and their families,
>members of sister services and civilians a way to meet new people,
>within and without the services, with like interests and to enrich
>their military related experience. This newsgroup has, to date, been
>very active and represents many years of collective military service.
>Newcomers are always welcome and any on topic question will receive
>the benefit of that experience.
Thank you very much for cleaning up this language. It's a bit
long, but much better than what was there before. Suggest the
following changes [in brackets] would make it even better:
us.military.army is an unmoderated [newsgroup] for the discussion
of the United States Army. [The] group is intended as both a social
and a topical newsgroup that will allow soldiers and their families,
members of sister services and civilians a way to meet new people
[with like interests, within and without the services], and to enrich
their military related experience. This newsgroup has, to date, been
very active and represents many years of collective military service.
Newcomers are always welcome and any on topic question will receive
the benefit of that experience.
<...>
>> This newsgroup is a forum that is governed by normal rules for
>> decorum, civility, and debate. One is encouraged to review and comply
>> with these rules that are posted in several places throughout the
>> Internet.
I would move this to the Posting Guidelines section.
<...>
>> Posting Guidelines
>>
>> The most recent version of the us.* hierarchy posting rules apply to
>> this newsgroup. Violations of this charter or the hierarchy rules may
>> result in action being taken against the offender and articles
>> determined to be abuse OF the net may be cancelled without warning.
>>
>> Responsibility for enforcement shall belong solely to the us.*
>> Administration.
I would drop this paragraph.
>> Crossposting:
>>
>> The us.* hierarchy rules allow for a five newsgroup crosspost limit.
>> Not more than 3 newsgroups is the desired norm for us.military.army
>> whenever practical.
Leave this one in.
>> Language:
>>
>> As in actual practice in the US Army, foul language is not banned nor
>> encouraged.
And this.
>> Top-Posting:
>>
>> The use of top posting is discouraged, as many believe it is
>> inappropriate, but it is not forbidden.
And this.
And replace it all with this:
Everything not prohibited by this charter or the hierarchy
rules is permitted. In case of conflict between this charter
and the hierarchy rules, the hierarchy rules will control.
Participants are asked not to netcop, but to report violations
of this charter or the hierarchy rules directly to the hierarchy
administrator.
<...>
>> Regular posters have the responsibility to direct newsgroup users to
>> follow this charter and to bring to the attention any violation or
>> abuse OF the net to the attention of the us.* hierarchy administrator
>> who is charged with maintaining good order.
You can drop this one as well.
>> Six-month trial:
>>
>> As provided by us.* hierarchy rules, this charter shall remain in full
>> force and effect for at least six months. At the end of the six-month
>> trial period, amendments may be proposed by participants in the
>> newsgroup in accordance with procedures outlined in the us.* hierarchy
>> newsgroup creation rules.
>>
>> Thank you for reading the UMA charter.
You've already been told that this sentence should go
-outside- the charter.
>> *****END CHARTER*****
Recap of recommendations for Posting Guidelines:
Posting Guidelines
This newsgroup is a forum that is governed by normal rules for
decorum, civility, and debate. One is encouraged to review and
comply with these rules that are posted in several places throughout
the Internet.
The most recent version of the us.* hierarchy posting rules apply
to this newsgroup. Violations of this charter or the hierarchy rules
may result in action being taken against the offender and articles
determined to be abuse OF the net may be cancelled without warning.
Everything not prohibited by this charter or the hierarchy rules is
permitted. In case of conflict between this charter and the hierarchy
rules, the hierarchy rules will control. Participants are asked not to
netcop, but to report violations of this charter or the hierarchy rules
directly to the hierarchy administrator.
The us.* hierarchy rules allow for a five newsgroup crosspost limit.
Not more than 3 newsgroups is the desired norm for us.military.army
whenever practical.
=======
I think it reads a lot easier this way, and does away with the
necessity of explicitly permitting what would otherwise be
considered undesirable behavior.
hth
ssn...@earthlink.net
No, I don't state absolutes. Since we all know I've asked
this particular question in the past your statement is moot.
However, please post the message ID where you believe I ever
stated such a thing.
Still the question remains. At this point you have claimed
to have "lessons from the Army". In what Army did you
serve?
I just wondered how long it would
> take you. I served WITH the Army on many exercises.
Which Army did you serve with on many exercises?
What units did you serve with and who was your Commanding
Officer in those exercises?
And how many AF
> exercises did you serve on?
I served in a number of Joint Services exercises including
Tempo Brave, Tempest Express 1983-87 (CPXs), Reforger '74
and '75, Team Spirit '83, 84, 85, 86, and '87, RIMPAC '84,
and '86, Cobra Gold '83, ;84, and '85, Positive Force, '86
and '02, Millenium Challenge 2002, Operation Just Cause and
Operation Enduring Freedom. Of those 13 are Joint Field
Training Exercises. Eight are CPXs (Command and Control
Exercises) Three were a Joint SIMEX. and two were Joint
Combat Operations. Those are just the ones whose names I
remember.
How about you?
While you guys played in the bush, your Bus
> Drivers played cards, made good buddies out of YOUR cooks
and never
> complained.
I rather doubt that. The USAF units operated out of USAF
bases except for the CCTs, PJs and Special Security who were
in the "bush" as you call it, with us.
If you heard us complain, run very fast.
Yep, sure.
> > I have a much
> > > better memory than I see in here.
> >
> > You can't even remember who Tommel6 is as opposed to
someone
> > else.
>
> I don't care. That's the difference. One group Mission
Troll is the same
> as another.
>
LMAO! Another way of saying you can't remember who said
what even when its only been a matter of days.
>
> >
> > But I can tell the difference between
> > > reality and manufacutured reality so no real harm
done.
> > >
> > Can you? Couldn't prove it by what anyone has seen here
or
> > anywhere else.
> > Perhaps you'd care to explain these then with your
perfect
> > memory.
> >
> >
http://groups.google.com/groups?num=100&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&o
> > e=UTF-8&q=Daryl+Hunt&sa=N&tab=wg
>
> Give it a friggin rest.
You didn't. Why should I?
You lost this whole thing by your own actions.
> Either do the actions to succeed or just bask in the warm
feeling of
> failure.
What was our objective here? You can't tell if we "won" or
"lost" anything if you don't know what our objective is can
you?
Perhaps regardless of the outcome we will have achieved our
objective?
> >
> > >
> > > > Do you object to that? Have you forgotten that Old
> > Fool
> > > > had some poster come down on him for posting his
> > reminisces
> > > > just last summer? Personally, I like to hear what
some
> > of
> > > > these fellows have to say. It may or may not apply
to
> > the
> > > > Army today but, it provides a connection with our
past.
> > >
> > > Since I am not the one that came down on Old Fool, you
> > don't have much a
> > > point.
> >
> > It doesn't matter who did. In fact that person was
roundly
> > criticized by all of the regular posters. What does
matter
> > is that it happened and we don't want it to happen
again.
>
> Your idea of criticing is everyone elses idea of group
mission trolling.
>
Do you object to the rest of everyone criticizing the person
who pounced on Old Fool for his post?
>
> >
> > Why does everything have to center around you?
>
> You would rather it centered around you.
No, but, once again you fail to answer a straightforward
question based upon what you've written.
> >
> >
> > A little never hurt a thing. But let's look at what
it
> > really is.
>
> Your reality is straight out of the Movie of the Month.
>
LOL! And yours isn't?
>
> > >
> > > You are using "Folklore" in the place of History and
we
> > already have a place
> > > for that.
> >
> > No, I'm using folklore in the same sense as defined by
the
> > dictionary.
> > {definition follows]
> > FOLKLORE
> > Pronunciation: 'fowk`lowr
>
> It does not apply.
>
It does. Read the definition.
>
> >
> > WordNet Dictionary
> >
> > Definition: [n] the unwritten literature (stories
and
> > proverbs and riddles and songs) of a culture
> >
> > See Also: folk tale, folktale, lore, traditional
> > knowledge
> > [end definition]
> >
> > > Do you want UMA to replace everything?
> >
> > No, we, as in everyone else posting in uma and
interested in
> > the new uma charter, simply wish to assure ourselves
that
> > the kind of incident that prompted someone to rebuke
another
> > poster for posting US Army folklore will not be
repeated.
>
> If that were the case, you would already have it done.
We do have it done and there is, as LP pointed out consensus
aplenty.
From this point on,
> if it's not done very quickly, it ends and you can go back
to group mission
> trolling somewhere else other than in here.
Read the above.
HKT has already ruled. Sept
> 7th is it.
Considering that the final RFD is already on the table and
aside from you and HT there is consensus of opinion to allow
the adoption of the new uma charter as defined by Merriam
Webster.
Main Entry: con新en新us
Pronunciation: k&n-'sen(t)-s&s
Function: noun
Usage: often attributive
Etymology: Latin, from consentire
Date: 1858
1 a : general agreement : UNANIMITY <the consensus of their
opinion, based on reports... from the border -- John Hersey>
b : the judgment arrived at by most of those concerned <the
consensus was to go ahead>
2 : group solidarity in sentiment and belief
usage The phrase consensus of opinion, which is not actually
redundant (see sense 1a; the sense that takes the phrase is
slightly older), has been so often claimed to be a
redundancy that many writers avoid it. You are safe in using
consensus alone when it is clear you mean consensus of
opinion, and most writers in fact do so.
Either make it where it works or not.
We have. You're the only one who seems to believe it does
not and HT is just setting up roadblocks in what seems to be
an attempt at proving that Bob Officer is right about her.
Either way, that's the
> end of it.
Yep.
Your standard method of wearing down the other side didn't
work
> this time and cooler heads will prevail.
Which cooler heads? The only ones that might be considered
dispassionate and objective that I see are Jim Riley and
dvus.
> >
> > If so, we need to expand
> > > the Charter to read where it allows everything.
> > >
> > That's not what that line states.
>
> Fix it or lose it.
Why? It says what it needs to say for the protection of
people who post their experiences in the US Army to uma.
Or do you object because it doesn't let you prate on and on
with your confabulations while you jump all over other
people for telling their story?
Must be nice knowing you won't be called to task because
you're the teacher's pet. :-)
Snark
ssn...@earthlink.net
that he uses something you may have said at one point or
another, we should consider him not to be responsible for
what he posts?
Snark
The SoldierGrrrl
>Date: 9/1/2003 3:59 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: <geg7lvg5hd3vo07hm...@4ax.com>
>Note: I do not consider this to be any kind of FINAL RFD.
Why not?
Cry "CHEEBLE" and let slip the lemmings of war! -- D.B.
The SoldierGrrrl
Truck Goddess
Army: A body of men assembled to rectify the mistakes of the diplomats.
--Josephus Daniels--
My email is less "hooah" than I am.
Henrietta K Thomas
<ssn...@earthlink.net> wrote, in us.config:
Daryl did not say what you said he said. It was I who said
"Then why don't you just scrap the list and make _everything_
on topic?"
See Message-ID: <i575lv0d6lpedl2eg...@4ax.com>
Replacement_Tommel
>
>
>>"ssn...@bangserver.na" <ssn...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>>news:2VN4b.4914$tw6....@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>>
(snip)
>> And you served in what Army?
>
>You already stated you NEVER ask that. I just wondered how long it would
>take you. I served WITH the Army on many exercises.
Don't worry Daryl, we all remember the infamous "82nd Airborne opened up on the
Oklahoma NG with a LAW" post...
In message ID <9QkO8.191173$cQ3.5874@sccrnsc01>
Deadmeat states:
<begin quoted text>
"In the 80s, we supported the 82nd at Ft Hood for an Exercise. It was live
fire. They hadn't invented the fancy little lazer tag
yet and it was customary for the 82nd to carry live ammo. The brought
in the Guard from Oklahoma to play in those same games. I never met such
a bunch of arrogant, death defying Soldiers as the OKAG.
Things went fine until the Guard decided to play
rough. Not a good move. They started shooting to scare. The 82nd at first
didn't return fire. One stupid Guard kid laid a round too close for comfort on
an 82nd grunt. The 82nd Grunt laid a LAW right past the kids ears. 2nd
and 3rd degree burns. They shipped the Guards out the next day. Many in the
82nd said they were through playing with the kiddies. In a down and dirty,
the OKAG would have lasted about 10 minutes if that long against the 82nd.
The 82nd still had many Vietnam Vets at that time and they knew how to
"Play" war.
Since the end of Vietnam, too many part timers approach
it like it was a game. For the most part, the mouthiest ones in here
are Gaurd. The good news is, in the case of a bad time that they get called
up, they will be taken under a Regulars "Wing" and smartened up pretty
quick. They will see the world through a different set of eyes and they will
never view War quite the same again. The other option is, the mouthy ones
are the first to get killed. That also takes care of the problem."
<end quoted text>
Helomech
It looks just fine to me...
Helomech
"Henrietta K Thomas" <hk...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:geg7lvg5hd3vo07hm...@4ax.com...
Daryl Hunt
"Replacement_Tommel"
<replaceme...@404LemmingsREMOVE.com_IT'SINVALIDBABY> wrote in message
> >In article <bj0dig$dq51j$1...@ID-203896.news.uni-berlin.de>, Daryl Hunt
says...
> >
> >
> >>"ssn...@bangserver.na" <ssn...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> >>news:2VN4b.4914$tw6....@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> >>
>
> (snip)
>
> >> And you served in what Army?
> >
> >You already stated you NEVER ask that. I just wondered how long it would
> >take you. I served WITH the Army on many exercises.
>
> Don't worry Daryl, we all remember the infamous "82nd Airborne opened up
on the
> Oklahoma NG with a LAW" post...
You still here? Thought you were heading out to play your little war games.
Daryl Hunt
No, I didn't but I did say something similiar and independant of it. When
two independant people state something similiar, maybe it should be worth a
looksee. When 3 post it then it's probably correct in assuming there may be
a problem. When the 404th say it, it's probably just a Group Mission
Trolling and bears little to reality in the first place.
Sorry, HKT but that is the way I saw their actions before this and they
didn't let me down. Instead of "Working" to get the necessary changes, they
just keep Group Mission Posting attempting to bully others into surrendering
to them.
I just did a fast search on AFM with a couple of names of "The Group".
Interesting reading. With the tanacity of their forcing their will......er
posting, no wonder the place died. The one thing that I do note is that
they don't play well with Civilians even though they are Civilians more of
the time than not. I can't speak for the off the Net but on the net, they
don't interact well with Civilians who differ in opinion. Yet, they think
it's other people that do not mix well with them. Actually, it's a bit of
both. This is why it's been so difficult in explaining to them what is
necessary in a Civilian NG about the military of what is necessary. I
imagine, at one time, I was much the same way. But one day, reality set in.
I had realized I had become a Civilian.
Daryl Hunt
> Note: I do not consider this to be any kind of FINAL RFD.
HKT, I notice the reinforcements are joining in on this one. Just ignore
them. You already explained where they can go and read the info a few
hundred times already.
RTO Trainer
> On 31 Aug 2003 09:03:33 -0700, bill....@us.army.mil (RTO Trainer)
> wrote, in us.config:
> >I think I've stated each time that I disagree. No one's been
> >persuasive on the issue yet.
>
> It's really not our job to talk you out of it -- it's your job to
> convince -us- that the rule is necessary, and so far, you
> haven't done that.
>
1) I don't believe you can be persuaded. Or more accurately, *I*
can't persuade you.
2) The implication here is that if I can't persuade you that I am
wrong.
The answer I have to #2 is: Like Hell. You want me to acknowledge
being wrong, you have to be persuasive. I'll stick to my guns until
then.
RTO Trainer
He's not even in the Army anymore.
I'm the one getting called up.
You want to wish evil on me as well?
--
"In this era of American triumph, only two institutions continue to resist the future: blue collar unions and our armed forces. The unions have a better case."
--Ralph Peters
SPC Robert White
31U, OKARNG
Commo Plt. HHC 45th eSB
Always Forward!
*****Begin Lemming Code Block*****
LIT\LSS d+(BDU) s+>s: a C+$ N++ aNG///LCC PS+ PE tv+ b++ e++>e++++
******End Lemming COde Block******
RTO Trainer
Not everything, but a lot of it, and Yes we are doing that. That was
the point.
redc1c4
(snippage occurs of massive bushwa)
let me get this straight.........
you don't read this group. (UMA) [cite available]
you have no personal experience that is germane to this group.
you have nothing to contribute to this group, since
(to my recollection) you have never contributed to a thread other
than config BS.
yet you sit in judgment of all who actually have been there,
done that, and post accordingly.
i'd go into great detail why this makes you unfit for your title,
and negates your stated positions, but i have a life, and options.
right now, i'd rather go swim in my pool then explain in detail what
a pathetic sack of bastards you are. never the less, you remain
said sack. you lack the moral authority to make ANY claim, statement,
or prounouncement of leadership, here or anywhere.
you are morally bankrupt, and would do well to resign from public life,
pending a karmic makeover.
even DM has more credibility than you, and that's sad.
what's sadder is that you had choices, and this moral quagmire is your
apparently desired endpoint.
redc1c4,
"Mint Julep martini, anyone?"
--
"Enlisted men are stupid, but extremely cunning and sly, and bear
considerable watching."
Army Officer's Guide
David Casey
>>> > us.military.army is an unmoderated newsgroup created by accident in
>>> > June 1997 in response to a proposal made to us.config and alt.config
>>> > prior to the adoption of a formal procedure for newsgroup creation in
>>> > the us.* hierarchy. A formal charter was never adopted because the
>>> > group was doing well and there didn't seem to be a great need to
>>> > formalize the charter. Later, traffic increased dramatically and
>>> > questions were raised about the purpose of the group, formalization of
>>> > the original proposal was undertaken in mid-2000. The result,
>>> > however, was not reflective of the use or needs of the group which
>>> > should have been taken more fully into account, especially in light of
>>> > the group's long unchartered status and ad hoc origins.
>>>
>>> Since this may be read by News Admins, you just file 13nd it on the
>>> first line.
>>
>> Tell Henrietta. She wrote it.
>
> Then climb all over HKT for something She has done instead of all the things
> she hasn't done. If she wrote this, the Admins will see it, check to see if
> a charter is in place (it's there) in isc.org and shitcan this one due to it
> not being factual.
I don't think you're understanding, this is from the original charter
written by HKT. It's already in force and won't be taken out simply because
of this since it wouldn't have been accepted to begin with or even written
since HKT did it by the "rules". ;-)
>> Fact is that AFM is moribund. Folklore gets discussed in UMA. Don't
>> see any reason to go out of my way to support an alt.*. Do see a
>> reason to minimize the "you're off-topic" crowd.
>
> One can become quite anal in worrying about Super NetCopping. Let's face
> it, the biggest netcops come from your group. You use a little of your
> persuasion to minimize that and there really isn't a problem. I was
> contacted by a couple of Net Admins and all had to do was show a couple of
> emails from your group where you attempted to Netcop me on my own system.
> BTW, there are many ways to netcop and Group Mission Posting is just one of
> them. Get a handle on that and I don't think there will be a problem at
> all. Besides, after the past bouts, your major Netcoppers are just file
> 13nd with the Net Admins so there can be no harm done in that area.
You say netcop like it's a bad thing. I'm probably the biggest around and
not afraid to admit it. If I see someone not following whatever rules they
agreed to then I'll let the proper folks know. I don't just email abuse
desks for the hell of it, I have proper evidence to back up my claims. I
also don't do like some folks and scream and yell that I did it. ;-)
However, I will admit I am getting better at it. Quoting the relevant parts
of the charter usually help out and I've taken to doing that. I'm not out
to get folks TOS'ed and realize the value and function of the killfile, but
you get the morphing crossposting off-topic troll you can only see if their
ISP/Usenet provider will let them know to be nicer.
[snip]
>>> Once again, this is NOT the US Army.
>>
>> Didn't claim it was.
>
> Actually you did with "As in actual practice in the US Army"
Which doesn't say that this is the US Army, merely advises that in keeping
with what the Army does.
[snip rest]
Dave
--
You can talk about us, but you can't talk without us!
US Army Signal Corps!!
www.geocities.com/davidcasey98
Just added Albuquerque Police beat map and
the EDACS frequencies to the site!
Daryl Hunt
"RTO Trainer" <bill....@us.army.mil> wrote in message
news:4b78lvkpmear5ld4g...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 1 Sep 2003 14:01:39 -0600, "Daryl Hunt"
> <dh...@i70west.nospam.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Replacement_Tommel"
> ><replaceme...@404LemmingsREMOVE.com_IT'SINVALIDBABY> wrote in
message
> >news:bj03p...@drn.newsguy.com...
> >> >In article <bivut0$do2fs$1...@ID-203896.news.uni-berlin.de>, Daryl Hunt
> >says...
> >> >
> >>
> >> (snip)
> >>
> >> >
> >> >You are talking about including a group that your bunch originally
came
> >from
> >> >that was overrun by trolls, xposters and spammers. Sounds quite
> >familiar,
> >> >doesn't it.
> >> >
> >>
> >> Daryl knows quite a bit about the spamming part... ;-P
> >
> >Glad you are getting called up. Maybe a bit of humanity will result from
it.
> >If not, no problem. Just one less Group Mission Troll to have around for
a
> >bit.
> >
>
> He's not even in the Army anymore.
>
> I'm the one getting called up.
>
> You want to wish evil on me as well?
Nah, not on you. Sending you to the Army is punishment enough. Not for
you, but the US Army.:)
David Casey
>> We are speaking of the inclusion of US Army folklore.
>> Which, while it could be construed quite broadly, would not,
>> despite your protestation to the contrary, make
>> _everything_ on topic in uma.
>
> You are talking about including a group that your bunch originally came from
> that was overrun by trolls, xposters and spammers. Sounds quite familiar,
> doesn't it.
Actually, I show a single post to afm and that's in the past 2 days since
I've been able to spend any real time online. Hardly means it's been
overrun by trolls, cross posters, or spammers.
You know, I'm not really sure why folks moved from afm to uma. I first
started out in Usenet on uma and was invited to check out afm and have
subscribed to it ever since.
David Casey
>> Don't worry Daryl, we all remember the infamous "82nd Airborne opened up
>> on the Oklahoma NG with a LAW" post...
>
> You still here? Thought you were heading out to play your little war games.
I think you have Tom mixed up with someone else unless something happened I
don't know about yet. :-)
Daryl Hunt
Sorry to break your bubble. I did a bit of research in AFM and found that
it ended up looking like UMA is now. What is left is nothing but Xposters,
Trolls and Spammers. The only thing missing for quite some time is your
group. Yes, AFM is dead and I figured out a few of the reasons why. I
don't blame your bunch for all of it but you should take some of the
responsiblity.
Don't you think there are enough of the current Trolls, Spammers and
Xposters from AFM already in UMA already? You want to invite the rest of
them? I forget, UMA became AFM as AFM was about 3 years ago with the same
players.
RTO Trainer
> Note: I do not consider this to be any kind of FINAL RFD.
>
> On 1 Sep 2003 07:39:24 -0700, bill....@us.army.mil (RTO Trainer)
> wrote, in us.config:
>
> >bill....@us.army.mil (RTO Trainer) wrote in message news:<ed856011.03082...@posting.google.com>...
> >> Request for Discussion
> >> unmoderated group us.military.army
> >>
> >> There having been no serious dispute as to provisions of the third
> >> RFD, this is the final Request for Discussion (RFD) to replace the
> >> charter of an existing newsgroup in the us.* hierarchy,
> >> us.military.army. This is not a call for votes. Charter amendment is
> >> by consensus in us.config. Procedures for conducting the discussion
> >> are detailed below at the end of this RFD. This final RFD contains
> >> minor tweaking of the proposed charter of the third RFD: clarification
> >> of enforcement responsibility, grammar of the top-posting provision is
> >> improved and a variety of small grammar, capitalization and
> >> punctuation errors have been corrected.
>
> This part will have to be redone, with standard boilerplate at
> the top, followed by a statement of changes from previous RFD.
>
> <...>
Little help then? What "t" did I miss? And I did state the changes.
Care to state a reason?
Because.....
> >> Six-month trial:
> >>
> >> As provided by us.* hierarchy rules, this charter shall remain in full
> >> force and effect for at least six months. At the end of the six-month
> >> trial period, amendments may be proposed by participants in the
> >> newsgroup in accordance with procedures outlined in the us.* hierarchy
> >> newsgroup creation rules.
> >>
> >> Thank you for reading the UMA charter.
>
> You've already been told that this sentence should go
> -outside- the charter.
>
I've been told many things with little reason given for them. Perhaps
if you would explain why it were important I'd more readily comply.
> >> *****END CHARTER*****
>
> Recap of recommendations for Posting Guidelines:
>
> Posting Guidelines
>
> This newsgroup is a forum that is governed by normal rules for
> decorum, civility, and debate. One is encouraged to review and
> comply with these rules that are posted in several places throughout
> the Internet.
>
> The most recent version of the us.* hierarchy posting rules apply
> to this newsgroup. Violations of this charter or the hierarchy rules
> may result in action being taken against the offender and articles
> determined to be abuse OF the net may be cancelled without warning.
>
> Everything not prohibited by this charter or the hierarchy rules is
> permitted. In case of conflict between this charter and the hierarchy
> rules, the hierarchy rules will control. Participants are asked not to
> netcop, but to report violations of this charter or the hierarchy rules
> directly to the hierarchy administrator.
>
How about including the e-mail address.
> The us.* hierarchy rules allow for a five newsgroup crosspost limit.
> Not more than 3 newsgroups is the desired norm for us.military.army
> whenever practical.
> =======
>
> I think it reads a lot easier this way, and does away with the
> necessity of explicitly permitting what would otherwise be
> considered undesirable behavior.
>
> hth
I'm not convinced its undesireable. Perhaps not desireable, but
that's not the same thing.
Even so, the only problem I see is that it'll make us remain more
fully engaged in us.config against the proposition of explicit rules
that would result in trying to ban the unbannable.
Daryl Hunt
Then you failed. Your guns need to be cleaned and bore sighted.
David Casey
[snip]
> I just did a fast search on AFM with a couple of names of "The Group".
> Interesting reading. With the tanacity of their forcing their will......er
> posting, no wonder the place died. The one thing that I do note is that
> they don't play well with Civilians even though they are Civilians more of
> the time than not. I can't speak for the off the Net but on the net, they
> don't interact well with Civilians who differ in opinion. Yet, they think
> it's other people that do not mix well with them. Actually, it's a bit of
> both. This is why it's been so difficult in explaining to them what is
> necessary in a Civilian NG about the military of what is necessary. I
> imagine, at one time, I was much the same way. But one day, reality set in.
> I had realized I had become a Civilian.
The difference between us and you Daryl is that we're only against those who
are caught making up stuff for the most part. Aaron was busted and you are
either unable or unwilling to back up things you've posted about which seem
to be in conflict with other folks who were there.
Of course, trying to explain this all to you is probably a waste of time,
but I'm not giving up since sooner or later you might actually realize it's
a lot easier to work out our differences if we don't see a certain posters
name and knee-jerk into "you're Group Mission Trolling" again mode.
RTO Trainer
SoldierGrrrl) wrote:
>>From: Henrietta K Thomas hk...@earthlink.net
>>Date: 9/1/2003 3:59 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>>Message-id: <geg7lvg5hd3vo07hm...@4ax.com>
>
>>Note: I do not consider this to be any kind of FINAL RFD.
>
>Why not?
>
Don't get exercised about it.
This isn't. I guess she missed the one I posted on the 29th.
Daryl Hunt
"redc1c4" <red...@drunkenbastards.org.ies> wrote in message
news:3F542306...@drunkenbastards.org.ies...
> Henrietta K Thomas wrote:
>
> (snippage occurs of massive bushwa)
>
> let me get this straight.........
>
> you don't read this group. (UMA) [cite available]
>
> you have no personal experience that is germane to this group.
>
> you have nothing to contribute to this group, since
> (to my recollection) you have never contributed to a thread other
> than config BS.
>
> yet you sit in judgment of all who actually have been there,
> done that, and post accordingly.
>
> i'd go into great detail why this makes you unfit for your title,
> and negates your stated positions, but i have a life, and options.
>
> right now, i'd rather go swim in my pool then explain in detail what
> a pathetic sack of bastards you are. never the less, you remain
> said sack. you lack the moral authority to make ANY claim, statement,
> or prounouncement of leadership, here or anywhere.
>
> you are morally bankrupt, and would do well to resign from public life,
> pending a karmic makeover.
>
> even DM has more credibility than you, and that's sad.
> what's sadder is that you had choices, and this moral quagmire is your
> apparently desired endpoint.
I believe that you are being overharsh as usual. HKT is a Civilian. UMA is
a civilian NG. If you want to have everything you want, that can be done
inside of US.*. But NOT in a Civilian Unmoderate NG.
I do realize that I am more of a Civilian these days than you are and maybe
that's the problem. 10 years ago, I would have been your biggest supporter
on your ideas. But one day, I realized that I was no longer Military. I
had become a Sillyvillian. At some point, it will happen to all but one of
your group. Then you will start disagreeing with the more radical views (to
a civilian) Military views.
Daryl Hunt
"David Casey" <david...@spamcop.net> wrote in message
news:ygkhl9ojep7t$.dlg@davidcaseyspamcop.net...
To use a phrase from the Air Force when there is no apparent answers, Find a
Way then get back to me. "But where do I find a Way", the answer is, "At
the Way store, STupid".
>
> >> Fact is that AFM is moribund. Folklore gets discussed in UMA. Don't
> >> see any reason to go out of my way to support an alt.*. Do see a
> >> reason to minimize the "you're off-topic" crowd.
> >
> > One can become quite anal in worrying about Super NetCopping. Let's
face
> > it, the biggest netcops come from your group. You use a little of your
> > persuasion to minimize that and there really isn't a problem. I was
> > contacted by a couple of Net Admins and all had to do was show a couple
of
> > emails from your group where you attempted to Netcop me on my own
system.
> > BTW, there are many ways to netcop and Group Mission Posting is just one
of
> > them. Get a handle on that and I don't think there will be a problem at
> > all. Besides, after the past bouts, your major Netcoppers are just file
> > 13nd with the Net Admins so there can be no harm done in that area.
>
> You say netcop like it's a bad thing. I'm probably the biggest around and
> not afraid to admit it. If I see someone not following whatever rules
they
> agreed to then I'll let the proper folks know. I don't just email abuse
> desks for the hell of it, I have proper evidence to back up my claims. I
> also don't do like some folks and scream and yell that I did it. ;-)
When it's done when the person disagrees with you and operates under the
same rules you do, then it's a bad thing and gets you put into the file 13
of the Admins fast. Sort of like you are now. I don't worry about you
netcopping anymore. You cried wolf too many times, little boy blue.
>
> However, I will admit I am getting better at it. Quoting the relevant
parts
> of the charter usually help out and I've taken to doing that. I'm not out
> to get folks TOS'ed and realize the value and function of the killfile,
but
> you get the morphing crossposting off-topic troll you can only see if
their
> ISP/Usenet provider will let them know to be nicer.
You just happen to be the one busted for morphing. Get over it or get a
better story.
>
> [snip]
>
> >>> Once again, this is NOT the US Army.
> >>
> >> Didn't claim it was.
> >
> > Actually you did with "As in actual practice in the US Army"
>
> Which doesn't say that this is the US Army, merely advises that in keeping
> with what the Army does.
Since UMA is not an Official US Army Approved NG, then it must be a civilian
NG. Guess we need to change it to:
"As in actual practice in the Civilian World". Now, doesn't that sound
really stupid?
Daryl Hunt
> On Mon, 1 Sep 2003 21:49:56 -0600, Daryl Hunt wrote:
>
> >> Don't worry Daryl, we all remember the infamous "82nd Airborne opened
up
> >> on the Oklahoma NG with a LAW" post...
> >
> > You still here? Thought you were heading out to play your little war
games.
>
> I think you have Tom mixed up with someone else unless something happened
I
> don't know about yet. :-)
I did get them mixed up. But I thought I was home free in 1990 with full
retirement. 1991 came by and they needed someone to pack NBC Mobility Gear
for deployment. Really made my day on that one. You can never tell these
days, can you.
David Casey
>> Note: I do not consider this to be any kind of FINAL RFD.
>
> HKT, I notice the reinforcements are joining in on this one. Just ignore
> them. You already explained where they can go and read the info a few
> hundred times already.
Daryl, tell you what. You don't post when you don't have anything
constructive to say and I promise to try and get the rest of the folks to
stop busting your chops. Deal?
Daryl Hunt
> On Mon, 1 Sep 2003 11:18:09 -0600, Daryl Hunt wrote:
>
> >> We are speaking of the inclusion of US Army folklore.
> >> Which, while it could be construed quite broadly, would not,
> >> despite your protestation to the contrary, make
> >> _everything_ on topic in uma.
> >
> > You are talking about including a group that your bunch originally came
from
> > that was overrun by trolls, xposters and spammers. Sounds quite
familiar,
> > doesn't it.
>
> Actually, I show a single post to afm and that's in the past 2 days since
> I've been able to spend any real time online. Hardly means it's been
> overrun by trolls, cross posters, or spammers.
>
> You know, I'm not really sure why folks moved from afm to uma. I first
> started out in Usenet on uma and was invited to check out afm and have
> subscribed to it ever since.
I am using a German Server right now. It has loads including Vox and a few
of the more beloved trolls just having a ball. In order to get all of the
US stuff, I have to use two servers to read everything. Even using 2, I
suspect that some messages get lost.
Now, listen closely, I will empart knowledge on you that only News Admins
know. Then, of course I will have to have you either killed or forced into
running a News Server.
Server A has AFM and sends it to Server B. Server B sends it to Server A
and C. Server C sends it to Server B and D. Server D doesn't carry AFM.
Server D does not relay it to server C or E. Server E carries AFM and
sends it to Server D and F. Since server D doesn't carry it, it only goes
to Server F. Server F sends it to Server E and G and so on. Because Server
D does not carry it, it won't relay the messages to any server that they are
relaying to. If you are on Server A, you can only see the messages on
Server B and C but not Server E, F and G.
Server D may not carry it due to a miriad of reasons. But they don't. In U
S.config, I have to use my own plus the German one. Because I can't get the
uplink to add alt.military retired, I have to use the German server to read
and reply in that one.
Now do you understand? If you do, either report to the Computer Server room
or report to the Uthenasia Clinic.
Daryl Hunt
Actually, viewing your answer, I would plainly state that I would have
called you an Asshole even when I was in the Military Mode.
Daryl Hunt
Dimbulb, She gives you what you need. Turn up the voltage a bit.
How many times do you need the reason? It's past the point of normally
questioning and has gone into the Group Mission Trolling mode. Just do it
and press on, Soldier. Ever hear that before?
I used a term once in awhile with troops like you that ended the discussion
after they kept harping. Think of HKT as the NCOIC. She has tried to
explain the need to you and you failed to understand. But She know you can
do the task. It now comes down to, "Because I said so" in Civilian Terms. In
Military Terms, "This is a lawful order".
>
> > >> Six-month trial:
> > >>
> > >> As provided by us.* hierarchy rules, this charter shall remain in
full
> > >> force and effect for at least six months. At the end of the six-month
> > >> trial period, amendments may be proposed by participants in the
> > >> newsgroup in accordance with procedures outlined in the us.*
hierarchy
> > >> newsgroup creation rules.
> > >>
> > >> Thank you for reading the UMA charter.
> >
> > You've already been told that this sentence should go
> > -outside- the charter.
> >
>
> I've been told many things with little reason given for them. Perhaps
> if you would explain why it were important I'd more readily comply.
Just do it!
>
> > >> *****END CHARTER*****
> >
> > Recap of recommendations for Posting Guidelines:
> >
> > Posting Guidelines
> >
> > This newsgroup is a forum that is governed by normal rules for
> > decorum, civility, and debate. One is encouraged to review and
> > comply with these rules that are posted in several places throughout
> > the Internet.
> >
> > The most recent version of the us.* hierarchy posting rules apply
> > to this newsgroup. Violations of this charter or the hierarchy rules
> > may result in action being taken against the offender and articles
> > determined to be abuse OF the net may be cancelled without warning.
> >
> > Everything not prohibited by this charter or the hierarchy rules is
> > permitted. In case of conflict between this charter and the hierarchy
> > rules, the hierarchy rules will control. Participants are asked not to
> > netcop, but to report violations of this charter or the hierarchy rules
> > directly to the hierarchy administrator.
> >
>
> How about including the e-mail address.
Should we include yours?
>
> > The us.* hierarchy rules allow for a five newsgroup crosspost limit.
> > Not more than 3 newsgroups is the desired norm for us.military.army
> > whenever practical.
> > =======
> >
> > I think it reads a lot easier this way, and does away with the
> > necessity of explicitly permitting what would otherwise be
> > considered undesirable behavior.
> >
> > hth
>
> I'm not convinced its undesireable. Perhaps not desireable, but
> that's not the same thing.
>
> Even so, the only problem I see is that it'll make us remain more
> fully engaged in us.config against the proposition of explicit rules
> that would result in trying to ban the unbannable.
Just get the job done, Soldier.
Daryl Hunt
> On Mon, 1 Sep 2003 22:07:28 -0600, Daryl Hunt wrote:
>
> >> Note: I do not consider this to be any kind of FINAL RFD.
> >
> > HKT, I notice the reinforcements are joining in on this one. Just
ignore
> > them. You already explained where they can go and read the info a few
> > hundred times already.
>
> Daryl, tell you what. You don't post when you don't have anything
> constructive to say and I promise to try and get the rest of the folks to
> stop busting your chops. Deal?
You already tried the ruse. I don't buy it for a minute. Now, do what you
think is right and I will do the same. I stated a fact and it makes you
look stupid. Get over it and stop with the Group Mission Posting and we
don't have a problem. Keep doing it and I keep digging. I already noted
that your group was part of killing off AFM. Now, the same bunch that was
there that includes, Vox, Ace, what is now known as the 404th, the Kooks and
only a handful of others are all now in UMA. You made the claim that these
people came from the Kook areas by me. Now I find that almost all of them
used to participate in AFM. You do remember xposting heavily to AFM at one
time from UMA don't you? Of course you do but you won't admit it. Better
keep Group Mission Posting and Trolling instead of helping to fix the
problem.
HKT, you can kiss UMA off in the future. I have seen the future. It's AFM.
The SoldierGrrrl
>Date: 9/1/2003 9:54 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: <1k88lvc2bdtuteu2m...@4ax.com>
>>Why not?
>>
>Don't get exercised about it.
>
>This isn't. I guess she missed the one I posted on the 29th.
Okie dokie.
Cry "CHEEBLE" and let slip the lemmings of war! -- D.B.
The SoldierGrrrl
Truck Goddess
Army: A body of men assembled to rectify the mistakes of the diplomats.
--Josephus Daniels--
My email is less "hooah" than I am.
The SoldierGrrrl
>Date: 9/1/2003 9:37 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: <3F542306...@drunkenbastards.org.ies>
>redc1c4,
>"Mint Julep martini, anyone?"
Mai tai, please.
David Casey
>> I don't think you're understanding, this is from the original charter
>> written by HKT. It's already in force and won't be taken out simply
>> because of this since it wouldn't have been accepted to begin with or even
>> written since HKT did it by the "rules". ;-)
>
> To use a phrase from the Air Force when there is no apparent answers, Find a
> Way then get back to me. "But where do I find a Way", the answer is, "At
> the Way store, STupid".
You're still not understanding, but I'll let it go since it's just going to
decay into an attempted flame war when you reply again.
>> You say netcop like it's a bad thing. I'm probably the biggest around and
>> not afraid to admit it. If I see someone not following whatever rules they
>> agreed to then I'll let the proper folks know. I don't just email abuse
>> desks for the hell of it, I have proper evidence to back up my claims. I
>> also don't do like some folks and scream and yell that I did it. ;-)
>
> When it's done when the person disagrees with you and operates under the
> same rules you do, then it's a bad thing and gets you put into the file 13
> of the Admins fast. Sort of like you are now. I don't worry about you
> netcopping anymore. You cried wolf too many times, little boy blue.
It's good you don't worry about something with which you have no control.
Besides, I challenge you to post proof I ever cried "wolf". ;-)
>> However, I will admit I am getting better at it. Quoting the relevant parts
>> of the charter usually help out and I've taken to doing that. I'm not out
>> to get folks TOS'ed and realize the value and function of the killfile, but
>> you get the morphing crossposting off-topic troll you can only see if their
>> ISP/Usenet provider will let them know to be nicer.
>
> You just happen to be the one busted for morphing. Get over it or get a
> better story.
You're right! And you were busted for spamming. Your point?
>> Which doesn't say that this is the US Army, merely advises that in keeping
>> with what the Army does.
>
> Since UMA is not an Official US Army Approved NG, then it must be a civilian
> NG. Guess we need to change it to:
>
> "As in actual practice in the Civilian World". Now, doesn't that sound
> really stupid?
I wasn't aware there was such a thing as a civilian newsgroup and a military
newsgroup? Aren't they all being "run" by civilians?
David Casey
[snip stuff I already know]
> Server D may not carry it due to a miriad of reasons. But they don't. In U
> S.config, I have to use my own plus the German one. Because I can't get the
> uplink to add alt.military retired, I have to use the German server to read
> and reply in that one.
So, what happened to your own news server? Just curious since you have
claimed and appear to run your own ISP.
[snip flame attempt]
David Casey
>> Daryl, tell you what. You don't post when you don't have anything
>> constructive to say and I promise to try and get the rest of the folks to
>> stop busting your chops. Deal?
>
> You already tried the ruse. I don't buy it for a minute. Now, do what you
> think is right and I will do the same. I stated a fact and it makes you
> look stupid. Get over it and stop with the Group Mission Posting and we
> don't have a problem. Keep doing it and I keep digging. I already noted
> that your group was part of killing off AFM. Now, the same bunch that was
> there that includes, Vox, Ace, what is now known as the 404th, the Kooks and
> only a handful of others are all now in UMA. You made the claim that these
> people came from the Kook areas by me. Now I find that almost all of them
> used to participate in AFM. You do remember xposting heavily to AFM at one
> time from UMA don't you? Of course you do but you won't admit it. Better
> keep Group Mission Posting and Trolling instead of helping to fix the
> problem.
So then you tell me what *you* need to prove I'm serious.
> HKT, you can kiss UMA off in the future. I have seen the future. It's AFM.
You're right! Allow me to be the first to suggest you lead the charge into
afm. You really should just leave uma totally since that'll drop the post
count. Maybe even enough to get it rmgrouped, but we won't know until you
give it a shot, eh? ;-)
BTW, I'm just making a joke here, not flaming.
Daryl Hunt
> On Mon, 1 Sep 2003 23:19:24 -0600, Daryl Hunt wrote:
>
> [snip stuff I already know]
>
> > Server D may not carry it due to a miriad of reasons. But they don't.
In U
> > S.config, I have to use my own plus the German one. Because I can't get
the
> > uplink to add alt.military retired, I have to use the German server to
read
> > and reply in that one.
>
> So, what happened to your own news server? Just curious since you have
> claimed and appear to run your own ISP.
>
> [snip flame attempt]
Well I guess we will let you live and bar you from the Server room since you
are too stupid to understand the system.
RTO Trainer
-0600, "Daryl Hunt" <dh...@i70west.nospam.com> exclaimed:
No. She missed where I'd already done it.
I thought you and I were being civil?
To my knowledge, this paragraph hasn't expressly been at issue before.
There's not a decent Army commander around that'd expect me to follow
an order, except in combat where there just isn't time, that I didn't
understand.
"This is a lawful order" in military terms can be acceptable. The
*only* persons who will ever be able to satisfy me with a "because I
said so," are my parents.
i.e: Until I understand, it isn't happening.
>
>>
>> > >> Six-month trial:
>> > >>
>> > >> As provided by us.* hierarchy rules, this charter shall remain in
>full
>> > >> force and effect for at least six months. At the end of the six-month
>> > >> trial period, amendments may be proposed by participants in the
>> > >> newsgroup in accordance with procedures outlined in the us.*
>hierarchy
>> > >> newsgroup creation rules.
>> > >>
>> > >> Thank you for reading the UMA charter.
>> >
>> > You've already been told that this sentence should go
>> > -outside- the charter.
>> >
>>
>> I've been told many things with little reason given for them. Perhaps
>> if you would explain why it were important I'd more readily comply.
>
>Just do it!
>
Negative.
>
>>
>> > >> *****END CHARTER*****
>> >
>> > Recap of recommendations for Posting Guidelines:
>> >
>> > Posting Guidelines
>> >
>> > This newsgroup is a forum that is governed by normal rules for
>> > decorum, civility, and debate. One is encouraged to review and
>> > comply with these rules that are posted in several places throughout
>> > the Internet.
>> >
>> > The most recent version of the us.* hierarchy posting rules apply
>> > to this newsgroup. Violations of this charter or the hierarchy rules
>> > may result in action being taken against the offender and articles
>> > determined to be abuse OF the net may be cancelled without warning.
>> >
>> > Everything not prohibited by this charter or the hierarchy rules is
>> > permitted. In case of conflict between this charter and the hierarchy
>> > rules, the hierarchy rules will control. Participants are asked not to
>> > netcop, but to report violations of this charter or the hierarchy rules
>> > directly to the hierarchy administrator.
>> >
>>
>> How about including the e-mail address.
>
>Should we include yours?
>
Mine wouldn't be appropriate.
>
>>
>> > The us.* hierarchy rules allow for a five newsgroup crosspost limit.
>> > Not more than 3 newsgroups is the desired norm for us.military.army
>> > whenever practical.
>> > =======
>> >
>> > I think it reads a lot easier this way, and does away with the
>> > necessity of explicitly permitting what would otherwise be
>> > considered undesirable behavior.
>> >
>> > hth
>>
>> I'm not convinced its undesireable. Perhaps not desireable, but
>> that's not the same thing.
>>
>> Even so, the only problem I see is that it'll make us remain more
>> fully engaged in us.config against the proposition of explicit rules
>> that would result in trying to ban the unbannable.
>
>Just get the job done, Soldier.
This is tiresome now.
--
Never trust anyone who tells you that thre is only one right way to do something.
SPC Robert White 31U, OKARNG HHC 45th eSB Thunderbirds!
RTO Trainer
-0600, "Daryl Hunt" <dh...@i70west.nospam.com> exclaimed:
>"As in actual practice in the Civilian World". Now, doesn't that sound
>really stupid?
>
Actually it applies just as much.
Do you watch prime time TV?
Daryl Hunt
> >
> >Just get the job done, Soldier.
>
>
> This is tiresome now.
For all concerned.
RTO Trainer
-0600, "Daryl Hunt" <dh...@i70west.nospam.com> exclaimed:
>
I think this tangent is irrelevant.
Daryl Hunt
> After reviewing Paragraph 5 pf the OPORD of Mon, 1 Sep 2003 23:06:47
> -0600, "Daryl Hunt" <dh...@i70west.nospam.com> exclaimed:
>
>
> >"As in actual practice in the Civilian World". Now, doesn't that sound
> >really stupid?
> >
> Actually it applies just as much.
>
> Do you watch prime time TV?
Better to watch PBS.
Daryl Hunt
And how is it irrelevant when it involves the same players? Remember when
you claimed I drug in all the Kooks from the Kook areas? The only ones from
the real Kook areas posted that we don't xpost into their area. It's sad
when a you get admonished by a Kook for being a Kook.
Meanwhile, many were xposting to AFM for support. Well, you got it. And
all the real kooks from the area as well. We both made mistakes that little
stint and I accept my part. Luckily, my part didn't do any damage.
Colin Campbell
<red...@drunkenbastards.org.ies> wrote:
>redc1c4,
>"Mint Julep martini, anyone?"
Scotch, single-malt, neat.
--
In every generation the world has produced enemies
of human freedom. They have attacked America because
we are freedom's home and defender. The commitment
of our fathers is not the challenge of our time.
President George W Bush - Sept 14, 2001
Replacement_Tommel
>
>Why?
>
>It looks just fine to me...
>
>Helomech
>
But you are HKT or DM so your opinion doesn't matter... ;-P
-Tom
"Everybody has the right to express what he thinks. That, of course, lets the
crackpots in. But if you cannot tell a crackpot when you see one, you ought to
be taken in." - Harry S. Truman
Replacement_Tommel
>>says...
>
(snip)
>>> >> Responsibility for enforcement shall belong solely to the us.*
>> >> Administration.
>>
>> I would drop this paragraph.
>
>Care to state a reason?
>
"No court, no cops."
The charter will never be enforced by the us.* Administration.
RTO Trainer
unmoderated group us.military.army
There having been no serious dispute as to provisions of the third
RFD, this is the final Request for Discussion (RFD) to replace the
charter of an existing newsgroup in the us.* hierarchy,
us.military.army. This is not a call for votes. Charter amendment is
by consensus in us.config. Procedures for conducting the discussion
are detailed below at the end of this RFD. This final RFD contains
minor tweaking of the proposed charter of the third RFD: clarification
of enforcement responsibility, and a variety of small grammar,
capitalization and punctuation errors have been corrected. Posting
guidelines has been substantially edited to tie them more closely to
the express us.* posting rules.
Newsgroups line:
us.military.army Life and work in the US Army
Rationale: us.military.army
us.military.army is an unmoderated newsgroup created by accident in
June 1997 in response to a proposal made to us.config and alt.config
prior to the adoption of a formal procedure for newsgroup creation in
the us.* hierarchy. A formal charter was never adopted because the
group was doing well and there didn't seem to be a great need to
formalize the charter. Later, traffic increased dramatically and
questions were raised about the purpose of the group, formalization of
the original proposal was undertaken in mid-2000. The result,
however, was not reflective of the use or needs of the group which
should have been taken more fully into account, especially in light of
the group's long unchartered status and ad hoc origins.
****BEGIN CHARTER****
CHARTER: us.military.army Model M-4
us.military.army is an unmoderated newsgroup for discussion of the
United States Army. The group is intended as both a social and a
topical newsgroup that will allow soldiers and their families, members
of sister services and civilians a way to meet new people with like
interests,within and without the services, and to enrich their
military related experience. This newsgroup has, to date, been very
active and represents many years of collective military service.
Newcomers are always welcome and any on topic question will receive
the benefit of that experience.
The following types of articles are on-topic for the newsgroup:
- General information about all components of the US Army.
- Military Occupational Specialties (MOS) and opportunities for
promotion within a MOS.
- Duty stations and deployments overseas.
- Conditions in actual or potential combat zones.
- Morale, Welfare and Recreation programs and facilities and benefits
of service available to US Army personnel.
- The fundamental purpose or need for a given deployment for a
contingency operation.
- Military rules and regulations affecting Army personnel.
- Human relations issues related to Army life.
- Family matters and their impact on Army careers.
- Current events that directly impact the US Army.
- Customs traditions and ceremonies of the US Army.
- Short advertisements for stateside duty swaps.
- Discussions about military history of direct bearing to otherwise
topical subjects that have affected, or will affect, the US Army
- Discussions of US Army folklore and common experiences shared by
Soldiers or their dependents
- Official announcements from the US Army on matters of concern to
readers of the newsgroup.
- Weapons, equipment, tactics and strategies of the US Army.
- General topics of interest related to the US Army or US Army
experiences.
The following types of articles are off-topic for the newsgroup:
- Articles primarily related to other branches of the military
service.
- Postings by "defense consultants" or other commercial operations
promoting their commercial interests.
- Discussions of past historical events not pertaining to the US Army.
- Excessive personal attacks directed by a subscriber against another.
- Partisan politics not relating to military affairs.
- International affairs not directly related to the US Army
- Domestic affairs not directly related to the US Army or military
- Articles containing binaries or other attachments (use a link to
such instead)
- Commercial solicitations to include advertising, auction notices or
solicitations for charity.
Posting Guidelines
This newsgroup is a forum that is governed by normal rules for
decorum, civility, and debate. One is encouraged to review and comply
with these rules that are posted in several places throughout the
Internet.
Operational Security (OPSEC) guidelines should be considered before
posting any information which when revealed might cause harm to US
military personnel.
Articles of a political nature or that are primarily about history,
including military history, are strongly discouraged in this
newsgroup, and anyone who wishes that type of discussion is requested
to participate in the many other forums available on the internet. We
can recommend us.politics and us.military.history respectively.
The most recent version of the us.* hierarchy posting rules apply to
this newsgroup. Violations of this charter or the hierarchy rules may
result in action being taken against the offender and articles
determined to be abuse OF the net may be cancelled without warning.
The us.* hierarchy rules allow for a five newsgroup crosspost limit.
Not more than 3 newsgroups is the desired norm for us.military.army
whenever practical.
Everything not prohibited by this charter or the hierarchy rules is
permitted. In case of conflict between this charter and the hierarchy
rules, the hierarchy rules will control. Participants are asked not to
netcop, but to report violations of this charter or the hierarchy
rules directly to the hierarchy administrator. Responsibility for
enforcement shall belong solely to the us.* Administration.
Six-month trial:
As provided by us.* hierarchy rules, this charter shall remain in full
force and effect for at least six months. At the end of the six-month
trial period, amendments may be proposed by participants in the
newsgroup in accordance with procedures outlined in the us.* hierarchy
newsgroup creation rules.
*****END CHARTER*****
Thank you for reading the UMA charter.
FRONT TOWARD ENEMY
Procedures
Newsgroup creation in the us.* hierarchy is by consensus in us.config.
As provided by the us.* hierarchy rules, this proposal shall remain on
the table for seven days, to and including 5 September 2003. The
hierarchy administrator may decide to extend the time for discussion
or take other actions. Refer to
http://www.usenetnews.us/us-create.shtml for further information.
Distribution: us.config, us.military.army
Proponent: SPC Robert White <bill....@us.army.mil> Oklahoma Army
National Guard
Secondary Proponents: 1SG Colin Campbell, California Army National
Guard; Airman Jeff Bedard, Former-US Air Force; SPC Richard C. Adams,
California Army National Guard; SPC Jennifer O'Malley, Army Individual
Ready Reserve; SGT David Casey, New Mexico National Guard; LTC Sydney
T. H. Chock US Army Individual Ready Reserve; Cpl Cindi Prudhomme,
Canadian Armed Forces (Army); CPL Thomas Hart, Former US Army
Host: TBD
RTO Trainer
No. I don't remember that. Its still irrelevant.
RTO Trainer
-0600, "Daryl Hunt" <dh...@i70west.nospam.com> exclaimed:
>
>"RTO Trainer" <bill....@us.army.mil> wrote in message
>news:mba9lvs8p6b3p8p8i...@4ax.com...
>> After reviewing Paragraph 5 pf the OPORD of Mon, 1 Sep 2003 23:06:47
>> -0600, "Daryl Hunt" <dh...@i70west.nospam.com> exclaimed:
>>
>>
>> >"As in actual practice in the Civilian World". Now, doesn't that sound
>> >really stupid?
>> >
>> Actually it applies just as much.
>>
>> Do you watch prime time TV?
>
>Better to watch PBS.
>
>
You'll see it there too.
Daryl Hunt
Of course your selective memory will not recall it. Is that Rule 13 or 14
of the UMA 404th Group Mission Trolling Handbook
Daryl Hunt
"Replacement_Tommel"
<replaceme...@404LemmingsREMOVE.com_IT'SINVALIDBABY> wrote in message
news:bj2av...@drn.newsguy.com...
> In article <88T4b.35738$Jb1....@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com>, Helomech says...
> >
> >Why?
> >
> >It looks just fine to me...
> >
> >Helomech
> >
>
> But you are HKT or DM so your opinion doesn't matter... ;-P
ACtually, I don't either but my input does. I see no input at all to that
one. If you were to present throwing babies into volcanos, he would agree.
Daryl Hunt
> Request for Discussion
> unmoderated group us.military.army
>
> There having been no serious dispute as to provisions of the third
> RFD, this is the final Request for Discussion (RFD) to replace the
> charter of an existing newsgroup in the us.* hierarchy,
> us.military.army. This is not a call for votes. Charter amendment is
> by consensus in us.config. Procedures for conducting the discussion
> are detailed below at the end of this RFD. This final RFD contains
> minor tweaking of the proposed charter of the third RFD: clarification
> of enforcement responsibility, and a variety of small grammar,
> capitalization and punctuation errors have been corrected. Posting
> guidelines has been substantially edited to tie them more closely to
> the express us.* posting rules.
>
> Newsgroups line:
> us.military.army Life and work in the US Army
>
> Rationale: us.military.army
>
> us.military.army is an unmoderated newsgroup created by accident in
> June 1997 in response to a proposal made to us.config and alt.config
> prior to the adoption of a formal procedure for newsgroup creation in
> the us.* hierarchy.
How does one get created by accident? Didn't anyone use birth control?
A formal charter was never adopted because the
> group was doing well and there didn't seem to be a great need to
> formalize the charter. Later, traffic increased dramatically and
> questions were raised about the purpose of the group, formalization of
> the original proposal was undertaken in mid-2000. The result,
> however, was not reflective of the use or needs of the group which
> should have been taken more fully into account, especially in light of
> the group's long unchartered status and ad hoc origins.
The Group? Which Group? Obviously, yours. I still go back to AFM on that
one.
>
> ****BEGIN CHARTER****
> CHARTER: us.military.army Model M-4
M-4. Does this mean that all people that post in UMA are to be issued
sidearms? That just might cure some of the problems.
>
> us.military.army is an unmoderated newsgroup for discussion of the
> United States Army.
There are other aspects to be discussed. Like the impact to the civilian
community on base closures. It's not just for discussiong of the United
States Army.
us.military.army is an unmoderated newsgroup for discussion of topics that
affect the
United States Army, community and impacts on the Unites States as a whole
The group is intended as both a social and a
> topical newsgroup that will allow soldiers and their families, members
> of sister services and civilians a way to meet new people with like
> interests,within and without the services, and to enrich their
> military related experience.
Some may not wish to "enrich' their military related experience. Some may
not have any military experience. After taking out the last few words, I
noticed that the whole paragraph actually said absolutely nothing.
The group is intended as both a social and a
topical newsgroup that will allow soldiers and their families, members
of sister services and civilians an area to discuss the United States Army.
This newsgroup has, to date, been very
> active and represents many years of collective military service.
> Newcomers are always welcome and any on topic question will receive
> the benefit of that experience.
>
> The following types of articles are on-topic for the newsgroup:
>
> - General information about all components of the US Army.
> - Military Occupational Specialties (MOS) and opportunities for
> promotion within a MOS.
> - Duty stations and deployments overseas.
> - Conditions in actual or potential combat zones.
> - Morale, Welfare and Recreation programs and facilities and benefits
> of service available to US Army personnel.
> - The fundamental purpose or need for a given deployment for a
> contingency operation.
> - Military rules and regulations affecting Army personnel.
> - Human relations issues related to Army life.
> - Family matters and their impact on Army careers.
> - Current events that directly impact the US Army.
> - Customs traditions and ceremonies of the US Army.
> - Short advertisements for stateside duty swaps.
> - Discussions about military history of direct bearing to otherwise
> topical subjects that have affected, or will affect, the US Army
> - Discussions of US Army folklore and common experiences shared by
> Soldiers or their dependents
AFM all over again. It died with exactly the same players as are currently
in UMA. Drop this completely.
> - Official announcements from the US Army on matters of concern to
> readers of the newsgroup.
> - Weapons, equipment, tactics and strategies of the US Army.
> - General topics of interest related to the US Army or US Army
> experiences.
>
> The following types of articles are off-topic for the newsgroup:
>
> - Articles primarily related to other branches of the military
> service.
> - Postings by "defense consultants" or other commercial operations
> promoting their commercial interests.
> - Discussions of past historical events not pertaining to the US Army.
Let's see. I can discuss Washington crossing the delaware in a 5 year
string. This needs to be dropped and steer people to UMH. You already
cover this elsewhere. Just drop the line.
> - Excessive personal attacks directed by a subscriber against another.
> - Partisan politics not relating to military affairs.
> - International affairs not directly related to the US Army
> - Domestic affairs not directly related to the US Army or military
Domestic affairs not directly related to the US Army, military or the
surrounding area where it impacts the community
I hope some else rewrites this before HKT presents it. Othewise, it goes
file 13.
>
> Procedures
>
> Newsgroup creation in the us.* hierarchy is by consensus in us.config.
> As provided by the us.* hierarchy rules, this proposal shall remain on
> the table for seven days, to and including 5 September 2003. The
> hierarchy administrator may decide to extend the time for discussion
> or take other actions. Refer to
> http://www.usenetnews.us/us-create.shtml for further information.
Actually, She already gave it an extention to Sept 7th. According to the
rules you are posting, that is the last extresion. Either it flies or it
dies.
RTO Trainer
-0600, "Daryl Hunt" <dh...@i70west.nospam.com> exclaimed:
>
>"RTO Trainer" <bill....@us.army.mil> wrote in message
>news:ukh9lvc2optu7bnuk...@4ax.com...
>> Request for Discussion
>> unmoderated group us.military.army
>>
>> There having been no serious dispute as to provisions of the third
>> RFD, this is the final Request for Discussion (RFD) to replace the
>> charter of an existing newsgroup in the us.* hierarchy,
>> us.military.army. This is not a call for votes. Charter amendment is
>> by consensus in us.config. Procedures for conducting the discussion
>> are detailed below at the end of this RFD. This final RFD contains
>> minor tweaking of the proposed charter of the third RFD: clarification
>> of enforcement responsibility, and a variety of small grammar,
>> capitalization and punctuation errors have been corrected. Posting
>> guidelines has been substantially edited to tie them more closely to
>> the express us.* posting rules.
>>
>> Newsgroups line:
>> us.military.army Life and work in the US Army
>>
>> Rationale: us.military.army
>>
>> us.military.army is an unmoderated newsgroup created by accident in
>> June 1997 in response to a proposal made to us.config and alt.config
>> prior to the adoption of a formal procedure for newsgroup creation in
>> the us.* hierarchy.
>
>How does one get created by accident? Didn't anyone use birth control?
>
I'm not at all clear on that. You'll have to ask HKT or someone who
was here for details. I lifted this statement form her, so its
accuracy is totally dependent on her.
>A formal charter was never adopted because the
>> group was doing well and there didn't seem to be a great need to
>> formalize the charter. Later, traffic increased dramatically and
>> questions were raised about the purpose of the group, formalization of
>> the original proposal was undertaken in mid-2000. The result,
>> however, was not reflective of the use or needs of the group which
>> should have been taken more fully into account, especially in light of
>> the group's long unchartered status and ad hoc origins.
>
>The Group? Which Group? Obviously, yours. I still go back to AFM on that
>one.
"The group"= us.military.army
Why quibble on this? Its not a part of the charter.
>
>>
>> ****BEGIN CHARTER****
>> CHARTER: us.military.army Model M-4
>
>M-4. Does this mean that all people that post in UMA are to be issued
>sidearms? That just might cure some of the problems.
>
Just a way to keep which version is being discussed straight. It
won't be part of the completed charter.
>
>>
>> us.military.army is an unmoderated newsgroup for discussion of the
>> United States Army.
>
>There are other aspects to be discussed. Like the impact to the civilian
>community on base closures. It's not just for discussiong of the United
>States Army.
>
Its a blanket statement and as such covers all aspects.
>us.military.army is an unmoderated newsgroup for discussion of topics that
>affect the
>United States Army, community and impacts on the Unites States as a whole
>
I keep being told to make this shorter.
How is this materially different except that it could be used to limit
discussion rather than expand it?
>
>
>
> The group is intended as both a social and a
>> topical newsgroup that will allow soldiers and their families, members
>> of sister services and civilians a way to meet new people with like
>> interests,within and without the services, and to enrich their
>> military related experience.
>
>Some may not wish to "enrich' their military related experience. Some may
>not have any military experience. After taking out the last few words, I
>noticed that the whole paragraph actually said absolutely nothing.
>
If they have an interest in the Army I can't imagine how they don't
have or desire a "military related experience."
>The group is intended as both a social and a
> topical newsgroup that will allow soldiers and their families, members
> of sister services and civilians an area to discuss the United States Army.
>
It has the benefit of being shorter. I was trying to preserve the
intent from the initial creation of uma so far as it was appropriate.
I'd really like to have a rationale for doing so. I want to broaden
UMA to include the types of topics that are already discussed, not
create "off-limits" areas within the greater subject.
>
>> - Official announcements from the US Army on matters of concern to
>> readers of the newsgroup.
>> - Weapons, equipment, tactics and strategies of the US Army.
>> - General topics of interest related to the US Army or US Army
>> experiences.
>>
>> The following types of articles are off-topic for the newsgroup:
>>
>> - Articles primarily related to other branches of the military
>> service.
>> - Postings by "defense consultants" or other commercial operations
>> promoting their commercial interests.
>
>> - Discussions of past historical events not pertaining to the US Army.
>
>Let's see. I can discuss Washington crossing the delaware in a 5 year
>string. This needs to be dropped and steer people to UMH. You already
>cover this elsewhere. Just drop the line.
Actually you shouldn't start that thread., this is a line that can be
dropped for economy, though.
>
>> - Excessive personal attacks directed by a subscriber against another.
>> - Partisan politics not relating to military affairs.
>> - International affairs not directly related to the US Army
>
>
>> - Domestic affairs not directly related to the US Army or military
>
>Domestic affairs not directly related to the US Army, military or the
>surrounding area where it impacts the community
>
The surrounding area of what?
Why?
>
>>
>> Procedures
>>
>> Newsgroup creation in the us.* hierarchy is by consensus in us.config.
>> As provided by the us.* hierarchy rules, this proposal shall remain on
>> the table for seven days, to and including 5 September 2003. The
>> hierarchy administrator may decide to extend the time for discussion
>> or take other actions. Refer to
>> http://www.usenetnews.us/us-create.shtml for further information.
>
>Actually, She already gave it an extention to Sept 7th. According to the
>rules you are posting, that is the last extresion. Either it flies or it
>dies.
>
I still don't think she's seen my original Final RFD post. If she
does or has and she still want's to extend, I'll amend this.
RTO Trainer
-0500, RTO Trainer <bill....@us.army.mil> exclaimed:
>CHARTER: us.military.army Model M-4A
>***- Discussions of past historical events not pertaining to the US Army.***
>- Excessive personal attacks directed by a subscriber against another.
>***- Partisan politics not relating to military affairs. ***
>- International affairs not directly related to the US Army
>- Domestic affairs not directly related to the US Army or military
>****- Articles containing binaries or other attachments (use a link to
>such instead)****
>****- Commercial solicitations to include advertising, auction notices or
>solicitations for charity.****
>
Items in *** to be deleted as covered by language below.
Items in **** to be deleted as covered by language in the us.* Posting
Rules.
Now reads:
- Articles primarily related to other branches of the military
service.
- Postings by "defense consultants" or other commercial operations
promoting their commercial interests.
- Excessive personal attacks directed by a subscriber against another.
- International affairs not directly related to the US Army
- Domestic affairs not directly related to the US Army or military
>Posting Guidelines
>
>This newsgroup is a forum that is governed by normal rules for
>decorum, civility, and debate. One is encouraged to review and comply
>with these rules that are posted in several places throughout the
>Internet.
>
>Operational Security (OPSEC) guidelines should be considered before
>posting any information which when revealed might cause harm to US
>military personnel.
>
>Articles of a political nature or that are primarily about history,
>including military history, are strongly discouraged in this
>newsgroup, and anyone who wishes that type of discussion is requested
>to participate in the many other forums available on the internet. We
>can recommend us.politics and us.military.history respectively.
>
Add: "that do not bear directly on the US Army," after "including
military history.
Now reads:
Articles of a political nature or that are primarily about history,
including military history, that do not bear directly on the US Army,
are strongly discouraged in this newsgroup, and anyone who wishes that
type of discussion is requested to participate in the many other
forums available on the internet. We can recommend us.politics and
us.military.history respectively.
>The most recent version of the us.* hierarchy posting rules apply to
>this newsgroup. Violations of this charter or the hierarchy rules may
>result in action being taken against the offender and articles
ssn...@earthlink.net
The first paragraph sounds a bit namby-pamby, the
elimination of the sections on top-posting and language may
end up being missed as well but, overall I can live with
it.
Snark
Daryl Hunt
contrary to unpopular belief, I don't always agree the HKT. But I do look
at it from another angle. And that is from a News Admins point of view.
What would I want on my servers and what would I want to make available to
those on the downlink.
>
> >A formal charter was never adopted because the
> >> group was doing well and there didn't seem to be a great need to
> >> formalize the charter. Later, traffic increased dramatically and
> >> questions were raised about the purpose of the group, formalization of
> >> the original proposal was undertaken in mid-2000. The result,
> >> however, was not reflective of the use or needs of the group which
> >> should have been taken more fully into account, especially in light of
> >> the group's long unchartered status and ad hoc origins.
> >
> >The Group? Which Group? Obviously, yours. I still go back to AFM on
that
> >one.
>
> "The group"= us.military.army
Then just say us.military.army to avoid confusion for some of the more vocal
trolls out there.
>
> Why quibble on this? Its not a part of the charter.
The whole thing is your presentation. Including the justification.
>
> >
> >>
> >> ****BEGIN CHARTER****
> >> CHARTER: us.military.army Model M-4
> >
> >M-4. Does this mean that all people that post in UMA are to be issued
> >sidearms? That just might cure some of the problems.
> >
>
> Just a way to keep which version is being discussed straight. It
> won't be part of the completed charter.
Then drop it and put in what is actually being presented. It makes life for
you SOOO much easier.
>
> >
> >>
> >> us.military.army is an unmoderated newsgroup for discussion of the
> >> United States Army.
> >
> >There are other aspects to be discussed. Like the impact to the civilian
> >community on base closures. It's not just for discussiong of the United
> >States Army.
> >
>
> Its a blanket statement and as such covers all aspects.
Expand it a bit. It's just not about those serving in the US.army. I got a
prelim on base closures. That has a much broader affect than just Military.
>
> >us.military.army is an unmoderated newsgroup for discussion of topics
that
> >affect the
> >United States Army, community and impacts on the Unites States as a whole
> >
>
> I keep being told to make this shorter.
Short but make the points needed.
>
> How is this materially different except that it could be used to limit
> discussion rather than expand it?
Then present a better version of it that doesn't.
>
> >
> >
> >
> > The group is intended as both a social and a
> >> topical newsgroup that will allow soldiers and their families, members
> >> of sister services and civilians a way to meet new people with like
> >> interests,within and without the services, and to enrich their
> >> military related experience.
> >
> >Some may not wish to "enrich' their military related experience. Some
may
> >not have any military experience. After taking out the last few words, I
> >noticed that the whole paragraph actually said absolutely nothing.
> >
>
> If they have an interest in the Army I can't imagine how they don't
> have or desire a "military related experience."
They just might come in and want to discuss funding. Or any other item that
may affect the Civilian populance. Like the affects of Base Closures on the
Civilian community, the added crime rate, etc.. And don't even make the
claim that there isn't an increase in crime.
>
> >The group is intended as both a social and a
> > topical newsgroup that will allow soldiers and their families, members
> > of sister services and civilians an area to discuss the United States
Army.
> >
>
> It has the benefit of being shorter. I was trying to preserve the
> intent from the initial creation of uma so far as it was appropriate.
The problem is, the way you wrote it, it says absolutely nothing. I know
you are a Asimov reader. In the Second Foundation, that style of writing
was covered quite well.
I didn't say it was off limits but to have it in there fosters the same
problems that AFM had in the past that killed it and is eroding UMA right
now. The Trolls. xposters and the like. History is a good teacher most of
the time.
>
> >
> >> - Official announcements from the US Army on matters of concern to
> >> readers of the newsgroup.
> >> - Weapons, equipment, tactics and strategies of the US Army.
> >> - General topics of interest related to the US Army or US Army
> >> experiences.
> >>
> >> The following types of articles are off-topic for the newsgroup:
> >>
> >> - Articles primarily related to other branches of the military
> >> service.
> >> - Postings by "defense consultants" or other commercial operations
> >> promoting their commercial interests.
> >
> >> - Discussions of past historical events not pertaining to the US Army.
> >
> >Let's see. I can discuss Washington crossing the delaware in a 5 year
> >string. This needs to be dropped and steer people to UMH. You already
> >cover this elsewhere. Just drop the line.
>
> Actually you shouldn't start that thread., this is a line that can be
> dropped for economy, though.
No I shouldn't. We agree. (looking for the sky to fall)
>
> >
> >> - Excessive personal attacks directed by a subscriber against another.
> >> - Partisan politics not relating to military affairs.
> >> - International affairs not directly related to the US Army
> >
> >
> >> - Domestic affairs not directly related to the US Army or military
> >
> >Domestic affairs not directly related to the US Army, military or the
> >surrounding area where it impacts the community
> >
>
> The surrounding area of what?
In an Army town, the AF has one very hard time of getting credit due to the
mismanagement of the Army personnel. The AF is more likely to repay the
loan than even the Civilian populance but they are Military and therefore
not to be trusted. Whether I agree or disagree with this statement is
irrellevant. Oftentimes, that's the general business feeling. Unless you
run a Pawn Shop or a Strip joint that is:)
Why? Because.
>
> >
> >>
> >> Procedures
> >>
> >> Newsgroup creation in the us.* hierarchy is by consensus in us.config.
> >> As provided by the us.* hierarchy rules, this proposal shall remain on
> >> the table for seven days, to and including 5 September 2003. The
> >> hierarchy administrator may decide to extend the time for discussion
> >> or take other actions. Refer to
> >> http://www.usenetnews.us/us-create.shtml for further information.
> >
> >Actually, She already gave it an extention to Sept 7th. According to the
> >rules you are posting, that is the last extresion. Either it flies or it
> >dies.
> >
>
> I still don't think she's seen my original Final RFD post. If she
> does or has and she still want's to extend, I'll amend this.
If I have seen it, then so has she. And she already ruled that the 7th was
the end of the Extensions as per the regs.
RTO Trainer
So in that light, why does this statement make any difference one way
or the other? In fact, its not even part of the Charter; just
procedural window dressing.
>>
>> >A formal charter was never adopted because the
>> >> group was doing well and there didn't seem to be a great need to
>> >> formalize the charter. Later, traffic increased dramatically and
>> >> questions were raised about the purpose of the group, formalization of
>> >> the original proposal was undertaken in mid-2000. The result,
>> >> however, was not reflective of the use or needs of the group which
>> >> should have been taken more fully into account, especially in light of
>> >> the group's long unchartered status and ad hoc origins.
>> >
>> >The Group? Which Group? Obviously, yours. I still go back to AFM on
>that
>> >one.
>>
>> "The group"= us.military.army
>
>Then just say us.military.army to avoid confusion for some of the more vocal
>trolls out there.
>
I've been trying to put in "Newsgroup" for every case of "group" but
once in a while it slips through.
>
>>
>> Why quibble on this? Its not a part of the charter.
>
>The whole thing is your presentation. Including the justification.
>
And it doesn't bother me, so what's the issue?
>
>>
>> >
>> >>
>> >> ****BEGIN CHARTER****
>> >> CHARTER: us.military.army Model M-4
>> >
>> >M-4. Does this mean that all people that post in UMA are to be issued
>> >sidearms? That just might cure some of the problems.
>> >
>>
>> Just a way to keep which version is being discussed straight. It
>> won't be part of the completed charter.
>
>Then drop it and put in what is actually being presented. It makes life for
>you SOOO much easier.
>
For the moment it makes thing easier to be able to keep track of who's
commenting on what. I could put in brackets if that'd help.
>>
>> >
>> >>
>> >> us.military.army is an unmoderated newsgroup for discussion of the
>> >> United States Army.
>> >
>> >There are other aspects to be discussed. Like the impact to the civilian
>> >community on base closures. It's not just for discussiong of the United
>> >States Army.
>> >
>>
>> Its a blanket statement and as such covers all aspects.
>
>Expand it a bit. It's just not about those serving in the US.army. I got a
>prelim on base closures. That has a much broader affect than just Military.
>
The more I elaborate the narrower it'll get though not broader. You
have a suggestion for phrasing?
>>
>> >us.military.army is an unmoderated newsgroup for discussion of topics
>that
>> >affect the
>> >United States Army, community and impacts on the Unites States as a whole
>> >
>>
>> I keep being told to make this shorter.
>
>Short but make the points needed.
>
>
>>
>> How is this materially different except that it could be used to limit
>> discussion rather than expand it?
>
>Then present a better version of it that doesn't.
>
That's where I think we are now.
>
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > The group is intended as both a social and a
>> >> topical newsgroup that will allow soldiers and their families, members
>> >> of sister services and civilians a way to meet new people with like
>> >> interests,within and without the services, and to enrich their
>> >> military related experience.
>> >
>> >Some may not wish to "enrich' their military related experience. Some
>may
>> >not have any military experience. After taking out the last few words, I
>> >noticed that the whole paragraph actually said absolutely nothing.
>> >
>>
>> If they have an interest in the Army I can't imagine how they don't
>> have or desire a "military related experience."
>
>They just might come in and want to discuss funding.
Which wouldn't be "military related experience?" I think its
covered.
>Or any other item that
>may affect the Civilian populance. Like the affects of Base Closures on the
>Civilian community, the added crime rate, etc..
Still looks like "military related" experiences to me.
>And don't even make the
>claim that there isn't an increase in crime.
>
Not that I care at the moment--its way out of the scope of
conversation.
>>
>> >The group is intended as both a social and a
>> > topical newsgroup that will allow soldiers and their families, members
>> > of sister services and civilians an area to discuss the United States
>Army.
>> >
>>
>> It has the benefit of being shorter. I was trying to preserve the
>> intent from the initial creation of uma so far as it was appropriate.
>
>The problem is, the way you wrote it, it says absolutely nothing. I know
>you are a Asimov reader. In the Second Foundation, that style of writing
>was covered quite well.
>
I've never read any Asimov actually. I'm more a Vonnegut guy.. Only
obliquely familiar with the Robot and Foundation books--nothing in any
depth.
Having folklore be explicitly on-topic fosters the same problems that
AFM had?
Trolls, xposters and the like are conditions of Usenet, not of any
particular group. Only groupers can control these. No Charter or
admin ever will.
>
>>
>> >
>> >> - Official announcements from the US Army on matters of concern to
>> >> readers of the newsgroup.
>> >> - Weapons, equipment, tactics and strategies of the US Army.
>> >> - General topics of interest related to the US Army or US Army
>> >> experiences.
>> >>
>> >> The following types of articles are off-topic for the newsgroup:
>> >>
>> >> - Articles primarily related to other branches of the military
>> >> service.
>> >> - Postings by "defense consultants" or other commercial operations
>> >> promoting their commercial interests.
>> >
>> >> - Discussions of past historical events not pertaining to the US Army.
>> >
>> >Let's see. I can discuss Washington crossing the delaware in a 5 year
>> >string. This needs to be dropped and steer people to UMH. You already
>> >cover this elsewhere. Just drop the line.
>>
>> Actually you shouldn't start that thread., this is a line that can be
>> dropped for economy, though.
>
>No I shouldn't. We agree. (looking for the sky to fall)
>
I took you principle here a bit farther and also snipped: - Partisan
politics not relating to military affairs. as being covered ny the
us.politics language and also :
- Articles containing binaries or other attachments (use a link to
such instead)
- Commercial solicitations to include advertising, auction notices or
solicitations for charity.
As being covered by HKT's us.* posting rules language.
>>
>> >
>> >> - Excessive personal attacks directed by a subscriber against another.
>> >> - Partisan politics not relating to military affairs.
>> >> - International affairs not directly related to the US Army
>> >
>> >
>> >> - Domestic affairs not directly related to the US Army or military
>> >
>> >Domestic affairs not directly related to the US Army, military or the
>> >surrounding area where it impacts the community
>> >
>>
>> The surrounding area of what?
>
>In an Army town, the AF has one very hard time of getting credit due to the
>mismanagement of the Army personnel. The AF is more likely to repay the
>loan than even the Civilian populance but they are Military and therefore
>not to be trusted. Whether I agree or disagree with this statement is
>irrellevant. Oftentimes, that's the general business feeling. Unless you
>run a Pawn Shop or a Strip joint that is:)
>
Okay, but that would be "directly related to the US Army" and so its
covered. And the comparative Air Force issue would be directly
related to the...military" so its covered as well.
I can't operate on "because."
>
>>
>> >
>> >>
>> >> Procedures
>> >>
>> >> Newsgroup creation in the us.* hierarchy is by consensus in us.config.
>> >> As provided by the us.* hierarchy rules, this proposal shall remain on
>> >> the table for seven days, to and including 5 September 2003. The
>> >> hierarchy administrator may decide to extend the time for discussion
>> >> or take other actions. Refer to
>> >> http://www.usenetnews.us/us-create.shtml for further information.
>> >
>> >Actually, She already gave it an extention to Sept 7th. According to the
>> >rules you are posting, that is the last extresion. Either it flies or it
>> >dies.
>> >
>>
>> I still don't think she's seen my original Final RFD post. If she
>> does or has and she still want's to extend, I'll amend this.
>
>If I have seen it, then so has she. And she already ruled that the 7th was
>the end of the Extensions as per the regs.
>
Okay, but I need to see that from her. No offense.
Colin Campbell
<bill....@us.army.mil> wrote:
>Request for Discussion
>unmoderated group us.military.army
>
>There having been no serious dispute as to provisions of the third
>RFD, this is the final Request for Discussion (RFD) to replace the
>charter of an existing newsgroup in the us.* hierarchy,
>us.military.army. This is not a call for votes. Charter amendment is
>by consensus in us.config. Procedures for conducting the discussion
>are detailed below at the end of this RFD. This final RFD contains
>minor tweaking of the proposed charter of the third RFD: clarification
>of enforcement responsibility, and a variety of small grammar,
>capitalization and punctuation errors have been corrected. Posting
>guidelines has been substantially edited to tie them more closely to
>the express us.* posting rules.
>
>Newsgroups line:
>us.military.army Life and work in the US Army
I would say that this charter meets the test of 'good enough.' There
has been too much quibbling and BS already (mostly by two people who
seem to have no valid complaints).
(And Henrettia: if you notice, I crossposted this. Now what do you
think I am trying to hide?)
Daryl Hunt
That's the first thing an admin sees. You have to give justification, yes.
And that is probably more important to the NA than the rest of it. Let's
face it, when an alt charter prop comes across the desk, it needs little
else than the justification and a few people requesting it.
>
> >>
> >> >A formal charter was never adopted because the
> >> >> group was doing well and there didn't seem to be a great need to
> >> >> formalize the charter. Later, traffic increased dramatically and
> >> >> questions were raised about the purpose of the group, formalization
of
> >> >> the original proposal was undertaken in mid-2000. The result,
> >> >> however, was not reflective of the use or needs of the group which
> >> >> should have been taken more fully into account, especially in light
of
> >> >> the group's long unchartered status and ad hoc origins.
> >> >
> >> >The Group? Which Group? Obviously, yours. I still go back to AFM on
> >that
> >> >one.
> >>
> >> "The group"= us.military.army
> >
> >Then just say us.military.army to avoid confusion for some of the more
vocal
> >trolls out there.
> >
>
> I've been trying to put in "Newsgroup" for every case of "group" but
> once in a while it slips through.
Not a prob.
>
> >
> >>
> >> Why quibble on this? Its not a part of the charter.
> >
> >The whole thing is your presentation. Including the justification.
> >
>
> And it doesn't bother me, so what's the issue?
You aren't the one that has to approve it. Even HKT isn't the final
approving authority. The News Admins are.
>
> >
> >>
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> ****BEGIN CHARTER****
> >> >> CHARTER: us.military.army Model M-4
> >> >
> >> >M-4. Does this mean that all people that post in UMA are to be issued
> >> >sidearms? That just might cure some of the problems.
> >> >
> >>
> >> Just a way to keep which version is being discussed straight. It
> >> won't be part of the completed charter.
> >
> >Then drop it and put in what is actually being presented. It makes life
for
> >you SOOO much easier.
> >
>
> For the moment it makes thing easier to be able to keep track of who's
> commenting on what. I could put in brackets if that'd help.
That is for your own internal tracking. No outside of your outfit really
cares.
>
> >>
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> us.military.army is an unmoderated newsgroup for discussion of the
> >> >> United States Army.
> >> >
> >> >There are other aspects to be discussed. Like the impact to the
civilian
> >> >community on base closures. It's not just for discussiong of the
United
> >> >States Army.
> >> >
> >>
> >> Its a blanket statement and as such covers all aspects.
> >
> >Expand it a bit. It's just not about those serving in the US.army. I
got a
> >prelim on base closures. That has a much broader affect than just
Military.
> >
>
> The more I elaborate the narrower it'll get though not broader. You
> have a suggestion for phrasing?
Nope. As you said, You are writing it. It's up to you to sell it.
>
> >>
> >> >us.military.army is an unmoderated newsgroup for discussion of topics
> >that
> >> >affect the
> >> >United States Army, community and impacts on the Unites States as a
whole
> >> >
> >>
> >> I keep being told to make this shorter.
> >
> >Short but make the points needed.
> >
> >
> >>
> >> How is this materially different except that it could be used to limit
> >> discussion rather than expand it?
> >
> >Then present a better version of it that doesn't.
> >
>
> That's where I think we are now.
You are quite close. Don't bail.
>
> >
> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > The group is intended as both a social and a
> >> >> topical newsgroup that will allow soldiers and their families,
members
> >> >> of sister services and civilians a way to meet new people with like
> >> >> interests,within and without the services, and to enrich their
> >> >> military related experience.
> >> >
> >> >Some may not wish to "enrich' their military related experience. Some
> >may
> >> >not have any military experience. After taking out the last few
words, I
> >> >noticed that the whole paragraph actually said absolutely nothing.
> >> >
> >>
> >> If they have an interest in the Army I can't imagine how they don't
> >> have or desire a "military related experience."
> >
> >They just might come in and want to discuss funding.
>
> Which wouldn't be "military related experience?" I think its
> covered.
The Tax payer probably won't have any "military related experience" to draw
on. They only know thier taxes just went up.
>
> >Or any other item that
> >may affect the Civilian populance. Like the affects of Base Closures on
the
> >Civilian community, the added crime rate, etc..
>
> Still looks like "military related" experiences to me.
in a very, very broad interpretation. Again, you are dealing with civilians
with NO military background to draw upon. Look how long it took all of us
to bring WD around. He went from a spam artist to a supporter.
>
> >And don't even make the
> >claim that there isn't an increase in crime.
> >
>
> Not that I care at the moment--its way out of the scope of
> conversation.
But it would be a relevent conversation.
>
> >>
> >> >The group is intended as both a social and a
> >> > topical newsgroup that will allow soldiers and their families,
members
> >> > of sister services and civilians an area to discuss the United States
> >Army.
> >> >
> >>
> >> It has the benefit of being shorter. I was trying to preserve the
> >> intent from the initial creation of uma so far as it was appropriate.
> >
> >The problem is, the way you wrote it, it says absolutely nothing. I know
> >you are a Asimov reader. In the Second Foundation, that style of writing
> >was covered quite well.
> >
>
> I've never read any Asimov actually. I'm more a Vonnegut guy.. Only
> obliquely familiar with the Robot and Foundation books--nothing in any
> depth.
You really need to read Robots and the Foundation books. Hint: They all
tie together. Can you imagine, decades of writing and countless books and
they run a sequence of events? I wished I were half as bright as that Man
was. But don't attempt to read his technical writing. I picked up one of
those and had to read each paragraph about 5 times just to comprehend what
it said plus hit the reference books.
I suggest you drop the "Groupers" reference in any conversation we have.
You already know my dislike of the over used and oftentimes abuse
"Groupers". Unless you are a fish, that is. Using the term Groupers is
like saying that you have a small group that rides herd over everyone else.
This is the internet and not a private message board where it's invitation
only.
Not a big thing. I can live with it.
And I can't operate on "Why"
>
> >
> >>
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> Procedures
> >> >>
> >> >> Newsgroup creation in the us.* hierarchy is by consensus in
us.config.
> >> >> As provided by the us.* hierarchy rules, this proposal shall remain
on
> >> >> the table for seven days, to and including 5 September 2003. The
> >> >> hierarchy administrator may decide to extend the time for discussion
> >> >> or take other actions. Refer to
> >> >> http://www.usenetnews.us/us-create.shtml for further information.
> >> >
> >> >Actually, She already gave it an extention to Sept 7th. According to
the
> >> >rules you are posting, that is the last extresion. Either it flies or
it
> >> >dies.
> >> >
> >>
> >> I still don't think she's seen my original Final RFD post. If she
> >> does or has and she still want's to extend, I'll amend this.
> >
> >If I have seen it, then so has she. And she already ruled that the 7th
was
> >the end of the Extensions as per the regs.
> >
>
> Okay, but I need to see that from her. No offense.
I saw it posted in answer to me in us.config. It's there.
Replacement_Tommel
says...
>
>On Tue, 02 Sep 2003 11:36:09 -0500, RTO Trainer
><bill....@us.army.mil> wrote:
>
>>Request for Discussion
>>unmoderated group us.military.army
>>
>>There having been no serious dispute as to provisions of the third
>>RFD, this is the final Request for Discussion (RFD) to replace the
>>charter of an existing newsgroup in the us.* hierarchy,
>>us.military.army. This is not a call for votes. Charter amendment is
>>by consensus in us.config. Procedures for conducting the discussion
>>are detailed below at the end of this RFD. This final RFD contains
>>minor tweaking of the proposed charter of the third RFD: clarification
>>of enforcement responsibility, and a variety of small grammar,
>>capitalization and punctuation errors have been corrected. Posting
>>guidelines has been substantially edited to tie them more closely to
>>the express us.* posting rules.
>>
>>Newsgroups line:
>>us.military.army Life and work in the US Army
>
>I would say that this charter meets the test of 'good enough.' There
>has been too much quibbling and BS already (mostly by two people who
>seem to have no valid complaints).
>
I agree, the charter is good to go, despite the protests of HKT and DM...
RTO Trainer
Then why bother with this? Why not go straight to them?
And better, why can no one tell me who "they" are? It's better than a
conspiracy theory.
>>
>> >
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >> ****BEGIN CHARTER****
>> >> >> CHARTER: us.military.army Model M-4
>> >> >
>> >> >M-4. Does this mean that all people that post in UMA are to be issued
>> >> >sidearms? That just might cure some of the problems.
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> Just a way to keep which version is being discussed straight. It
>> >> won't be part of the completed charter.
>> >
>> >Then drop it and put in what is actually being presented. It makes life
>for
>> >you SOOO much easier.
>> >
>>
>> For the moment it makes thing easier to be able to keep track of who's
>> commenting on what. I could put in brackets if that'd help.
>
>That is for your own internal tracking. No outside of your outfit really
>cares.
>
Yep and we're still at a point where its helpful.
>>
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >> us.military.army is an unmoderated newsgroup for discussion of the
>> >> >> United States Army.
>> >> >
>> >> >There are other aspects to be discussed. Like the impact to the
>civilian
>> >> >community on base closures. It's not just for discussiong of the
>United
>> >> >States Army.
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> Its a blanket statement and as such covers all aspects.
>> >
>> >Expand it a bit. It's just not about those serving in the US.army. I
>got a
>> >prelim on base closures. That has a much broader affect than just
>Military.
>> >
>>
>> The more I elaborate the narrower it'll get though not broader. You
>> have a suggestion for phrasing?
>
>Nope. As you said, You are writing it. It's up to you to sell it.
>
Then I stand on this as the best I can come up with.
>
>>
>> >>
>> >> >us.military.army is an unmoderated newsgroup for discussion of topics
>> >that
>> >> >affect the
>> >> >United States Army, community and impacts on the Unites States as a
>whole
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> I keep being told to make this shorter.
>> >
>> >Short but make the points needed.
>> >
>> >
>> >>
>> >> How is this materially different except that it could be used to limit
>> >> discussion rather than expand it?
>> >
>> >Then present a better version of it that doesn't.
>> >
>>
>> That's where I think we are now.
>
>You are quite close. Don't bail.
>
If you or someone else can't offer a suggestion that accomplishes what
you say it needs, I have no choice but to stand on what I've got.
Might be a matter of having stared at it too much, but the result's
the same: if there's no help, there'll be no change.
>>
>> >
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > The group is intended as both a social and a
>> >> >> topical newsgroup that will allow soldiers and their families,
>members
>> >> >> of sister services and civilians a way to meet new people with like
>> >> >> interests,within and without the services, and to enrich their
>> >> >> military related experience.
>> >> >
>> >> >Some may not wish to "enrich' their military related experience. Some
>> >may
>> >> >not have any military experience. After taking out the last few
>words, I
>> >> >noticed that the whole paragraph actually said absolutely nothing.
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> If they have an interest in the Army I can't imagine how they don't
>> >> have or desire a "military related experience."
>> >
>> >They just might come in and want to discuss funding.
>>
>> Which wouldn't be "military related experience?" I think its
>> covered.
>
>The Tax payer probably won't have any "military related experience" to draw
>on. They only know thier taxes just went up.
>
If they came to uma looking for this answer they had to know it was
army related and therefore a related experience.
>
>>
>> >Or any other item that
>> >may affect the Civilian populance. Like the affects of Base Closures on
>the
>> >Civilian community, the added crime rate, etc..
>>
>> Still looks like "military related" experiences to me.
>
>in a very, very broad interpretation. Again, you are dealing with civilians
>with NO military background to draw upon. Look how long it took all of us
>to bring WD around. He went from a spam artist to a supporter.
>
I don't buy this. Military background isn't required to be interested
in the Army. It isn't required to seek out soldiers to ask questions
of... The interest has to exist first otherwise they'll never go
looking for uma, let alone find it.
>
>>
>> >And don't even make the
>> >claim that there isn't an increase in crime.
>> >
>>
>> Not that I care at the moment--its way out of the scope of
>> conversation.
>
>But it would be a relevent conversation.
>
And already covered.
You've gotta get over this vocabulary problem. ;)
Grouper = regular posters to a group and its one word. I believe in
cutting down on keystrokes.
Trying again:
Having folklore be explicitly on-topic fosters the same problems that
AFM had?
Trolls, xposters and the like are conditions of Usenet, not of any
particular group. Only regular posters can control these. No Charter
or admin ever will.
>>
>> >
>> >>
>> >> >
I'm a reasonable person but not a pliant one. I will do much only
because I was asked so long as there is a reason for it. I will not
do what I can find no reason for.
>
>
>>
>> >
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Procedures
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Newsgroup creation in the us.* hierarchy is by consensus in
>us.config.
>> >> >> As provided by the us.* hierarchy rules, this proposal shall remain
>on
>> >> >> the table for seven days, to and including 5 September 2003. The
>> >> >> hierarchy administrator may decide to extend the time for discussion
>> >> >> or take other actions. Refer to
>> >> >> http://www.usenetnews.us/us-create.shtml for further information.
>> >> >
>> >> >Actually, She already gave it an extention to Sept 7th. According to
>the
>> >> >rules you are posting, that is the last extresion. Either it flies or
>it
>> >> >dies.
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> I still don't think she's seen my original Final RFD post. If she
>> >> does or has and she still want's to extend, I'll amend this.
>> >
>> >If I have seen it, then so has she. And she already ruled that the 7th
>was
>> >the end of the Extensions as per the regs.
>> >
>>
>> Okay, but I need to see that from her. No offense.
>
>I saw it posted in answer to me in us.config. It's there.
>
That I saw. What I need to know is if she saw my intial Final RFD
post.
redc1c4
>
> In article <uh3alvk4cnd8ep3r8...@4ax.com>, remove underscore
> says...
> >
> >On Tue, 02 Sep 2003 11:36:09 -0500, RTO Trainer
> ><bill....@us.army.mil> wrote:
> >
> >>Request for Discussion
> >>unmoderated group us.military.army
> >>
> >>There having been no serious dispute as to provisions of the third
> >>RFD, this is the final Request for Discussion (RFD) to replace the
> >>charter of an existing newsgroup in the us.* hierarchy,
> >>us.military.army. This is not a call for votes. Charter amendment is
> >>by consensus in us.config. Procedures for conducting the discussion
> >>are detailed below at the end of this RFD. This final RFD contains
> >>minor tweaking of the proposed charter of the third RFD: clarification
> >>of enforcement responsibility, and a variety of small grammar,
> >>capitalization and punctuation errors have been corrected. Posting
> >>guidelines has been substantially edited to tie them more closely to
> >>the express us.* posting rules.
> >>
> >>Newsgroups line:
> >>us.military.army Life and work in the US Army
> >
> >I would say that this charter meets the test of 'good enough.' There
> >has been too much quibbling and BS already (mostly by two people who
> >seem to have no valid complaints).
> >
>
> I agree, the charter is good to go, despite the protests of HKT and DM...
more correctly, the charter is demonstrably "good to go" because
they continue to nit pick. neither one wants it to go forward, and
they will stall as long as we let them.
redc1c4,
i say we call for votes.
--
"Enlisted men are stupid, but extremely cunning and sly, and bear
considerable watching."
Army Officer's Guide
RTO Trainer
GMT, redc1c4 <red...@drunkenbastards.org.ies> exclaimed:
There are no votes.
Things here are done by consensus.
(Consensus: the absence of leadership.)
ssn...@earthlink.net
"redc1c4" <red...@drunkenbastards.org.ies> wrote in message
news:3F552804...@drunkenbastards.org.ies...
Red, charters and other changes to a newsgroup in the us.*
hierarchy are determined by consensus. Now we have achieved
a consensus among uma group subscribers and with at least
two of the people (perhaps more) in us.config. There being
only two (and perhaps only one) person opposing the
re-chartering at this time I believe that in accord with
the definition of consensus we already have that.
Snark
Replacement_Tommel
It's apparent that they are trying to stall it to death - "But, but, but,
but..." seems to be HKT's and DM's rallying cry, and frankly I think with the
exception of those two we are all quite sick of their nonsense.
David Casey
>> No. I don't remember that. Its still irrelevant.
>
> Of course your selective memory will not recall it. Is that Rule 13 or 14
> of the UMA 404th Group Mission Trolling Handbook
There is no rule book, Daryl. I do notice, however, you seem unwilling to
reply to my posts calling for both sides in our little dispute to put things
behind them and work together.
A simple yes or no here, do you wish to continue the flaming and name
calling and such? Lack of an answer will be taken as a yes.
Dave
--
You can talk about us, but you can't talk without us!
US Army Signal Corps!!
www.geocities.com/davidcasey98
Just added Albuquerque Police beat map and
the EDACS frequencies to the site!
The SoldierGrrrl
>Date: 9/2/2003 4:10 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: <3F552804...@drunkenbastards.org.ies>
>more correctly, the charter is demonstrably "good to go" because
>they continue to nit pick. neither one wants it to go forward, and
>they will stall as long as we let them.
I think this is the most important bit.
Cry "CHEEBLE" and let slip the lemmings of war! -- D.B.
The SoldierGrrrl
Truck Goddess
Army: A body of men assembled to rectify the mistakes of the diplomats.
--Josephus Daniels--
My email is less "hooah" than I am.
The SoldierGrrrl
>Date: 9/2/2003 5:00 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: <1uu0ihpsa37n7$.d...@davidcaseyspamcop.net>
>here is no rule book, Daryl. I do notice, however, you seem unwilling to
>reply to my posts calling for both sides in our little dispute to put things
>behind them and work together.
>
>A simple yes or no here, do you wish to continue the flaming and name
>calling and such? Lack of an answer will be taken as a yes.
>
>Dave
Dave, honey. You're wasting your time.
redc1c4
>
> After reviewing Paragraph 5 pf the OPORD of Tue, 02 Sep 2003 23:10:32
> GMT, redc1c4 <red...@drunkenbastards.org.ies> exclaimed:
>
> >Replacement_Tommel wrote:
> >>
> >> In article <uh3alvk4cnd8ep3r8...@4ax.com>, remove underscore
> >> says...
> >> >
> >> >On Tue, 02 Sep 2003 11:36:09 -0500, RTO Trainer
> >> ><bill....@us.army.mil> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >>Request for Discussion
> >> >>unmoderated group us.military.army
(snipage occurs}
> >> >I would say that this charter meets the test of 'good enough.' There
> >> >has been too much quibbling and BS already (mostly by two people who
> >> >seem to have no valid complaints).
> >> >
> >>
> >> I agree, the charter is good to go, despite the protests of HKT and DM...
> >
> >more correctly, the charter is demonstrably "good to go" because
> >they continue to nit pick. neither one wants it to go forward, and
> >they will stall as long as we let them.
> >
> >redc1c4,
> >i say we call for votes.
>
> There are no votes.
>
> Things here are done by consensus.
>
> (Consensus: the absence of leadership.)
wrongamundo, amigo:
from Webster's On Line:
One entry found for consensus.
Main Entry: con新en新us
Pronunciation: k&n-'sen(t)-s&s
Function: noun
Usage: often attributive
Etymology: Latin, from consentire
Date: 1858
1 a : general agreement : UNANIMITY <the consensus of their opinion,
based on reports... from the border -- John Hersey>
b : the judgment arrived at by most of those concerned
<the consensus was to go ahead>
2 : group solidarity in sentiment and belief
From Cambridge Dictionary of American English
consensus
noun [U]
a generally accepted opinion; wide agreement
the only was to establish that there is "general agreement" or
"generally accepted opinion" is to conduct a formal poll or vote.
although technically NOT an election, it quantifies the level of
consensus among the participating, and therefore allegedly "interested"
parties. if a majority of the persons participating in the discussion
register their approval of the matter at hand, "consensus" has been
reached.
no doubt there will be whining that consensus = unanimity, but that
is NOT what the dictionaries say.
"general/generally/wide" =/ "unanimous/all/complete"
so therefore, i make a motion that a formal poll be taken among
those actively participating in the discussion, and that future
actions be determined by the results of said poll.
redc1c4,
otherwise the ASPCA will be after us all for beating a dead horse. %-)
Tank Fixer
dh...@i70west.nospam.com says...
>
> "Replacement_Tommel"
> <replaceme...@404LemmingsREMOVE.com_IT'SINVALIDBABY> wrote in message
> > >In article <bivut0$do2fs$1...@ID-203896.news.uni-berlin.de>, Daryl Hunt
> says...
> > >
> >
> > (snip)
> >
> > >
> > >You are talking about including a group that your bunch originally came
> from
> > >that was overrun by trolls, xposters and spammers. Sounds quite
> familiar,
> > >doesn't it.
> > >
> >
>
> Glad you are getting called up. Maybe a bit of humanity will result from it.
> If not, no problem. Just one less Group Mission Troll to have around for a
> bit.
hahahahahahahahahahahahaha
You're a real wanker you know it daryl...
--
--
Remember, Friendly fire, Isn't :
Tank Fixer
dh...@i70west.nospam.com says...
>
> "ssn...@bangserver.na" <ssn...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:tTM4b.4876$tw6....@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> >
> > "Daryl Hunt" <dh...@i70west.nospam.com> wrote in message
> > news:bivut0$do2fs$1...@ID-203896.news.uni-berlin.de...
> > >
> > > "ssn...@bangserver.na" <ssn...@earthlink.net> wrote in
> > message
> > >
> > news:v9K4b.4704$tw6....@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> > > >
> > > > "Daryl Hunt" <dh...@i70west.nospam.com> wrote in message
> > > > news:biuau7$d8c3c$1...@ID-203896.news.uni-berlin.de...
> > > > >
> > > > <snip>
> > > > experiences
> > > > > > >> >shared by Soldiers or their dependents
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>
> > out.
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >Fact is that AFM is moribund. Folklore gets
> > discussed
> > > > in UMA. Don't
> > > > > > >see any reason to go out of my way to support an
> > alt.*.
> > > > Do see a
> > > > > > >reason to minimize the "you're off-topic" crowd.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Then why don't you just scrap the list and make
> > > > _everything_
> > > > > > on topic?
> > > >
> > > > We are speaking of the inclusion of US Army folklore.
> > > > Which, while it could be construed quite broadly, would
> > not,
> > > > despite your protestation to the contrary, make
> > > > _everything_ on topic in uma.
> > >
> > originally came from
> > > that was overrun by trolls, xposters and spammers. Sounds
> > quite familiar,
> > > doesn't it.
> > >
> > Army and not about a moribund group in the alt.* hierarchy.
> >
> > So that people like Mike P, Big_Gun, or Old Fool or anyone
> > else for that matter can reminice about their experiences
> > and lessons learned in the US Army.
>
> My lessons from the Army are quite different than yours. I have a much
> better memory than I see in here. But I can tell the difference between
> reality and manufacutured reality so no real harm done.
>
Since you never were IN the Army....
>
> > Do you object to that? Have you forgotten that Old Fool
> > had some poster come down on him for posting his reminisces
> > just last summer? Personally, I like to hear what some of
> > these fellows have to say. It may or may not apply to the
> > Army today but, it provides a connection with our past.
>
> Since I am not the one that came down on Old Fool, you don't have much a
> point. A little never hurt a thing. But let's look at what it really is.
>
> You are using "Folklore" in the place of History and we already have a place
> for that. Do you want UMA to replace everything? If so, we need to expand
> the Charter to read where it allows everything.
>
>
Brhaahahahah
We are Lemmings of Borg, prepare to be asimilated...
Tank Fixer
>
> "Replacement_Tommel"
> <replaceme...@404LemmingsREMOVE.com_IT'SINVALIDBABY> wrote in message
> > >In article <bj0dig$dq51j$1...@ID-203896.news.uni-berlin.de>, Daryl Hunt> > >>news:2VN4b.4914$tw6....@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> > >>
> >
> > (snip)
> >
> > >> And you served in what Army?
> > >
> > >You already stated you NEVER ask that. I just wondered how long it would
> > >take you. I served WITH the Army on many exercises.
> >
> > Don't worry Daryl, we all remember the infamous "82nd Airborne opened up
> on the
> > Oklahoma NG with a LAW" post...
>
> You still here? Thought you were heading out to play your little war games.
Stop thinking, or is that drinking ?
Tank Fixer
dh...@i70west.nospam.com says...
>
>
> Sorry to break your bubble. I did a bit of research in AFM and found that
> it ended up looking like UMA is now. What is left is nothing but Xposters,
> Trolls and Spammers. The only thing missing for quite some time is your
> group. Yes, AFM is dead and I figured out a few of the reasons why. I
> don't blame your bunch for all of it but you should take some of the
> responsiblity.
>
>
Really, and when did I post there ?
Tank Fixer
dh...@i70west.nospam.com says...
>
> "David Casey" <david...@spamcop.net> wrote in message
> news:1ht8fcbu...@davidcaseyspamcop.net...
> > On Mon, 1 Sep 2003 23:19:24 -0600, Daryl Hunt wrote:
> >
> > [snip stuff I already know]
> >
> > > Server D may not carry it due to a miriad of reasons. But they don't.
> In U
> > > S.config, I have to use my own plus the German one. Because I can't get
> the
> > > uplink to add alt.military retired, I have to use the German server to
> read
> > > and reply in that one.
> >
> > So, what happened to your own news server? Just curious since you have
> > claimed and appear to run your own ISP.
> >
> > [snip flame attempt]
>
> Well I guess we will let you live and bar you from the Server room since you
> are too stupid to understand the system.
>
Translation, " I can't get it to work so i use a German one"
Tank Fixer
Agreed, I go to the beach for a few days and come back to the same
quibbles.
If in 6 months we find the profanity or top posting prtions need
adjustment then we do so.
> redc1c4,
> i say we call for votes.
>
Ah, you forget that we are but just peons in HKT's universe.
redc1c4
i beg to differ....... read my "Point of Order" post.
red,
using that college education after all. %-)