umn-g removal: Daryl, will you support this? (was Re: us.talk.constitution)
edward ohare
<ssn...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>"edward ohare" <edward...@NOSPAMyahoo.com.INVALID> wrote
>in message news:3f35b6fe...@news.alt.net...
>> On Sat, 09 Aug 2003 22:37:40 -0400, Pulver
><red...@gta.igs.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>> >5 ppd "adequate" with 69% xposts. That is less than 2
>real
>> >umn-g posts daily- you have to be kidding!!!
>>
>>
>> Also, the uma groupers, during the last RFD for removal,
>commented
>> they check the group and sometimes post answers to
>questions there,
>> because they know there is no one else to do it. They're
>essentially
>> posting as a public service, not really supporting the
>group, but
>> helping the posters who don't realize there are no real
>groupers
>> there. This is commendable but using their posts as
>justification
>> for retaining the group is abusive of their citizenly acts
>for the
>> greater good.
>>
>
>For the month of June 2003 MS-Netscan shows the following:
>
>us.military.national-guard
>Posts 122
>Posters 41
>PPRatio .34
>Returnees 12
>Line Ct 52
>Replies 83
>Repliers 24
>Singles 23
>Unrd Msg 27
>xposts 79
>xpostgrps 37
>
>Of the 79 crossposts 74 appeared in uma.
>Of the top ten Posters
> Days
> Active Posts Replies
>Abrigon Gusig 5 26 23 (actual NG
>participant)
>snark@bangserver 3 9 9 (uma xpost
>replies)
>David Casey 4 7 7 (uma
>xpost replies)
>EskWIRED@spam.. 2 5 5 (uma xpost
>threads)
>Nin...@mchsi.com 3 4 4 (also replies
>to uma xposts)
>goldiesdream@charter 2 5 5 (uma xpost
>replies)
>big...@hotmail.inv 1 4 4 (uma xpost
>replies)
>cowboy67111 3 4 3 (3/4
>xpost replies)
>justin....@army.mil 2 3 3 (uma
>xpost replies)
>jkulas 3 3 3
>thaddeusgmoore 3 3 1 (also
>posts on uma)
>
>So with the exception of Abrigon Gusig (who also posts to
>uma) jkulas (who now has posted in uma) and thaddeusgmoore
>(xposts to uma) A majority of the traffic in
>us.military.national-guard came from uma and uma regulars by
>means of xposts. 34 (from top ten posters and 17 more from
>other listed posters who are uma regulars for a total of 51
>of 122 total posts. All twenty six of Abrigon Gusig's posts
>also appeared in uma briniging the duplicated traffic to a
>total of 77 posts that were uma xposts.
>
>Last year we presented the reasons why the
>us.military.national-guard group was both redundant and
>superfluous. We also presented the fact that the proponent
>of the group no longer posted to it (may never have for
>whatever reason) and presented arguments favoring its
>removal for a variety of reasons including, as we see more
>today than a year ago, that the National Guard plays in
>integral role in the US Army and it is therefore incumbent
>upon both the National Guardsmen, the Active and Reserve
>components of the Army to know and discuss the issues and
>yes, the differences that bind them and separate them.
>
>None of that has changed and it is noticeable that the
>majority of the traffic in usmn-g is generated from uma by
>predominately uma posters.
>
>Not even Otis Willie seems to post there recently.
>
>Snark
Clear proof umn-g is redundant.
Now, removal is something even Daryl can support. The meaning of the
data, detailed by Snark, is completely clear: umn-g should be
removed.
Now, of course, a different interpretation is possible. Mr. Hunt
could conclude from this that umn-g is under control of those he
describes as the "group mission trolls of uma". And so, on that
basis, Mr. Hunt is obligated, by his self-proclaimed mission to
eradicate the "evil" influence of the uma group mission trolls
wherever he finds it, to ***support*** removal of umn-g.
My, my, its amazing the ways consensus develops. <G>
Daryl Hunt
"edward ohare" <edward...@NOSPAMyahoo.com.INVALID> wrote in message
When viewing the messages themselves, clear proof that UMA is abused at
times with items of interest that clearly belong in umn-g. But don't let
facts get in your way.
>
> Now, removal is something even Daryl can support. The meaning of the
> data, detailed by Snark, is completely clear: umn-g should be
> removed
I don't support the removal. I do support the subject matter that is
clearly off topic in UMA to be presented in umn-g where it belongs. Just
because a small group wishes to change the intent of a single NG does not
make it so.
>
> Now, of course, a different interpretation is possible. Mr. Hunt
> could conclude from this that umn-g is under control of those he
> describes as the "group mission trolls of uma". And so, on that
> basis, Mr. Hunt is obligated, by his self-proclaimed mission to
> eradicate the "evil" influence of the uma group mission trolls
> wherever he finds it, to ***support*** removal of umn-g.
I suggest that we remove UMA first long before we remove umn-g. It seems
that umn-g is used for the purposes outlined in the Charter and the original
intent. This isn't the first time you have attempted to justify misusing
uma while attempting to shutdown umn-g and it won't be the last, I suspect.
> My, my, its amazing the ways consensus develops. <G>
What consensus? Hear voices in your head once again? The RFD to do what
was suggested already failed due to being poorly written. And the intent of
umn-g is clearly being followed. Now, get the uma to comply with it's
charter then I suspect that umn-g would have more traffic. The problem is
not with umn-g but with uma and your so called "Groupers" or "Regulars".
edward ohare
<dh...@i70west.nospam.net> wrote:
>
>"edward ohare" <edward...@NOSPAMyahoo.com.INVALID> wrote in message
>news:3f35d36...@news.alt.net...
>> Clear proof umn-g is redundant.
>
>When viewing the messages themselves, clear proof that UMA is abused at
>times with items of interest that clearly belong in umn-g. But don't let
>facts get in your way.
The fact is that people who post decide how an unmoderated group will
be used. Concerning umn-g, people ***not*** posting have decided how
the group will be used (it won't be used).
>> Now, removal is something even Daryl can support. The meaning of the
>> data, detailed by Snark, is completely clear: umn-g should be
>> removed
>
>I don't support the removal. I do support the subject matter that is
>clearly off topic in UMA to be presented in umn-g where it belongs. Just
>because a small group wishes to change the intent of a single NG does not
>make it so.
"Clearly off topic"? "Intent of a single NG"?
The term "fellowship" has been used multiple times concerning
us.military.* groups. That means that what matters is a real life
association and/or a common experience. Its the perspective on topics
resulting from the background that matters, not the topics themselves.
A group isn't created for the proponent, Its created for those who
will end up using it. If it isn't used as intended, then the
proponent erred in predicting how it would be used by those attracted
to the group.
I've posted this before, but I guess you didn't understand.
>> Now, of course, a different interpretation is possible. Mr. Hunt
>> could conclude from this that umn-g is under control of those he
>> describes as the "group mission trolls of uma". And so, on that
>> basis, Mr. Hunt is obligated, by his self-proclaimed mission to
>> eradicate the "evil" influence of the uma group mission trolls
>> wherever he finds it, to ***support*** removal of umn-g.
>
>I suggest that we remove UMA first long before we remove umn-g. It seems
Ahhhh!!!!! Tricked again, Daryl. You're too easy. I gave you an
opportunity to support something worthwhile, but a mere mention of the
404 was enough to get you to once again reveal your bias and your true
mission, to punish the 404 for not accepting you.
>that umn-g is used for the purposes outlined in the Charter and the original
>intent.
By which we may presume the "original intent" of us.* groups is that
they not be used!
>This isn't the first time you have attempted to justify misusing
>uma while attempting to shutdown umn-g and it won't be the last, I suspect.
Its already been acknowleged that the first intent for use of uma was
wrong. That's why the group was rechartered in 2000. What we need is
an acknowlegement that the rechartering still missed the mark.
>
>> My, my, its amazing the ways consensus develops. <G>
>
>What consensus? Hear voices in your head once again? The RFD to do what
>was suggested already failed due to being poorly written. And the intent of
>umn-g is clearly being followed. Now, get the uma to comply with it's
>charter then I suspect that umn-g would have more traffic.
Oh, my, more traffic? Haven't you said before traffic is too high?
>The problem is
>not with umn-g but with uma and your so called "Groupers" or "Regulars".
There's always a problem when a group is almost dead. Its already
been shown that the uma groupers, which you revile, and in fact
responsible for the minimal traffic in umn-g.
edward ohare
<dh...@i70west.nospam.net> wrote:
>> Clear proof umn-g is redundant.
>
>When viewing the messages themselves, clear proof that UMA is abused at
>times with items of interest that clearly belong in umn-g. But don't let
>facts get in your way.
So I just downloaded umn-g and found two new messages. One was a post
by RTO doing his "community service" routine of trying to help
someone. The other was an Otis Willie post who, during the last
discussion, was characterized as providing "meaningful traffic" for
umn-g <retch>.
Let me summarize the position of those who want to retain umn-g.
"Don't confuse me with the facts, just give me what I want."
Pulver
And how would you suggest that be accomplished??
Daryl:— Erica Jong has some advice for you—
"Take your life in your own hands and what happens?
A terrible thing: no one to blame."
--
David Casey
>> Clear proof umn-g is redundant.
>
> When viewing the messages themselves, clear proof that UMA is abused at
> times with items of interest that clearly belong in umn-g. But don't let
> facts get in your way.
The group us.military.army is for the whole Army. It has been pointed out
many times that the Army includes the Reserves and National Guard.
Removing umn-g and redirecting any questions to a group which is more used,
has more folks who are actually in the Guard, and a wider base of folks
from which questions/information can be answered/talked about is a good
idea.
>> Now, removal is something even Daryl can support. The meaning of the
>> data, detailed by Snark, is completely clear: umn-g should be
>> removed
>
> I don't support the removal. I do support the subject matter that is
> clearly off topic in UMA to be presented in umn-g where it belongs. Just
> because a small group wishes to change the intent of a single NG does not
> make it so.
No, you don't support the removal because it goes against you wanting uma
removed as a type of revenge for being laughed out of the group. Be
honest, eh?
>> Now, of course, a different interpretation is possible. Mr. Hunt
>> could conclude from this that umn-g is under control of those he
>> describes as the "group mission trolls of uma". And so, on that
>> basis, Mr. Hunt is obligated, by his self-proclaimed mission to
>> eradicate the "evil" influence of the uma group mission trolls
>> wherever he finds it, to ***support*** removal of umn-g.
>
> I suggest that we remove UMA first long before we remove umn-g. It seems
> that umn-g is used for the purposes outlined in the Charter and the original
> intent. This isn't the first time you have attempted to justify misusing
> uma while attempting to shutdown umn-g and it won't be the last, I suspect.
Surprise, surprise.
>> My, my, its amazing the ways consensus develops. <G>
>
> What consensus? Hear voices in your head once again? The RFD to do what
> was suggested already failed due to being poorly written. And the intent of
> umn-g is clearly being followed. Now, get the uma to comply with it's
> charter then I suspect that umn-g would have more traffic. The problem is
> not with umn-g but with uma and your so called "Groupers" or "Regulars".
Correction: the first draft needed some work. HKT pointed that out and I'm
sure it's being worked on. Also, explain how getting the trolls and such
in uma to follow the charter is going to push folks to umn-g?
The only problem in uma is the name draws trolls and wannabes who think
making up stuff about their military careers won't get them laughed at.
Dave
--
You can talk about us, but you can't talk without us!
US Army Signal Corps!!
www.geocities.com/davidcasey98
Daryl Hunt
"edward ohare" <edward...@NOSPAMyahoo.com.INVALID> wrote in message
> On Sun, 10 Aug 2003 03:27:43 -0600, "Daryl Hunt"
> <dh...@i70west.nospam.net> wrote:
>
> >
> >"edward ohare" <edward...@NOSPAMyahoo.com.INVALID> wrote in message
> >news:3f35d36...@news.alt.net...
>
> >> Clear proof umn-g is redundant.
> >
> >When viewing the messages themselves, clear proof that UMA is abused at
> >times with items of interest that clearly belong in umn-g. But don't let
> >facts get in your way.
>
>
> The fact is that people who post decide how an unmoderated group will
> be used. Concerning umn-g, people ***not*** posting have decided how
> the group will be used (it won't be used).
Only to make a point, nothing more. I imagine, given time (and a few temper
tamtrums) it will become used once again. I won't go into it right now but
it will happen if left alone.
>
>
> >> Now, removal is something even Daryl can support. The meaning of the
> >> data, detailed by Snark, is completely clear: umn-g should be
> >> removed
> >
> >I don't support the removal. I do support the subject matter that is
> >clearly off topic in UMA to be presented in umn-g where it belongs.
Just
> >because a small group wishes to change the intent of a single NG does not
> >make it so.
>
>
> "Clearly off topic"? "Intent of a single NG"?
>
> The term "fellowship" has been used multiple times concerning
> us.military.* groups. That means that what matters is a real life
> association and/or a common experience. Its the perspective on topics
> resulting from the background that matters, not the topics themselves.
>
> A group isn't created for the proponent, Its created for those who
> will end up using it. If it isn't used as intended, then the
> proponent erred in predicting how it would be used by those attracted
> to the group.
>
> I've posted this before, but I guess you didn't understand.
And you can't understand that UMA has moved far past what you think your
vision is. More people are posting there everyday and not all are pro Army.
Unless you wish to do a change in the Charter that states that only pro army
people are allowed to post then it will continue to expand a direction that
you do not approve. Can't help that.
>
>
> >> Now, of course, a different interpretation is possible. Mr. Hunt
> >> could conclude from this that umn-g is under control of those he
> >> describes as the "group mission trolls of uma". And so, on that
> >> basis, Mr. Hunt is obligated, by his self-proclaimed mission to
> >> eradicate the "evil" influence of the uma group mission trolls
> >> wherever he finds it, to ***support*** removal of umn-g.
> >
> >I suggest that we remove UMA first long before we remove umn-g. It seems
>
>
> Ahhhh!!!!! Tricked again, Daryl. You're too easy. I gave you an
> opportunity to support something worthwhile, but a mere mention of the
> 404 was enough to get you to once again reveal your bias and your true
> mission, to punish the 404 for not accepting you.
Not even close, buckie. I don't suggest that we remove UMA as it's
metimorphed into something completely different and counter views from all
sides can now be expressed. But don't get in a real big hurry to remove
umn-g.
>
> >that umn-g is used for the purposes outlined in the Charter and the
original
> >intent.
>
>
> By which we may presume the "original intent" of us.* groups is that
> they not be used!
Given it time. It will happen.
>
>
> >This isn't the first time you have attempted to justify misusing
> >uma while attempting to shutdown umn-g and it won't be the last, I
suspect.
>
>
> Its already been acknowleged that the first intent for use of uma was
> wrong. That's why the group was rechartered in 2000. What we need is
> an acknowlegement that the rechartering still missed the mark.
I already saw the proposed charter. It's still written to give a very small
group absolute power. Sorry, don't cut it anymore. Write it different and
I might be a proponent for it.
>
> >
> >> My, my, its amazing the ways consensus develops. <G>
> >
> >What consensus? Hear voices in your head once again? The RFD to do what
> >was suggested already failed due to being poorly written. And the intent
of
> >umn-g is clearly being followed. Now, get the uma to comply with it's
> >charter then I suspect that umn-g would have more traffic.
>
>
> Oh, my, more traffic? Haven't you said before traffic is too high?
I suggest you reread what I wrote. Those voices must be a bitch.
>
>
> >The problem is
> >not with umn-g but with uma and your so called "Groupers" or "Regulars".
>
>
> There's always a problem when a group is almost dead. Its already
> been shown that the uma groupers, which you revile, and in fact
> responsible for the minimal traffic in umn-g.
Actually, I understand them better than you know. I predicted what would
happen. It seems that after the transforming of UMA, you and they wish to
hang onto the last vestige of control. Never going to happen. That control
is forever gone like it should be. Now, if your covetted group wishes for
their own little area then I suggest they migrate to the very group they
wish to kill. Even locust knows when it's time to move on.