On Mon, 27 Oct 2003 10:43:52 +0000, Paul Giverin
wrote:

In message , Ace
writes
On Mon, 27 Oct 2003 08:29:26 +0000, Paul Giverin
wrote:

In which case I will vote "yes" in order to avoid a negative impact on
my Usenet experience i.e. upholding the uk.* hierarchy (which I use
extensively) against those who wish to veto uk groups in order to
protect groups in other hierarchies.

What a completely bizarre train of logic.

There is nothing bizarre about it. Alex Heney said he would vote no to
protect his Usenet experience. I am doing the same. My Usenet experience
relies heavily on the uk.* hierarchies.

Sorry, in what way exactly would the continued non-existence of a
group you've no intention of posting to affect your 'Usenet
experience'?

You're implying that you'd like to have uk.* groups for absolutely
everything possible, whether anyone wants to post about them or not.
Surely you can see how ridiculous that would be?

I am not implying that at all. I am saying that if there is a demand for
new newsgroup it should be allowed, subject to the group creation rules
we have in uk.*

What you're actually saying is that you'd vote for a new group whether
there's a demand or not. It may not be your intention, but this "I'll
vote yes just for the sake of it" is saying exactly that.

What I won't accept is people trying so stop new groups being created in
the uk.* hierarchy just because they see the group as threat to a group
in another hierarchy.

Why the **** not? What's it got to do with you?

Its a bit like Tesco being allowed to prevent
Sainsburys from building new supermarkets. Surely you can see how
ridiculous that would be?

_Would_ be, but unfortunately the analogy doesn't even pass the first
hurdle, as you're talking of commercial enterprises for whom
competition is the life-blood.

Usenet is not supposed to be competitive.
--
Ace (bruce dot rogers at roche dot com)
Ski Club of Great Britain - http://www.skiclub.co.uk
All opinions expressed are personal and in no way represent those of the Ski Club.