|
<snipped all since nothing really had anything to do with me>
It seems that people have given very good answers, to which you have cast aside and deemed unworthy. Your posts have turned more into a whine than looking for the answers you want. I think it seems quite clear that there is a substantial number of people that want this newsgroup to get up and running, and I dont think that you really need stats to see this. |
> I think there's only room in our little country for only one "Leanne" at a > time .... i'm sorry, but you'll have to leave ;) dammit! *sulks away* ;) |
Victor Sack wrote: > Have you even read any of my posts? As I told you before, you are > already up to your neck in it and it is time to stop digging. You are > the worst enemy of your own proposal. And you haven't got a clue. > Apparently, you think that > aus.food is your inalienable right, that anyone making an argument, no > matter which, against it is unreasonable or evil and is your personal > enemy. Some presumptuous assumptions of my own, if you will... > > BTW, it is a very bad form for a proponent to change his/her monicker > until the whole process is over. It's even more bad form to not know who your replying to! :) He Here's a Chux to wipe the egg off your face. It wont get it ALL off, but it will make room for more to land. > They may know all your personas on > aus.net.news; I imagine that very few people on rfc, to which you are > crossposting, have any idea that "Leanne" is the same person as "Ms > Leebee". Errr, got any statistics to back that up? I'll help. There's more than 2 people named Leanne in Australia. Does that make it any simpler for you? -- Scrap the 00 to post direct. "We all should present legal cars. I'm embarrassed we've presented a car that's ineligible." Mark Skaife, Chief Sook, HRT.12/11/04 (It must hurt to say illegal!) 'Speed limit near schools lowered to 40 grams per student' - CNNNN |
Victor Sack wrote: > > wrote: > > > My god man get a LIFE. Wah Wah nothing happened. It's a simple call for > > votes for a new aus newsgroup. You don't like it? reply no! Simple > > really. I think you've made your points many, many times. > > My, such an original post (especially the "LIFE" part, complete with > capitalising)! You ought to acquire a WebTV... it'll suit you It was meant as an emphasis. How original, a WebTV insult. Yawn > perfectly. In case you missed it - and of course you did - I was asking > whether the aus.* FAQ is still relevant or should be pulled as no longer > needed. Has a lot to do with all the future aus.* proposals. Flew > right over your head, obviously. Wrong thread for that sort of discussion. It's a call for votes, not a call for whingers to moan and groan about being ignored becuase their objections aren't being agreed with. Nothing flew over my head other than your need to go on and on and on about something that is obviuosly outside your bounds of control. Do you like to be controlling and hate it when things don't go your way? > >I couldn't > > have cared less personally speaking, but seeing your attitude I think I > > will vote. Yes for me! > > It is unethical to vote "YES" for a group one couldn't care less about. > What an unprincipled decision! What's more unethical than hijacking a thread about a new aus food group to rant and rave about your feelings on the whole aus hierarchy? You're allowed your opinion and yes, you've made it perfectly clear many, many times. Have you thought about the negative impact that it could have on other posters attitude toward the subject? Feh, talk about principles. |
"The Ranger" > writes:
>Nick Andrew > wrote in message ... >[snip] >> there will be one button for YES and one button for NO, >Why not include an "ABSTAIN" button also for those readers that are >ambivalent towards the formation of a proposed 'group? I think I'll abstain from creating such a button. -- http://www.nick-andrew.net/ http://aus.news-admin.org/ I prefer USENET replies. Don't send email copies. Drop the spamtrap to reply. |
Nick Andrew wrote:
<snip> How do I vote for it? Katherine |
Brett Mount > writes:
>And now, in high fidelity ASCII, it's Nick Andrew with some words for aus.net.news: >>I want to move the voting system to the website as soon as I can get the >>code written; there will be one button for YES and one button for NO, >>so I expect the issue will disappear. >Being the reactionary that I am, I wonder about people who have usenet but >not Web access, but then I suspect the figures for them are probably in >single digits worldwide (the last example I know of became web enabled a >few weeks ago). Perhaps such people exist, but if they do, it's their choice to miss out on a lot of the interaction which is made possible by the web. Every personal computer is sold with a web browser; every operating system has one; even phones do HTML now. So voting on an aus.* newsgroup will will be only one more thing they choose to not have. >I've no doubt you've already considered issues of voter verification, and >the wisdom of web based structures for usenet- It's possible to pretend to be different people both in email and HTTP. I want the voting process to not be too onerous. So it means a trade-off between verification and convenience. I also want the voting process to become easier. You'd be surprised how many people have trouble with sending a single machine-readable email. Any votes lost to luddites who don't have a web browser will be more than offset by getting more votes through a web-based process. Nick. -- http://www.nick-andrew.net/ http://aus.news-admin.org/ I prefer USENET replies. Don't send email copies. Drop the spamtrap to reply. |
Nick Andrew wrote:
> Brett Mount > writes: > >> And now, in high fidelity ASCII, it's Nick Andrew with some words >> for aus.net.news: > >>> I want to move the voting system to the website as soon as I can >>> get the code written; there will be one button for YES and one >>> button for NO, so I expect the issue will disappear. > >> Being the reactionary that I am, I wonder about people who have >> usenet but >> not Web access, but then I suspect the figures for them are probably >> in >> single digits worldwide (the last example I know of became web >> enabled a >> few weeks ago). > > Perhaps such people exist, but if they do, it's their choice to miss > out on a lot of the interaction which is made possible by the web. > Every personal computer is sold with a web browser; every operating > system has one; even phones do HTML now. So voting on an aus.* > newsgroup will will be only one more thing they choose to not have. > >> I've no doubt you've already considered issues of voter >> verification, and >> the wisdom of web based structures for usenet- > > It's possible to pretend to be different people both in email and > HTTP. I want the voting process to not be too onerous. So it means a > trade-off between verification and convenience. > > I also want the voting process to become easier. You'd be surprised > how many people have trouble with sending a single machine-readable > email. Any votes lost to luddites who don't have a web browser will > be more than offset by getting more votes through a web-based process. I am not a luddite. But I can't find ballots anywhere. Katherine |
Nick Andrew wrote:
> erhaps such people exist, but if they do, it's their choice to miss > out on a lot of the interaction which is made possible by the web. > Every personal computer is sold with a web browser; every operating > system has one; even phones do HTML now. So voting on an aus.* > newsgroup will will be only one more thing they choose to not have. As it happens, today I saw three used computers for sale, two of which I'm reasonably certain weren't provided with browsers. Still, at a bit under $8 US each, they might find buyers. One was a Commodore 16. The other two were educational toys. This was at Savers -- a thrift store chain which I believe is also in Australia. -- Dan Goodman Journal http://www.livejournal.com/users/dsgood/ Clutterers Anonymous unofficial community http://www.livejournal.com/community/clutterers_anon/ Decluttering http://decluttering.blogspot.com Predictions and Politics http://dsgood.blogspot.com All political parties die at last of swallowing their own lies. John Arbuthnot (1667-1735), Scottish writer, physician. |
Katherine wrote: > > Nick Andrew wrote: > <snip> > > How do I vote for it? (from the CFV): ******************************** HOW TO VOTE: To vote, you must send an email message to: The subject of your email message is not important. Your mail message must contain only one of the following statements: I vote YES on aus.example.name I vote NO on aus.example.name You must replace aus.example.name with the name of the newsgroup that you are voting on. Anything else may be rejected by the automatic vote counting program. ********************************** regards Lindsay -- Scrap the 00 to post direct. "We all should present legal cars. I'm embarrassed we've presented a car that's ineligible." Mark Skaife, Chief Sook, HRT.12/11/04 (It must hurt to say illegal!) 'Speed limit near schools lowered to 40 grams per student' - CNNNN |
Leanne > wrote:
> <snipped all since nothing really had anything to do with me> > > It seems that people have given very good answers, to which you have cast > aside and deemed unworthy. Are you being disingenuous or just dense? The only question I really wanted answered was a statistical estimate of future traffic. There was no attempt to answer that - until yesterday. People have given me some very good reasons why Australians may want a local food newsgroup and I acknowledged them. The reasons are important, but they are theoretical and don't show really expressed interest, as in actual Usenet posts on topics relevant to the proposed newsgroup, in sufficient numbers. > Your posts have turned more into a whine than looking for the answers you > want. You are welcome to complain petulantly about anything you don't like. > I think it seems quite clear that there is a substantial number of people > that want this newsgroup to get up and running, and I dont think that you > really need stats to see this. It is anything but clear. What number is substantial? Where did you get that number? What is clear, is you have nothing constructive to contribute and prefer empty polemic. Victor |
> wrote:
> Wrong thread for that sort of discussion. It's a call for votes, not a > call for whingers to moan and groan about being ignored becuase their > objections aren't being agreed with. Nothing flew over my head other > than your need to go on and on and on about something that is obviuosly > outside your bounds of control. Do you like to be controlling and hate > it when things don't go your way? I'm arguing my case in the only thread that is relevant to it. Are you trying to be controlling of what and where people post? What a hypocrite! > > It is unethical to vote "YES" for a group one couldn't care less about. > > What an unprincipled decision! > > What's more unethical than hijacking a thread about a new aus food > group to rant and rave about your feelings on the whole aus hierarchy? Hijacking a thread, indeed! Any thread about any new group in an administrative newsgroup is almost by definition about the whole hierarchy too, when there are issues that obviously touch the whole. Duh! > You're allowed your opinion and yes, you've made it perfectly clear > many, many times. Have you thought about the negative impact that it > could have on other posters attitude toward the subject? Feh, talk > about principles. Why, yes, one posts one's opinion to have a negative or positive or neutral impact, as the case may be. Else why post at all? Have I had such a negative impact on you? Has your attitude toward the subject suffered a lot? Oh, the poor, poor attitude! And such a touchy concern for those hapless sheep (other posters) who cannot even form their own opinion! You wouldn't know principles if they hit your on the head. Victor |
Victor,
I am now rather tired of the repetition of your objectives. What other proposal for a new group would have the sort of statistical facts you want? I can appreciate that you feel that we (the proponent and the supporters) are not listening to you, however there have been quite a few of us who have tried to give you what you want only to hear the same objections again and again. You have the right to feel whatever you feel but please don't feel that you need to berate us for wanting a group that represents a desire for those of us in Australia to discuss food in a localised setting. All I have to add is that I have participated in newsgroups for five years now and have had many many discussions with other Aussies about food and cooking in groups such as aus.family, alt.mothers, misc.kids, misc.kids.pregnancy, melb.general and occasionally on rec.food.cooking. I am on the Internet every day and spend over an hour every night lurking or posting in groups as my relaxation. If aus.food goes through I would be accessing and most likely posting on a daily basis. If it does not go through I will be very cross as I do not find rfc meets my needs. There are just too many posts that are not in least bit relevent to the food I eat, the cooking shows I watch, the implements I could buy or the recipes I would cook, which is a great pity, but that's how it is. Liz |
Staycalm > wrote:
> Victor, > I am now rather tired of the repetition of your objectives. Okay. > What other > proposal for a new group would have the sort of statistical facts you want? I'm not sure I understand what you are saying... try again? In case you mean my request for statistical evidence is at all unusual, you are mistaken. Even considering your weariness with my repetitions, I'd suggest, yet again, reading the aus.* FAQ. > I can appreciate that you feel that we (the proponent and the supporters) > are not listening to you, however there have been quite a few of us who have > tried to give you what you want only to hear the same objections again and > again. I will try your patience at least one more time: my *major* objection was the absence of any statistical evidence of real interest in the proposed topic of the new group. No one has tried to give me "what I want" until Cheryl did, just recently. > You have the right to feel whatever you feel but please don't feel > that you need to berate us for wanting a group that represents a desire for > those of us in Australia to discuss food in a localised setting. Liz, please spare me your unwarranted lectures on things you obviously do not understand (especially considering I have never done the thing you are accusing me of doing). Also please stop pretending you are speaking for anyone but yourself, unless explicitly authorised to do so. As I remember, you were the first person to bring up a valid reason for the new group creation in the RFD discussion and I immediately acknowleged it as such. Have I ever asked for that reason again? Actually, I have never asked for *any* reason, only objected to bogus ones. Did you even get that? And, do you actually read all the relevant postings in the thread before deciding to post? It sometimes make you look as... how shall I put it mildly... belabouring the unnecessary, perhaps? As to myself, I always enjoy such (sub)flame wars for their own sake. :-) Victor |
Lindsay wrote:
> Katherine wrote: >> >> Nick Andrew wrote: >> <snip> >> >> How do I vote for it? > > (from the CFV): > > ******************************** > HOW TO VOTE: > > To vote, you must send an email message to: > The subject of your email message is not important. > > Your mail message must contain only one of the following statements: > I vote YES on aus.example.name > I vote NO on aus.example.name > > You must replace aus.example.name with the name of the newsgroup > that you are voting on. > > Anything else may be rejected by the automatic vote counting program. Thanks, Lindsay. Done. Katherine |
Staycalm wrote:
> Victor, > I am now rather tired of the repetition of your objectives. What > other proposal for a new group would have the sort of statistical > facts you want? I can appreciate that you feel that we (the proponent > and the supporters) are not listening to you, however there have been > quite a few of us who have tried to give you what you want only to > hear the same objections again and again. You have the right to feel > whatever you feel but please don't feel that you need to berate us > for wanting a group that represents a desire for those of us in > Australia to discuss food in a localised setting. Victor got the proposal at least one "yes" vote -- mine. If not for him, I probably wouldn't have voted. -- Dan Goodman Journal http://www.livejournal.com/users/dsgood/ Clutterers Anonymous unofficial community http://www.livejournal.com/community/clutterers_anon/ Decluttering http://decluttering.blogspot.com Predictions and Politics http://dsgood.blogspot.com All political parties die at last of swallowing their own lies. John Arbuthnot (1667-1735), Scottish writer, physician. |
My vote was accepted. How long before we get to see this ng?
Katherine |
"Phred" > wrote > While true in theory, it doesn't work like that in practice. Not only > is there a huge amount of totally irrelevant traffic in r.f.c, my > observation is that if you're not part of the established clique you > tend to be ignored. (And I hasten to add that you are in fact one of > the not very many who *do* respond to "outsiders"; and I thank you > for your interest in some of the queries I have raised, for example.) It's funny to me, because I always see people here trying to help out 'newcomers' ... I do see where people 'know' each other and of course they seem more familiar, but if someone new comes in and asks a question or whatever, they usually get a response. Of course, if the first post is WHAT IS THIS I THOUGHT THIS WAS A COOKING NEWSGROUP!!! the response might not be what they were looking for (laugh). I don't really see a clique. Perhaps it's the old forest/trees thing. nancy |
One time on Usenet, "Staycalm" > said:
> Victor, > I am now rather tired of the repetition of your objectives. What other > proposal for a new group would have the sort of statistical facts you want? This whole subject is getting quite annoying. People keep taking Victor's requests for traffic projections (information that I still have not seen, in either the RFD or subsequent threads) as some sort of personal attack. Did no one read the aus.* admin FAQ about group creation?? http://aus.news-admin.org/Faq/aus_faq "You should include the following information: 4. An estimate of expected traffic for this group and the current traffic on the net related to this topic." > I can appreciate that you feel that we (the proponent and the supporters) > are not listening to you, however there have been quite a few of us who have > tried to give you what you want only to hear the same objections again and > again. If so, you've hid it well behind all the whining. As mentioned, I have yet to see a good analysis of what kind of traffic you expect, merely complaints that Victor is asking for it. IF someone has posted this information, I'd love to see it. > You have the right to feel whatever you feel but please don't feel > that you need to berate us for wanting a group that represents a desire for > those of us in Australia to discuss food in a localised setting. <snip> Please quote an example of this outrageous behavior. I just can't understand what is so wrong about expecting the Proponant to read and follow the aus.* FAQ for new group creation... -- Jani in WA (S'mee) ~ mom, VidGamer, novice cook, dieter ~ |
"S'mee in WA" in ...
> > This whole subject is getting quite annoying. People keep taking > Victor's requests for traffic projections (information that I still > have not seen, in either the RFD or subsequent threads) as some sort > of personal attack. Did no one read the aus.* admin FAQ about group > creation?? > > http://aus.news-admin.org/Faq/aus_faq > > ... > I just can't understand what is so wrong about expecting the Proponant > to read and follow the aus.* FAQ for new group creation... Good points, S'mee, thanks. Partisan feelings about the particular proposal preoccupy some people right now. But I wonder how many who read this today, in a population that continues to shift, grasp how much trouble newsgroups as a whole have had from careless, passionate new-group creation. I believe that to fully see it, you need have to've witnessed, as it happened, the ferments of new-group proposals maybe 15 years ago. Group-creation standards, then as now, were annoying or inconvenient to passionate proponents. They would ignore the burdens of procedure; news admins were sometimes more careless about it then; some of the proposals passed. You may not know this, but today's constellation of "big 8" newsgroups was partly shaped that way, by people who are never seen on them today, and likely never perceived themselves as transient or impatient users. |
Max Hauser wrote:
> > "S'mee in WA" in ... > > > > This whole subject is getting quite annoying. People keep taking > > Victor's requests for traffic projections (information that I still > > have not seen, in either the RFD or subsequent threads) as some sort > > of personal attack. Did no one read the aus.* admin FAQ about group > > creation?? > > > > http://aus.news-admin.org/Faq/aus_faq > > > > ... > > I just can't understand what is so wrong about expecting the Proponant > > to read and follow the aus.* FAQ for new group creation... > > Good points, S'mee, thanks. > > Partisan feelings about the particular proposal preoccupy some people right > now. > > But I wonder how many who read this today, in a population that continues to > shift, grasp how much trouble newsgroups as a whole have had from careless, > passionate new-group creation. I believe that to fully see it, you need > have to've witnessed, as it happened, the ferments of new-group proposals > maybe 15 years ago. Group-creation standards, then as now, were annoying or > inconvenient to passionate proponents. They would ignore the burdens of > procedure; news admins were sometimes more careless about it then; some of > the proposals passed. You may not know this, but today's constellation of > "big 8" newsgroups was partly shaped that way, by people who are never seen > on them today, and likely never perceived themselves as transient or > impatient users. This is important. Like city government. |-O (yawn.) |
> If so, you've hid it well behind all the whining. As mentioned, I > have yet to see a good analysis of what kind of traffic you expect, > merely complaints that Victor is asking for it. IF someone has > posted this information, I'd love to see it. its there. |
And now, in high fidelity ASCII, it's Victor Sack with some words for
aus.net.news: }Are you being disingenuous or just dense? The only question I really }wanted answered was a statistical estimate of future traffic. There was }no attempt to answer that - until yesterday. People have given me some }very good reasons why Australians may want a local food newsgroup and I }acknowledged them. The reasons are important, but they are theoretical }and don't show really expressed interest, as in actual Usenet posts on }topics relevant to the proposed newsgroup, in sufficient numbers. I remain unconvinced that frequency of discussion in Usenet has any success as a predictor of whether a new group will attract sufficient traffic to be viable. Indeed, I wonder whether it ever was- it's certainly been advanced many times, and there's something of an absence of alternatives, but I believe it's important not to get hung up on them as the be all and end all of a successful group. I suspect some analysis of recent group creation in well-managed hierarchies over the past 12 months or so would prove very instructive on this point (followups set back to aus.net.news, as the more relevant of the two- it seems hypocritical to be discussing the relevance of on-topic traffic counts for newsgroup creation in a cooking group) -- Brett "I'm a Greek God, you're Nick Giannopolous I'm Julio Iglasias, you're Tommy Raudonikis" |
S'mee in WA wrote: > This whole subject is getting quite annoying. People keep taking > Victor's requests for traffic projections (information that I still > have not seen, in either the RFD or subsequent threads) as some sort > of personal attack. Did no one read the aus.* admin FAQ about group > creation?? > > http://aus.news-admin.org/Faq/aus_faq > > "You should include the following information: > > 4. An estimate of expected traffic for this group and the current > traffic on the net related to this topic." It says "should". It does not say "MUST". Other aus.* groups have been created without having to supply traffic stats, yet I didnt see anyone wringing their hands and gnashing their teeth over that... -- Scrap the 00 to post direct. "We all should present legal cars. I'm embarrassed we've presented a car that's ineligible." Mark Skaife, Chief Sook, HRT.12/11/04 (It must hurt to say illegal!) 'Speed limit near schools lowered to 40 grams per student' - CNNNN |
Katherine wrote: > > My vote was accepted. How long before we get to see this ng? I think there's a week to go before the voting closes, then Nick has to tally the votes... > > Katherine -- Scrap the 00 to post direct. "We all should present legal cars. I'm embarrassed we've presented a car that's ineligible." Mark Skaife, Chief Sook, HRT.12/11/04 (It must hurt to say illegal!) 'Speed limit near schools lowered to 40 grams per student' - CNNNN |
One time on Usenet, Lindsay > said:
> S'mee in WA wrote: > > This whole subject is getting quite annoying. People keep taking > > Victor's requests for traffic projections (information that I still > > have not seen, in either the RFD or subsequent threads) as some sort > > of personal attack. Did no one read the aus.* admin FAQ about group > > creation?? > > > > http://aus.news-admin.org/Faq/aus_faq > > > > "You should include the following information: > > > > 4. An estimate of expected traffic for this group and the current > > traffic on the net related to this topic." > > It says "should". > > It does not say "MUST". *Sigh* You missed the point. Proponants "SHOULD" post that information in their RFD, hence asking for it is hardly a crime. > Other aus.* groups have been created without having to supply traffic > stats, yet I didnt see anyone wringing their hands and gnashing their > teeth over that... And? Those groups aren't at issue at this time... -- Jani in WA (S'mee) ~ mom, VidGamer, novice cook, dieter ~ |
Lindsay wrote:
> Katherine wrote: >> >> My vote was accepted. How long before we get to see this ng? > > I think there's a week to go before the voting closes, then Nick has > to tally the votes... Thanks. Katherine |
S'mee in WA wrote: > > > http://aus.news-admin.org/Faq/aus_faq > > > > > > "You should include the following information: > > > > > > 4. An estimate of expected traffic for this group and the current > > > traffic on the net related to this topic." > > > > It says "should". > > > > It does not say "MUST". > > *Sigh* You missed the point. Proponants "SHOULD" post that information > in their RFD, hence asking for it is hardly a crime. And "SIGH" to you too. Proponents dont HAVE to post that information in their RFD (but it obviously helps to keep the pedants at bay) hence the *point* I supposedly missed is useless. > > > Other aus.* groups have been created without having to supply traffic > > stats, yet I didnt see anyone wringing their hands and gnashing their > > teeth over that... > > And? And what? > Those groups aren't at issue at this time... *Sigh*. It was an example. Really. It was. I thought it was obvious. I'll just keep my trap shut *until* the voting has completed. -- Scrap the 00 to post direct. "We all should present legal cars. I'm embarrassed we've presented a car that's ineligible." Mark Skaife, Chief Sook, HRT.12/11/04 (It must hurt to say illegal!) 'Speed limit near schools lowered to 40 grams per student' - CNNNN |
Chris Baird wrote: > > > Other aus.* groups have been created without having to supply > > traffic stats, yet I didnt see anyone wringing their hands and > > gnashing their teeth over that... > > Lies. Really? I hope you're just as quick to apologise when you cant provide the stats posted for aus.sport.shooting. Well? -- Scrap the 00 to post direct. "We all should present legal cars. I'm embarrassed we've presented a car that's ineligible." Mark Skaife, Chief Sook, HRT.12/11/04 (It must hurt to say illegal!) 'Speed limit near schools lowered to 40 grams per student' - CNNNN |
S'mee in WA > wrote:
> As mentioned, I > have yet to see a good analysis of what kind of traffic you expect, > merely complaints that Victor is asking for it. IF someone has > posted this information, I'd love to see it. Thanks, Jani. A couple of days ago, Cheryl, who, AFAIK, is not even a proponent, very kindly posted some crude, but still useful, stats. She posted them on aus.net.news only. See my latest reply at <http://groups.google.com/group/aus.net.news/msg/426b0872044d7808>. I should have crossposted it to rfc, sorry. Victor |
Phred > wrote:
> (Victor Sack) wrote: > I thought that one *objection* could be that contributions to a new > Australian group may mostly be cross-posted to r.f.c anyway, and that > would be seen by some as counter-productive. But if the concern is > traffic lost to r.f.c then I'm sure we can arrange a cross-posting > default so denizens of r.f.c don't miss out on Aussie wisdom, and > contributors to the proposed new group don't get flooded out by > irrelevant material. :-) [See Notes below.] Ah, but the crossposting itself would likely generate at least some of that irrelevant material. As the thread progresses, even on-topic posts may become irrelevant to one of the newsgroups if, for example, they start mentioning local ingredients and such. Not to speak of a topic drift into total irrelevancy. > Well if alt.* is regarded as a solution for the establishment of a > new group, then the argument about traffic diversion from r.f.c is > stillborn. ;-) > > However, I would regard the alt.* solution as totally unacceptable. > Many corporate and government sites simply ban access to alt.*, which > would cut off many legitimate uses by staff of such organisations (as > well as their lunch time contributions :). Yes, that was my point, in part. Even public ISPs often enough don't carry alt.*, preferring "serius" hierarchies with "seriously" created newsgroups. > >This part of the rationale is not just misleading - it is untrue. > >rec.food.cooking is a global newsgroup and is oriented towards any > >country that happens to be discussed at any one point. This has been > >pointed to the proponent early in the course of the RFD discussion. > >Nothing happened, of course. > > While true in theory, it doesn't work like that in practice. Not only > is there a huge amount of totally irrelevant traffic in r.f.c, my > observation is that if you're not part of the established clique you > tend to be ignored. There is more than just a bit of truth in what you say, though I would still say you are exaggerating somewhat. I've posted a fair bit on the subject. See, for example, <http://groups.google.com/group/rec.food.cooking/msg/cce434246056011e> and <http://groups.google.com/group/rec.food.cooking/msg/5bade737c013e8ca>. Still, how being an Australian (or insert any other nationality if necessary) excludes one from being "accepted"? And, how can one be sure the same thing won't happen in aus.food? BTW, since you were talking about the rfc FAQ in another thread, I wonder if you know that it had been originally compiled by an American living in Norway, then almost at once taken over by a New Zealander, who maintained it for seven years. Then a tandem of an American and a German took over. Now it is the German only. And another "BTW"... A few years ago, the rfc Cook.Book was produced. Here is an excerpt from an introduction: _______________________ The volunteers named above live in Australia, France, Germany, Okinawa, and the United States of America. They, along with the many contributors of the recipes here, are witness to the international participation that made the Cook.Book dream a reality. Who said we can't get along with each other? _______________________ > Notes: > > (1) My involvement in USENET over the past 15 years or so has been > mostly in the more technical groups related to computers, botany, > meteorology, and similar; so I am not used to the homely, chatty, and > (to my mind at present) rather cliquey ambience of r.f.c where an > inordinate amount of bandwidth (again to my mind as a result of > previous experience) is devoted to things like "birthday wishes" and > similar "OT" threads. Perhaps such things are pretty normal in the > more "social" groups and, if so, I need to work on my prejudices. :) No, you are quite correct in your assesment, though indeed such rec.* newsgroups almost inevitably become more of a "community", with people getting closer together, often enough even in the physical sense, organising cook-ins and otherwise meeting in "real life". I've posted on this, too :-) See, for example, <http://groups.google.com/group/rec.food.cooking/msg/a35aefd21f1e494d>. How can one be sure the same thing won't happen in aus.food? > (2) Understandably, there is a *huge* bias to things American in > r.f.c, and that can hardly be avoided when you consider that USENET > originated in the USA with "The Internet" decades ago and by the time > most of the rest of the world had general access to the technology the > World Wide Web had largely overtaken the old text-based discussion > forums. Nonetheless, it can be a bit irritating to others to be > confronted in a cooking newsgroup with so much emphasis on US domestic > issues not in the least related to cooking! For the latest example, > look no further than the "FEMA" theme which has been running in r.f.c > this week. Because of your interest in statistics, I have collected > some. ;-) For the six days 12 to 17 Sep 2005 inclusive (Australian > EST) the main "FEMA" thread in r.f.c has accounted for the following > proportions of daily articles in r.f.c as seen on this server: 90/411, > 81/389, 74/304, 80/409, 106/350, and 79/303 respectively. Yes, but that is just Usenet vandalism. What if aus.food starts getting similar crossposts from, say, aus.politics or aus.religion? > I'm happy > to say that reading online as I do with my ancient newsreader, this is > not a huge issue for me because I can simply skip all the crud; but if > I was one of the many downloading newsgroups to read them offline, I > would be pretty ****ed off with that amount of noise in this group. I use an offline newsreader - it is no different from an online one in this respect. I download only the headers and then select, using filtering or not, whatever I want to read. > (3) Elsewhere it was suggested that traffic in the proposed aus.food > group may be around 2.5 articles/day (IIRC), based on recent stats in > related groups. This motivated me to do a quick google for me in > r.f.c which seems to indicate I have been responsible for jamming > communications around the world to the extent of over 250 messages > here in the past 13 months, or about 0.67 articles/day. So all we > need is someone to reply to me each time and we're half way to that > 2.5/day, and that's just two of us. ;-) I'll do my best! ;-) Victor |
Dan Goodman > wrote:
> Victor got the proposal at least one "yes" vote -- mine. If not for > him, I probably wouldn't have voted. My, yet another unethical, harmful drudge! It's the person, not the substance that bothers him. I think it says a lot about the quality of proposal if such people start coming out of the woodwork. Disgusting. Victor who is going to abstain, based on the generous interpretation of some finally posted crude stats |
On Sun, 18 Sep 2005 07:33:51 +0200, (Victor Sack)
wrote: >S'mee in WA > wrote: > >> As mentioned, I >> have yet to see a good analysis of what kind of traffic you expect, >> merely complaints that Victor is asking for it. IF someone has >> posted this information, I'd love to see it. > >Thanks, Jani. A couple of days ago, Cheryl, who, AFAIK, is not even a >proponent, very kindly posted some crude, but still useful, stats. She >posted them on aus.net.news only. See my latest reply at ><http://groups.google.com/group/aus.net.news/msg/426b0872044d7808>. I >should have crossposted it to rfc, sorry. > To follow up to that, one Australian bulletin board, Essential Baby ( http://www.essentialbaby.com.au/CFFo...s.cfm?Forum=65 ), has on average 7-9 threads posted daily in the Recipes forum. The Natural Parenting Forum ( http://www.forums.naturalparenting.c...splay.php?f=29) has 60 threads in the Recipes section in the last 60 days. BubHub ( http://www.bubhub.com.au/community/f...play.php?f=102 ) has 13 threads in the past 2 months. birthtalks ( http://www.birth.com.au/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=49) has 17 threads active in the last 2 months. In Yahoo Groups there are 5 groups that are specifically for sharing recipes and food ideas for Australians. Atkins Australia with 91 members (although this seems to have died this year Food Intolerance Network Melbourne with 33 members and 273 messages in August Aussie Vegans with 33 members (which also seems to have died off recently) GFCF Australia with 112 members and 101 messages for August LowCarbOz with 224 members and 125 messages for August No-one is necessarily saying that any of these posters would be interested in migrating across to a newsgroup but there is obviously some interest in Australian-based online fora for recipe postings. Cheryl |
"Katherine" > writes:
>I am not a luddite. But I can't find ballots anywhere. I guess you didn't read the CALL FOR VOTES then. You've got only 34 hours to get your vote in. Nick. -- http://www.nick-andrew.net/ http://aus.news-admin.org/ I prefer USENET replies. Don't send email copies. Drop the spamtrap to reply. |
"Dan Goodman" > writes:
>Nick Andrew wrote: >> Perhaps such people exist, but if they do, it's their choice to miss >> out on a lot of the interaction which is made possible by the web. >> Every personal computer is sold with a web browser; every operating >> system has one; even phones do HTML now. So voting on an aus.* >> newsgroup will will be only one more thing they choose to not have. >As it happens, today I saw three used computers for sale, two of which >I'm reasonably certain weren't provided with browsers. Still, at a bit >under $8 US each, they might find buyers. >One was a Commodore 16. The other two were educational toys. Educational toys don't count as computers, and I've never heard of a Commodore 16, so I guess it must be older and slower than the C64! That doesn't count as a computer these days either. The PET can't run a web browser either, and people might offer them for sale on ebay but they're sold to retro-computing hobbyists, not Joe Sixpack. >This was at Savers -- a thrift store chain which I believe is also in >Australia. I don't know how bad things are in the USA but here in Australia many people throw away their old computers when they upgrade. Pentium II, 400 MHz, 1-4 gig disk is a fairly typical combination which may get chucked out before the council cleanup day. These are far from top of the line systems but they're capable of running a web browser and they're free for the taking. I should know, I've thrown away enough of that spec :-) Nick. -- http://www.nick-andrew.net/ http://aus.news-admin.org/ I prefer USENET replies. Don't send email copies. Drop the spamtrap to reply. |
"Nick Andrew" > wrote in message ... > "Katherine" > writes: > >>I am not a luddite. But I can't find ballots anywhere. > > I guess you didn't read the CALL FOR VOTES then. > You've got only 34 hours to get your vote in. I think she's already voted, but if she hadn't, I don't see any help here coming from you. Why don't you just tell her how instead of posting this? nancy |
Attribution Restored:
Lindsay > said: > S'mee in WA wrote: > > One time on Usenet, Lindsay > said: > > > S'mee in WA wrote: > > > > http://aus.news-admin.org/Faq/aus_faq > > > > > > > > "You should include the following information: > > > > > > > > 4. An estimate of expected traffic for this group and the current > > > > traffic on the net related to this topic." > > > It says "should". > > > > > > It does not say "MUST". > > *Sigh* You missed the point. Proponants "SHOULD" post that information > > in their RFD, hence asking for it is hardly a crime. > And "SIGH" to you too. Proponents dont HAVE to post that information > in their RFD (but it obviously helps to keep the pedants at bay) > hence the *point* I supposedly missed is useless. No, the point is quite valid, although your ability to grasp it is apparently in question. Let me try this one more time: Traffic stats have long been an important part of news group creation. The aus.* admins seem to think so, the folks in news.groups (Big8) think so, even alt.config proposals need traffic information. So this air of persecution that some of you are venting at anyone who asks for such stats is a load of cow manure. Period. > > > Other aus.* groups have been created without having to supply traffic > > > stats, yet I didnt see anyone wringing their hands and gnashing their > > > teeth over that... > > > > And? > > And what? And what is your point? > > Those groups aren't at issue at this time... > > *Sigh*. It was an example. Really. It was. > > I thought it was obvious. An obvious straw man, I suppose. Nothing more. > I'll just keep my trap shut *until* the voting has completed. Yeah well, good luck with that... -- Jani in WA (S'mee) ~ mom, VidGamer, novice cook, dieter ~ |
|
Nick Andrew wrote:
> "Katherine" > writes: > >> I am not a luddite. But I can't find ballots anywhere. > > I guess you didn't read the CALL FOR VOTES then. > You've got only 34 hours to get your vote in. It's in! Katherine |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:30 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FoodBanter