augie > wrote:

> Do you plan to join in on aus.food, if the proposal is successful?

This is a distinct possibility, if only a very occasional one. Why do
you ask?

> I rarely see you contribute to Australian posters or Australian threads
> in RFC, so cannot fathom what type of negative impact the new group
> would have on you.

Why is it my person that is important here? I care, first and foremost
about the rec.food.cooking as a whole, not necessarily my person. FWIW,
I do respond to Australian posters and threads whenever I see fit... no
difference to any other nationality, including my own.

> As for the impact on RFC, surely only the people who are active on
> Australian threads would notice the difference - and from what I can see
> they are the ones who are positive about it's implementation.

You are very much mistaken here - every difference matters, if only a
bit, and when those differences add up, the whole newsgroup changes
quite considerably.

Victor

"Victor Sack" > wrote in message
.. .
> augie > wrote:
..
>
> You are very much mistaken here - every difference matters, if only a
> bit, and when those differences add up, the whole newsgroup changes
> quite considerably.
>
> Victor

sorry to get all philosophical, but isn't that what life (& newsgroups) is
all about? - change. everything changes. we can't keep things how they are
forever. change happens.

it seems like there is only a small percentage of australian posters on
rec.food.cooking compared to other countries. i know you say that makes a
difference. but what if aus.food was denied and these australian posters
still decided all to unsubscribe or just lurk? the flavour of the newsgroup
would still change. it's just not possible to control other people's
behaviour like that.

i know from my own unrelated newsgroup (aus.family) that many of the posters
that would come to aus.food would be from aus.family. we have been
interested in this for ages & would love a separate newsgroup for talking
about food rather than on aus.family which is technically about parenting.

and this is not the only place that people wanting aus.food come from. there
are many people in australian newsgroups that have never, ever visited
rec.food.cooking which want aus.food. are you suggesting that these people
all have no right to have a newsgroup they want?

i think this extends beyond the boundaries of changing one newsgroup
slightly. it is what a sizeable (to our little country, anyway) number of
people would like to see happen. (i know you keep asking for statistics, but
i have no idea on how to do that! but you could google aus.family to see how
many food related posts there are!)

i hope you still find rec.food.cooking an enjoyable place to go, whether
aus.food happens or not.

--
elizabeth (in australia)
DS 20th august 2002
#2 due 14th october 2005 (currently: 35 weeks)

"Worry is like a rocking chair--it gives you something to do but it doesn't
get you anywhere." -- Anonymous

arachne > wrote:

> sorry to get all philosophical, but isn't that what life (& newsgroups) is
> all about? - change. everything changes. we can't keep things how they are
> forever. change happens.

Why get so fatalistic? People are in control of a lot of things that
happen to them and creation - or not - of newsgroups is one of them.

> it seems like there is only a small percentage of australian posters on
> rec.food.cooking compared to other countries. i know you say that makes a
> difference. but what if aus.food was denied and these australian posters
> still decided all to unsubscribe or just lurk? the flavour of the newsgroup
> would still change. it's just not possible to control other people's
> behaviour like that.

It is possible to control one's own behaviour, though. And, why assume
Australian posters are particularly stupid and will cut into their own
flesh just out of spite?

> i know from my own unrelated newsgroup (aus.family) that many of the posters
> that would come to aus.food would be from aus.family. we have been
> interested in this for ages & would love a separate newsgroup for talking
> about food rather than on aus.family which is technically about parenting.

Good, simply great! Who are those posters? How many of them? How many
posting on the matter have appeared over the recent years? They could
be a part of statistics that would show some evidence of enough interest
to sustain the new newsgroup. Otherwise it is just empty talk, I'm
afraid.

> and this is not the only place that people wanting aus.food come from. there
> are many people in australian newsgroups that have never, ever visited
> rec.food.cooking which want aus.food. are you suggesting that these people
> all have no right to have a newsgroup they want?

No one has a right to a newsgroup. What you get to read is ultimately
decided by the newsadmins of ISPs and independent newsservers. Those
newsadmins pay attention to "serious" hierarchies and control messages
coming from approved sources precisely because they assume that new
newsgroups are created in a serious fashion, and are not just based on
hearsay or proclamations of nonexistent rights.

> i think this extends beyond the boundaries of changing one newsgroup
> slightly. it is what a sizeable (to our little country, anyway) number of
> people would like to see happen. (i know you keep asking for statistics, but
> i have no idea on how to do that! but you could google aus.family to see how
> many food related posts there are!)

Well, I answered that question, twice even, I believe. It has always
been the job of the proponents and, if they don't know how, they ought
to find someone who does. I even suggested David Formosa, thinking that
even if he can't help personally, he can possibly point to someone who
can. Has anyone asked him?

> i hope you still find rec.food.cooking an enjoyable place to go, whether
> aus.food happens or not.

I hope so, too. And I also hope that, if aus.food does happen, it will
be an enjoyable place to visit, too. I'm not going to sulk, unlike
those hypothetical Australians of whom you apparently have such a low
opinion. :-)

Victor

Why bother, there are more important things in this world that need to
be heard and I might add HELPED !!!

Carmen > wrote in message
...
> Why bother

Then cast a simple "No" vote and your wish will be granted.

The Ranger

The Ranger wrote:
> Carmen > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Why bother
>
>
> Then cast a simple "No" vote and your wish will be granted.
>
> The Ranger
>
>
Amen!

--
Cheers
Cathy(xyz)

Carmen wrote:

> Why bother, there are more important things in this world that need to
> be heard and I might add HELPED !!!

They're also more important than whether you get anything to eat this
week. Are you going to stop eating?

--
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.