Victor Sack wrote:
> Nick Andrew > wrote:
>
> > (Victor Sack) writes:
> >
> > >I notice that there has been no reaction to my request to provide an
> > >estimate of expected traffic for the proposed newsgroup and the current
> > >traffic on the net related to this topic, i.e. food from an Australian
> > >perspective. This is a standard, even elementary, request and the
> > >reasons for it are well explained in the aus.* FAQ. Yet no estimate has
> > >been forthcoming. Is this no longer of any importance in the aus.*
> > >hierarchy? If so, shouldn't the pertinent parts be deleted from the FAQ
> > >as no longer relevant?
> >
> > No, you're just too late. We've moved on from the RFD already, and are
> > in the voting phase now.
>
> Eh, I posted what was effectively the very same thing, more than once
> even, even quoting parts of the aus.* FAQ, *during the RFD discussion* -
> and nothing happened.

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. I couldn't
have cared less personally speaking, but seeing your attitude I think I
will vote. Yes for me!

> > The proposal now stands or falls on its own
> > merit, inadequate or not.
>
> That is obvious enough about *now*. What about *before*?

Move on, nothing more to see here.

Doc

> 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
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.

>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!

Victor

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.

> 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

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.

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

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.

> 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.

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

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

Victor Sack wrote:
> > 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.

And there lies the rub. other posters are just hapless sheep? You're
opnion of yourself is vastly over inflated. I wouldn't know principles
if they hit me on the head? What are you blithering on about man?

FYI I was pointing out that by posting over and over and over again
with the same whiney attitude that you would have a negative impact on
those who were understanding of your cause. Now by posting such inane
diatribe you've cemented those 'hapless sheep's thoughts (even though
they can't 'form their own opinion') into voting for this NG. I've seen
a couple of posts mentioning this because of your 'attitude'. Which, by
the way, sucks. Big Time.

Have a nice day :-D

Doc

> wrote:

> Victor Sack wrote:
> >
> > 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.
>
> And there lies the rub. other posters are just hapless sheep? You're
> opnion of yourself is vastly over inflated. I wouldn't know principles
> if they hit me on the head? What are you blithering on about man?

ROFL! I can't believe you didn't get it! This is hilarious! Is it a
gift you possess, or has it taken a lot of effort? Do you chew your own
food, or do you require someone's help, too?

Okay, I'll type slowly now. It was you who implied that the others are
hapless sheep, with their attitude and opinions unduly influenced by my
posts. I merely pointed this out to you in a sarcastic way. Feeling
better now?

BTW, has it even come to your attention that my repeated requests have
finally yielded results and some stats were posted, making a mockery of
your useless rantings? And that, as a result, I'm not even voting at
all? Unlike unethical, harmful drudges like you, who would vote for or
against a newsgroup just out of spite, I pay no attention to personal
animosities, real or imagined, in such cases and, once the proposal is
shown to have some merit I wish it every success. As to you, again, you
wouldn't know principles if they hit you on the head.

Victor

In article . com>,
wrote:
>Victor Sack wrote:
>> > 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.
>
>And there lies the rub. other posters are just hapless sheep? You're

Rather missed the point of that didn't ya, mate!

ROTFLMAO

>opnion of yourself is vastly over inflated. I wouldn't know principles
>if they hit me on the head? What are you blithering on about man?
>
>FYI I was pointing out that by posting over and over and over again
>with the same whiney attitude that you would have a negative impact on
>those who were understanding of your cause. Now by posting such inane
>diatribe you've cemented those 'hapless sheep's thoughts (even though
>they can't 'form their own opinion') into voting for this NG. I've seen
>a couple of posts mentioning this because of your 'attitude'. Which, by
>the way, sucks. Big Time.

Cheers, Phred.

--
LID