Att: Dan Goodman ( and other interested parties in aus.food ;)

Ms Leebee said:

So not to detract or steal from your own very worthy NG ... but it
would be great to have your support. Maybe you want to ask an
Australian about a new wine that has come on your O/S market. Maybe
you are planning to visit relatives and are curious if you can buy
soy-bread in the grocers while you are here. Maybe you'd just like
to chat ( or lurk ) in another country, cyber-style.

Whatever your reason, I urge you to support aus.food.
The CFD ( Call for Discussion ) has been posted in here by our
aus.administrator.

Suggestion: Also post a notice in rec.travel.australia+nz.

I'm in favor of the new group. It's not going to split anything; there
are numerous local food-discussion newsgroups in the US, and probably
elsewhere.

Note: There's a set of newsgroups devoted to nostalgia about rock
music, beginning with alt.culture.us.1960s and going up through the
decades. If I recall correctly, alt.culture.us.1990s was created in
1995. There were people whose high school years were just a bit too
late for alt.culture.us.1980s, and already they were noticing that
today's kids didn't appreciate _real_ music.

"The golden age of science fiction is twelve." Pete Graham.
I asked a rock musician what the golden age of rock was, and he
estimated it as sixteen.

--
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.

[email hidden] said...
|| Hello, rec.food.cooking'ers.
||
|| Some might recall me as a past-time poster ( I do lurk, and occasionally
|| post
|| when I can be un-lazy enough to sort though all the threads <g> )
||
|| I'm Lea, a resident of Melbourne, VIC.
|| Anyway, I know there are a few Aussies that post here .. and even a few that
|| tolerate them... < boom tish >
|| I am here writing for your support for a new newsgroup we are trying to set
|| up.
||
|| The group is aus.food.
||
|| Why ?
||
|| The Brits have a food group, as do the Merkins ( I love the group:
|| alt.2eggs.sausage.beans.tomatoes.2toast.largetea.cheerslove - how good a
|| name is that ?! 😉
|| Along with rec.food.cooking, it is a PROLIFIC, and POPULAR group ... but ...
|| everybody posts when this little Australian is in bed .. and by the time I
|| get there, conversations have been done & dried.
|| Adding a 'me too' is often inappropriate and obsolete. Waiting 24hrs for a
|| reply can be cumbersome too.
|| A post entitled "What bush foods could add flavour to me Wallaby stew ?"
|| often go unanswered, as do
|| "Breakfast at that new cafe in St. Kilda" ( St - where ??? 🙂 🙂).
||
|| So not to detract or steal from your own very worthy NG ... but it would be
|| great to have your support.
|| Maybe you want to ask an Australian about a new wine that has come on your
|| O/S market.
|| Maybe you are planning to visit relatives and are curious if you can buy
|| soy-bread in the grocers
|| while you are here. Maybe you'd just like to chat ( or lurk ) in another
|| country, cyber-style.
||
|| Whatever your reason, I urge you to support aus.food.
|| The CFD ( Call for Discussion ) has been posted in here by our
|| aus.administrator.
||
|| Feel free to ask any questions either here, via email < take out my spam
|| trap to reply >, or by visiting the aus.net.news newsgroup.
||
|| I appreciate your time !

Yessssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss
ssssssssssss🙂
--

It's just my opinion, nothing more.

Ms Leebee said:

The Brits have a food group, as do the Merkins

Eh... which one? You don't mean rec.food.cooking by any chance? If you
do, I'd say you do no favours to your cause by posting misleading and
unhelpful information. rfc, like every other Big-8 newsgroup, is an
international English-language newsgroup quasi by definition. If "the
Merkins" had a food newsgroup, it would be located in the us.*
hierarchy. There are currently no food newsgroups in that hierarchy.

Victor

Victor Sack said:

Ms Leebee said:

The Brits have a food group, as do the Merkins

Eh... which one? You don't mean rec.food.cooking by any chance? If
you do, I'd say you do no favours to your cause by posting misleading
and unhelpful information. rfc, like every other Big-8 newsgroup, is
an international English-language newsgroup quasi by definition. If
"the Merkins" had a food newsgroup, it would be located in the us.*
hierarchy. There are currently no food newsgroups in that hierarchy.

Terribly sorry for the confusion Victor.
I've lurked and posted here over many years - perhaps I should have said
this group is largely ( IMO ) populated by Americans, their food, their
cooking shows, their stores and etc. And I don't have a problem with that,
in fact, I envy this group 😉

But, as I said, with the hemispheres as they are, while the UK and US people
are happily chatting, we are sleeping, and vice-versa. It makes for
convoluted conversation at best.

I went to bed with this group empty, and have woken up to over 300+ posts.
That is a 'light' smattering. Miss a few days, and there's 1000's of posts
to sift through.

However, I know there are people from the Southern Hemisphere that post
here, and I know too that there are Notherners that would be interested in
such a group, even if they would not use it all the time.

No harm meant.
Hopefully we'll see you in aus.food one day 😉

Dan Goodman said:

Suggestion: Also post a notice in rec.travel.australia+nz.

ahh - good idea thanks
( missed your post, replying via Google... )

Quoted message said:

I'm in favor of the new group. It's not going to split anything; there
are numerous local food-discussion newsgroups in the US, and probably
elsewhere.

thanks for your support.

--
Vote YES aus.food

augie said:

[email hidden] said...

Quoted message said:

|| I am here writing for your support for a new newsgroup we are trying to set
|| up.
||
|| The group is aus.food.

<snip>

Quoted message said:

Yessssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss
ssssssssssss🙂

<grin>

😉

Ms Leebee said:

But, as I said, with the hemispheres as they are, while the UK and US people
are happily chatting, we are sleeping, and vice-versa. It makes for
convoluted conversation at best.

I don't find this argument at all convincing. We are talking of Usenet
newsgroups, not IRC with its real-time communications, and delays are in
the nature of the beast. One never knows if a reply to a message will
appear in a few minutes, a few days, or a few weeks.

Quoted message said:

I went to bed with this group empty, and have woken up to over 300+ posts.
That is a 'light' smattering. Miss a few days, and there's 1000's of posts
to sift through.

This, on the other hand, is a valid argument. Too large a newsgroup can
certainly be a bother.

Quoted message said:

However, I know there are people from the Southern Hemisphere that post
here, and I know too that there are Notherners that would be interested in
such a group, even if they would not use it all the time.

Again, not a convincing argument; anecdotal evidence rarely is. Someone
like me, who spent some time on news.groups (the Big-8 equivalent of
aus.net.news), would expect a proponent to do his homework and provide
actual statistics of said interest. That would be the most convincing
argument of all.

That said, of course there is nothing against cheerleading to make
people aware of the proposal and get them to vote.

Victor

Victor Sack said:

Ms Leebee said:

But, as I said, with the hemispheres as they are, while the UK and US people
are happily chatting, we are sleeping, and vice-versa. It makes for
convoluted conversation at best.

I don't find this argument at all convincing. We are talking of Usenet
newsgroups, not IRC with its real-time communications, and delays are in
the nature of the beast. One never knows if a reply to a message will
appear in a few minutes, a few days, or a few weeks.

I think the ol' replies showing up in a few hours/days etc is very
archaic.
My replies show up immediately, as do those of others I commnicate with
in various other groups.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I went to bed with this group empty, and have woken up to over 300+ posts.
That is a 'light' smattering. Miss a few days, and there's 1000's of posts
to sift through.

This, on the other hand, is a valid argument. Too large a newsgroup can
certainly be a bother.

Quoted message said:

However, I know there are people from the Southern Hemisphere that post
here, and I know too that there are Notherners that would be interested in
such a group, even if they would not use it all the time.

Again, not a convincing argument; anecdotal evidence rarely is.

Actually, Victor, there *is* a lot of support for this group. I do not
have time to compile stats, and I doubt anyone would really care if I
did. Would stats change your mind, rouse your interest, get your
support ? I think not.

Quoted message said:

That said, of course there is nothing against cheerleading to make
people aware of the proposal and get them to vote.

I thought not.
Hope to see you visiting and contributing sometime if we're successful
in our bid.

Cheers.

Volume on RFC may seem imposing, Ms Leebee (at least these days), but there
are tools for selective reading: killfiling, marking of threads (depending
on your choice of newsreader program), etc.

Something else, much more important long-term to newsgroups, and which you
may or may not know of, is the regrettable history of people, often
well-intentioned and often indeed motivated by traffic volume, proposing
splits that fragmented or de-railed successful fora. This was a constant
issue in the early-mid 1990s especially, though it has happened throughout
the newsgroups' 25-year history. In cases I've witnessed, people convinced
of the wisdom of a split, and persuasive about it, often were relative
newcomers, and more importantly, they did not stay around to live with the
consequences of their inspiration. (That for instance is how the
longstanding wine newsgroup, created 1982, was mis-handled in 1993-94,
ending up rather carelessly in the "alt." hierarchy as alt.food.wine instead
of rec.food.drink.wine (a situation incidentally STILL shown misleadingly in
basic newsgroup descriptions that I see: rec.food.drink no longer carries
the wine postings, alt.food.wine does -- including from Australia). But the
impulse to spin off something to serve perceived needs created most of the
overlapping or competing or inactive or confusingly-defined newsgroups that
now exist.

As I mentioned in a history reflection on the wine group, the long view has
been in short supply.

-- Max

Ms Leebee said:

Victor Sack said:

Ms Leebee said:

But, as I said, with the hemispheres as they are, while the UK and US
people are happily chatting, we are sleeping, and vice-versa. It
makes for convoluted conversation at best.

I don't find this argument at all convincing. We are talking of Usenet
newsgroups, not IRC with its real-time communications, and delays are in
the nature of the beast. One never knows if a reply to a message will
appear in a few minutes, a few days, or a few weeks.

I think the ol' replies showing up in a few hours/days etc is very
archaic.

I think the word you want is "anachronistic".

Quoted message said:

My replies show up immediately, as do those of others I commnicate with
in various other groups.

It appears you understand neither the point I was making, nor the nature
of "real-time" communication. If I'm mistaken in this evaluation,
please correct me. IRC and telephone are real-time, because people have
to be there at the same time to be able communicate with each other.
Snail mail, e-mail and Usenet are not real-time, because people reply at
their own convenience, with no guarantee of immediacy.

Your own reply, which took eight days to appear, is the best
illustration of the above.

If immediate replies are important to you, you ought to consider
creating an IRC channel instead.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Again, not a convincing argument; anecdotal evidence rarely is.

Actually, Victor, there *is* a lot of support for this group. I do not
have time to compile stats, and I doubt anyone would really care if I
did. Would stats change your mind, rouse your interest, get your
support ? I think not.

It is very obvious that creating aus.food is of no real importance to
you. Perhaps it would be better to delegate the task of drumming up
support to someone who takes it seriously? Splitting a newsgroup is a
serious matter, in case you are unaware, particularly where rfc is
concerned. A lot of ill-will has been generated by previous attempts to
split it and this is still occasionally noticeable even today.

Victor

Victor Sack said:

It is very obvious that creating aus.food is of no real importance to
you.

Not obvious to me.

Perhaps it would be better to delegate the task of drumming up

Quoted message said:

support to someone who takes it seriously?

Quoted message said:

Splitting a newsgroup is a
serious matter, in case you are unaware, particularly where rfc is
concerned. A lot of ill-will has been generated by previous attempts
to split it and this is still occasionally noticeable even today.

I don't see it as a split. It's a proposal for something equivalent to
the uk.* food newsgroups, fr.rec.cuisine, and various other national
food newsgroups. There are also a bunch of US-local *.food and *eats
groups, which I don't consider to be splits of either this newsgroup
nor restaurant newsgroups.

--
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.

"Max Hauser" <[email hidden]> wrote ...

Quoted message said:

Volume on RFC may seem imposing, Ms Leebee (at least these days), but
there are tools for selective reading: killfiling, marking of threads
(depending on your choice of newsreader program), etc.

Hi Max.
Yeah - I know 😉 I like to read all though, and there is no-one I have
found yet that I would killfile ( I tend to only killfile pests, not
volumous on-topic posters )

Quoted message said:

Something else, much more important long-term to newsgroups, and which you
may or may not know of, is the regrettable history of people, often
well-intentioned and often indeed motivated by traffic volume, proposing
splits that fragmented or de-railed successful fora. This was a constant
issue in the early-mid 1990s especially, though it has happened throughout
the newsgroups' 25-year history. In cases I've witnessed, people
convinced of the wisdom of a split, and persuasive about it, often were
relative newcomers, and more importantly, they did not stay around to live
with the consequences of their inspiration. (That for instance is how the
longstanding wine newsgroup, created 1982, was mis-handled in 1993-94,
ending up rather carelessly in the "alt." hierarchy as alt.food.wine
instead of rec.food.drink.wine (a situation incidentally STILL shown
misleadingly in basic newsgroup descriptions that I see: rec.food.drink no
longer carries the wine postings, alt.food.wine does -- including from
Australia).

Yes - I have posted in , and often read alt.food.wine

Quoted message said:

But the impulse to spin off something to serve perceived needs created
most of the overlapping or competing or inactive or confusingly-defined
newsgroups that now exist.

I wouldn't call aus.food a 'spin off' per se. Australia is an isolated, but
net-connected community.
We like to think we're a little unique, and groups in the aus* hierarchy
tend to be well-populated. This group ( and interest in it ) has been
actively researched for over a year prior to proposal. It is only now you
are hearing of it here.

Thanks for your comments.
I hope you will come visit the group someday if we achieve our dream.

"Victor Sack" <[email hidden]> wrote

<snip>

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

My replies show up immediately, as do those of others I commnicate with
in various other groups.

It appears you understand neither the point I was making, nor the nature
of "real-time" communication. If I'm mistaken in this evaluation,
please correct me. IRC and telephone are real-time, because people have
to be there at the same time to be able communicate with each other.
Snail mail, e-mail and Usenet are not real-time, because people reply at
their own convenience, with no guarantee of immediacy.

Your own reply, which took eight days to appear, is the best
illustration of the above.

I had to look you up on Google. For some reason your posts do not show up
on my server.
I wondered if you had replied.

Quoted message said:

If immediate replies are important to you, you ought to consider
creating an IRC channel instead.

I think 'you' do not understand the interest there is for this group amongst
people already using NG's. People who have no want for an IRC channel.
Interest has been generated from ppl who have been using the net and NG's
for an average of 10yrs. People who have used MSN, ICQ, IRC etc .... who
prefer the format of NG's, as I do. Immediate replies ARE possible in the
Southern hemishere in NG's. It is much easier for me to have ongoing,
interesting communication with others regarding common interests etc in the
aus* hierarchy, than it is here. I rarely come here anymore - for reasons
stipulated before.

I really don't think you know what it is like for us, but it would be very
nice if you could extend some compassion for our cause. Can't you *see*
what it would be like on the other side ? Sense our frustration ?

<snip>

Quoted message said:

It is very obvious that creating aus.food is of no real importance to
you.

huh ? It is VERY important to me.

Quoted message said:

Perhaps it would be better to delegate the task of drumming up
support to someone who takes it seriously? Splitting a newsgroup is a
serious matter, in case you are unaware, particularly where rfc is
concerned.

SPLITTING a newsgroup ???? What ???
I'm sorry Victor, but have I fallen for a troll ?

Quoted message said:

A lot of ill-will has been generated by previous attempts to
split it and this is still occasionally noticeable even today.

Victor, there is about 5 Australians posting here regularly. I doubt you'd
even miss them ( do you even know them / reply to them ? ). I'm not "after'
them or spiltting any newsgroups ( ??? ). I suggest you read the proposal
again ( if you are not a troll ), because your own issues have clouded your
thought processes.

If you are not interested, fine... but please do not make this into
something it quite obviously isn't.

"Dan Goodman" <[email hidden]> wrote ...

Quoted message said:

Victor Sack said:

It is very obvious that creating aus.food is of no real importance to
you.

Not obvious to me.

Perhaps it would be better to delegate the task of drumming up

Quoted message said:

support to someone who takes it seriously?

Quoted message said:

Splitting a newsgroup is a
serious matter, in case you are unaware, particularly where rfc is
concerned. A lot of ill-will has been generated by previous attempts
to split it and this is still occasionally noticeable even today.

I don't see it as a split. It's a proposal for something equivalent to
the uk.* food newsgroups, fr.rec.cuisine, and various other national
food newsgroups. There are also a bunch of US-local *.food and *eats
groups, which I don't consider to be splits of either this newsgroup
nor restaurant newsgroups.

Thanks Dan.
I was wondering when I grew horns and donned a little red suit 😉

"Ms Leebee" in news:[email hidden]:
|
| Australia is an isolated, but net-connected community.

Yes indeed, it was notable at the time for its early connectivity to the
growing international Internet with high-speed links (along with other
pioneering highly-connected countries -- Finland comes to mind). 15 years
or so ago I could exchange email between the US and Australia in seconds.
(It took seconds, for instance, for a professor in Adelaide to request an
article reprint from me. It then took two months for the printed article to
arrive by post. Could have done it just as fast 200 years ago )-:

Quoted message said:

I wouldn't call aus.food a 'spin off' per se.

I appreciate your perspective. I meant the term in the particular and
established sense of newsgroups that emerge out of and/or attract traffic
away from existing newsgroups. I don't really know if your proposed group
will follow this pattern and neither, to some extent, can you know it. I am
just pointing out that every new-group creation in the last 20 years that
ended up disrupting an existing forum, creating confusing overlap, etc., was
proposed by someone who believed sincerely in the idea, or dream, and
thought it was the right thing to do.

"Ms Leebee" in news:[email hidden]:
| "Dan Goodman" <[email hidden]> wrote ...
||
|| I don't see it as a split. It's a proposal for something
|| equivalent tothe uk.* food newsgroups, fr.rec.cuisine,
|| and various other national food newsgroups. There
|| are also a bunch of US-local *.food and *eats groups

US *.food and *.eats groups (at least, those of them I've known in the last
20 years) are local restaurant-oriented newsgroups with traffic of local
interest, unrelated de-facto to RFC's charter ("All about food, cooking,
cookbooks, recipes and other alimentary effluvia" -- 29 Jan 82). Someone
could certainly conjure anecdotal examples of overlap, but that is not the
point of those groups. (It's common incidentally for newsgroup users from
other US regions to look in on local *.food or *.eats groups, when traveling
or relocating.)

If the new group's _actual_ traffic were to prove of strictly local interest
and not related to RFC's charter then that would show it's not a split. On
the other hand, new-group advocates are historically the people least able
to assess that prospect objectively. Most people who split successful
newsgroups argued in advance that that was not the idea. Many of them meant
it. That is the whole problem, in a nutshell, as I see it. (And why I
argue for erring in the direction of fewer new groups. From experience, not
theory.)

-- Max

Dan Goodman said:

Victor Sack said:

It is very obvious that creating aus.food is of no real importance to
you.

Not obvious to me.

Not prepared. Not willing to devote any time to the matter. Not able
or willing to argue congently. Still not obvious?

Quoted message said:

I don't see it as a split. It's a proposal for something equivalent to
the uk.* food newsgroups,

They were a split. Anything that potentially takes actual or future
traffic froam a newsgroup is a split by definition.

Quoted message said:

fr.rec.cuisine, and various other national
food newsgroups.

Irrelevant. They are not English-language newsgroups and take nothing
from rfc.

Quoted message said:

There are also a bunch of US-local *.food and *eats
groups, which I don't consider to be splits of either this newsgroup
nor restaurant newsgroups.

Most of them are de-facto splits of the rec.food.restaurants newsgroup.
Not of rfc, as Max implicitly points out, as they deal mainly with
restaurants.

Victor

Ms Leebee said:

"Victor Sack" <[email hidden]> wrote

Immediate replies ARE possible in the
Southern hemishere in NG's.

Unmitigated nonsense. Immediate replies are possible anywhere where
people are sitting at their computers at the same time. If they are
not, immediacy disappears. In either hemisphere, there are people who
post in the morning; there are people who post in the evening; there are
people who post in the middle of the day or night. There are 24 hours
in the day everywhere and there is no guarantee someone is out there at
the same time you are. That's the nature of Usenet.

Quoted message said:

It is much easier for me to have ongoing,
interesting communication with others regarding common interests etc in the
aus* hierarchy, than it is here.

Are those interests food-related (the only relevant thing)? How many
"others" are there who have the same interests? Were they around
discussing food 5 years ago? 2 years ago? How many of them? In which
newsgroups did their discusions appear? How do you know there is real
interest which is strong enough to likely be there 5 or 10 years from
now?

Quoted message said:

I really don't think you know what it is like for us, but it would be very
nice if you could extend some compassion for our cause. Can't you *see*
what it would be like on the other side ? Sense our frustration ?

Will you stop whining, please? Do you even know where I am located? I
could be in Australia for all you know. As it were, there is a six-hour
difference to the east coast of America and a nine-hour difference to
the west coast. How is it so much different from Australia
(respectively six or nine hours to the west coast of America
efvectively, i.e. if it's noon in Sydney, it is 6 p.m. in San
Francisco)?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

It is very obvious that creating aus.food is of no real importance to
you.

huh ? It is VERY important to me.

So, why don't you do your homework and provide some real information?
You can't, for some reason? As I said before, delegate this to someone
else who takes it seriously. Seek advice from someone who really knows
about the matter, for example David Formosa (Nick Andrew's predecessor
as ausadmin) who, as I remember, has even posted to rfc a couple of
times. Now that he is no longer ausadmin, maybe he has some time for
giving advice.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Perhaps it would be better to delegate the task of drumming up
support to someone who takes it seriously? Splitting a newsgroup is a
serious matter, in case you are unaware, particularly where rfc is
concerned.

SPLITTING a newsgroup ???? What ???
I'm sorry Victor, but have I fallen for a troll ?

Do you even know what a troll is, child? Creating any newsgroup
potentially taking traffic from an existing one is a split by
definition.

Quoted message said:

Victor, there is about 5 Australians posting here regularly. I doubt you'd
even miss them ( do you even know them / reply to them ? ).

I've been around long enough to know more than you perhaps realise.

Quoted message said:

I'm not "after'
them or spiltting any newsgroups ( ??? ). I suggest you read the proposal
again ( if you are not a troll ), because your own issues have clouded your
thought processes.

If you are not interested, fine... but please do not make this into
something it quite obviously isn't.

I would most kindly suggest that you concentrate on your own issues and
your own homework. You are already up to your neck in it and it is time
to stop digging. What you don't realise, is that you are actually
arguing against the creation of aus.food and alienating people who, for
all you don't know, may be actually sympathetic. Has it even occur to
you to read the aus.* new groups creation FAQ. Don't think so. Here
are some excerpts.
_________________
http://aus.news-admin.org/Faq/aus_faq

Is there another newsgroup which covers your topic? You would need a
good reason to create a new place to discuss something where there's
already a place available. One appropriate reason may be volume of
postings on your subject; very active newsgroups may be split into
subgroups - on the other hand, if there's very little discussion going
on in your topic, you may not have a good reason to create a new group.

Finally, (since this is an aus.* FAQ) consider whether your topic is
uniquely Australian or has enough Australian content to justify a
regional newsgroup rather than a global one. For example, there's not
much point to having an Australian coca-cola newsgroup - you can buy
coke around the world and it's much the same wherever it is sold.

[....]
People will respond to your proposal in a variety of ways. Expect
negative criticism. Some of it will come from people who read like
overbearing [censored]; some will come from quite reasonable human
beings.

The newsgroup name and the expected traffic are two of the most
important things that are going to discussed at this point. Ausadmin
and the people in aus.net.news are going to be looking for evidence
that this newsgroup is going to get enough traffic to be a healthy
[....]
Try to be patient, and listen to what they have to say. You may
find that they are making sense. At this point, you might consider
better group names (if suggested), moderation or not, changes to
the newsgroup's charter, or maybe even whether or not the whole
thing was a good idea in the first place. Try to be objective and
mature about this, and don't take any of it personally (even if
the overbearing [censored] get personal first).

Two things have to be taken into account at this point: one is what
you think, and the other is what other people think. If you can't be
dissuaded from a bad proposal by sound arguments, fine. Go ahead and
take it to the next step. In general, however, if few other people
are convinced by your arguments in favour of the newsgroup, it won't
pass the vote, and you'll end up wasting your time. (See point 7.)
____________________

Victor

Victor Sack said:

They were a split. Anything that potentially takes actual or future
traffic froam a newsgroup is a split by definition.

A rather odd definition, in my opinion.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

fr.rec.cuisine, and various other national
food newsgroups.

Irrelevant. They are not English-language newsgroups and take nothing
from rfc.

Well, some of the people on fr.rec.cuisine are literate in English; and
if it didn't exist, they might be in this newsgroup instead or more
often.

--
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.