-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

                     REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)

This is a formal Request For Discussion (RFD) for the following changes
in the uk.* Usenet hierarchy:

           remove unmoderated newsgroup uk.media.tv.sf.startrek

Newsgroup line:
uk.media.tv.sf.startrek	For discussion of Star Trek relevant to the UK


      *** ALL DISCUSSION MUST TAKE PLACE IN UK.NET.NEWS.CONFIG ***
             *** CROSSPOSTED TO UK.MEDIA.TV.SF.STARTREK ***

This is not a Call for Votes (CFV); you cannot vote at this time.
Further procedural details are given below.

RATIONALE: uk.media.tv.sf.startrek

Traffic to this group has dropped to a level very close to zero, with
the only regular posts being the FAQ and comments relating to a web-
based competition.

A recent small thread on this newsgroup discussing the nature of the
group threw up only a few posts, none against the idea of the group 
being disbanded.

PROPOSAL

That the newsgroup uk.media.tv.sf.startrek be rmgrouped.

CURRENT CHARTER: uk.media.tv.sf.startrek

>There is no charter for this group available on the uk usenet web
>site, and the weekly-posted FAQ is in effect the charter.

END CHARTER

PROCEDURE:

This is a request for discussion, not a call for votes.  In this phase of
the process, any potential problems with the proposal should be raised
and resolved.  The discussion period will continue for a minimum of 10
days, starting from when this RFD is posted to uk.net.news.announce
(i.e. until July 20th) after which a Call For Votes (CFV) may be
posted by a neutral vote taker if the discussion warrants it.
Alternatively, the proposal may proceed by the fast-track method.  Please
do not attempt to vote until this happens.

This RFD attempts to comply fully with the "Guidelines for Group Creation
within the UK Hierarchy" as published regularly in uk.net.news.announce
and is available from http://www.usenet.org.uk/guidelines.html (the UK
Usenet website).  Please refer to this document if you have any questions
about the process.

DISTRIBUTION:

This RFD has been posted to the following newsgroups:
        uk.net.news.announce
        uk.net.news.config
        uk.media.tv.sf.startrek

Proponent:
        Paul Harper 

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 5.0i
Charset: noconv

iQCVAwUBRpIbjmOfGXkh8vHZAQFLdwQAmwEcUQA3PQBYKzpumPbuh8tznd0kWO/G
u1SnivcT7oeFjxvl50rX0eaYY3jKupk2C0tPnuGJRLByHV3wm5MMS75w5CKrwMF1
cjevQ4A7uG0lEEubwTuUAL++Lk4MYGrXr68dmDtMIsa+P/0H3uaBwtkJ7e8A2vgs
MLYRICYYgiY=
=rhc2
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Paul Harper wrote:
>
> Traffic to this group has dropped to a level very close to zero, with
> the only regular posts being the FAQ and comments relating to a web-
> based competition.
>
> A recent small thread on this newsgroup discussing the nature of the
> group threw up only a few posts, none against the idea of the group
> being disbanded.

I would be reluctant to remove any once-active groups on these grounds - at 
least until we can see the future of Usenet a bit clearer.  There's 
slippery-slope argument - it is hard to see how any group would be safe, and 
Krusty is bound to pop up suggesting the removal of unnc :-)
-- 
John Briggs

On Mon, 09 Jul 2007 19:59:58 GMT, "John Briggs"
 wrote:

>Paul Harper wrote:
>>
>> Traffic to this group has dropped to a level very close to zero, with
>> the only regular posts being the FAQ and comments relating to a web-
>> based competition.
>>
>> A recent small thread on this newsgroup discussing the nature of the
>> group threw up only a few posts, none against the idea of the group
>> being disbanded.
>
>I would be reluctant to remove any once-active groups on these grounds - at 
>least until we can see the future of Usenet a bit clearer.

I agree, it seems like a case of removing it just "because
we can". Of course I could say the same about any removal
request, but in this case "close to zero" isn't synonymous
with "zero" so I'd give it the benefit of the doubt... for
now.

>Krusty is bound to pop up suggesting the removal of unnc :-)

The way Usenet is going it may have a point :-(

-- 
John Bean

"John Bean"  wrote in message 
news:lr5593purvmuaqrc08n05s6pmm1mt7kj4v@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 09 Jul 2007 19:59:58 GMT, "John Briggs"
>  wrote:
>
>>Paul Harper wrote:
>>>
>>> Traffic to this group has dropped to a level very close to zero, with
>>> the only regular posts being the FAQ and comments relating to a web-
>>> based competition.
>>>
>>> A recent small thread on this newsgroup discussing the nature of the
>>> group threw up only a few posts, none against the idea of the group
>>> being disbanded.
>>
>>I would be reluctant to remove any once-active groups on these grounds - 
>>at
>>least until we can see the future of Usenet a bit clearer.
>
> I agree, it seems like a case of removing it just "because
> we can". Of course I could say the same about any removal
> request, but in this case "close to zero" isn't synonymous
> with "zero" so I'd give it the benefit of the doubt... for
> now.
>
>>Krusty is bound to pop up suggesting the removal of unnc :-)
>
> The way Usenet is going it may have a point :-(
>
> -- 
> John Bean

I can see where you're coming from Paul - I missed the discussion thread 
though - because I don't browse umtss much any more. If you wanted to kill 
off the Babylon 5 or Buffy newsgroups, there might be a stronger case for 
them. But there again, with TV's penchant for coming around again these 
days, Never Say Never Again.

But the thing about Star Trek, in particular, is that it's a bit like 
Dracula - just when you think you've driven in the last stake, it pops back 
up again for another round.

I can easily see "original" Star Trek being given the Battlestar Galactica 
re-imagining treatment, possibly on the back of the next movie if it makes 
money. And then we'd have to re-invent the group all over again to talk 
about the new series (or go to web-based forums /spit). In the immortal 
words of Sax Rohmer, "The world has not seen the last of ... !"

Plus, this was, my first Usenet "home". I'm just reluctant to tear the place 
down, even if it's only an empty shell these days gathering dust and not 
even a home for squatters.

On 2007-07-09, Mike McKeown  wrote:
> I can see where you're coming from Paul - I missed the discussion thread 
> though - because I don't browse umtss much any more. If you wanted to kill 
> off the Babylon 5 or Buffy newsgroups, there might be a stronger case for 
> them. But there again, with TV's penchant for coming around again these 
> days, Never Say Never Again.
>
> But the thing about Star Trek, in particular, is that it's a bit like 
> Dracula - just when you think you've driven in the last stake, it pops back 
> up again for another round.
>
> I can easily see "original" Star Trek being given the Battlestar Galactica 
> re-imagining treatment, possibly on the back of the next movie if it makes 
> money. And then we'd have to re-invent the group all over again to talk 
> about the new series (or go to web-based forums /spit). In the immortal 
> words of Sax Rohmer, "The world has not seen the last of ... !"
>
> Plus, this was, my first Usenet "home". I'm just reluctant to tear the place 
> down, even if it's only an empty shell these days gathering dust and not 
> even a home for squatters.

I agree with the sentiments posted in this thread.
TV shows have highs and lows. While this may by one of the lowest lows
that Star Trek has has since the end of the original series, but there's
a reasonable probability that it will bounce back.

The cost of keeping it is near-zero.

Paul Harper wrote:
>
> Traffic to this group has dropped to a level very close to zero, with
> the only regular posts being the FAQ and comments relating to a web-
> based competition.
>
> A recent small thread on this newsgroup discussing the nature of the
> group threw up only a few posts, none against the idea of the group
> being disbanded.

I would be reluctant to remove any once-active groups on these grounds - at 
least until we can see the future of Usenet a bit clearer.  There's 
slippery-slope argument - it is hard to see how any group would be safe, and 
Krusty is bound to pop up suggesting the removal of unnc :-)
-- 
John Briggs

On Mon, 09 Jul 2007 19:59:58 GMT, "John Briggs"
 wrote:

>Paul Harper wrote:
>>
>> Traffic to this group has dropped to a level very close to zero, with
>> the only regular posts being the FAQ and comments relating to a web-
>> based competition.
>>
>> A recent small thread on this newsgroup discussing the nature of the
>> group threw up only a few posts, none against the idea of the group
>> being disbanded.
>
>I would be reluctant to remove any once-active groups on these grounds - at 
>least until we can see the future of Usenet a bit clearer.

I agree, it seems like a case of removing it just "because
we can". Of course I could say the same about any removal
request, but in this case "close to zero" isn't synonymous
with "zero" so I'd give it the benefit of the doubt... for
now.

>Krusty is bound to pop up suggesting the removal of unnc :-)

The way Usenet is going it may have a point :-(

-- 
John Bean

"John Bean"  wrote in message 
news:lr5593purvmuaqrc08n05s6pmm1mt7kj4v@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 09 Jul 2007 19:59:58 GMT, "John Briggs"
>  wrote:
>
>>Paul Harper wrote:
>>>
>>> Traffic to this group has dropped to a level very close to zero, with
>>> the only regular posts being the FAQ and comments relating to a web-
>>> based competition.
>>>
>>> A recent small thread on this newsgroup discussing the nature of the
>>> group threw up only a few posts, none against the idea of the group
>>> being disbanded.
>>
>>I would be reluctant to remove any once-active groups on these grounds - 
>>at
>>least until we can see the future of Usenet a bit clearer.
>
> I agree, it seems like a case of removing it just "because
> we can". Of course I could say the same about any removal
> request, but in this case "close to zero" isn't synonymous
> with "zero" so I'd give it the benefit of the doubt... for
> now.
>
>>Krusty is bound to pop up suggesting the removal of unnc :-)
>
> The way Usenet is going it may have a point :-(
>
> -- 
> John Bean

I can see where you're coming from Paul - I missed the discussion thread 
though - because I don't browse umtss much any more. If you wanted to kill 
off the Babylon 5 or Buffy newsgroups, there might be a stronger case for 
them. But there again, with TV's penchant for coming around again these 
days, Never Say Never Again.

But the thing about Star Trek, in particular, is that it's a bit like 
Dracula - just when you think you've driven in the last stake, it pops back 
up again for another round.

I can easily see "original" Star Trek being given the Battlestar Galactica 
re-imagining treatment, possibly on the back of the next movie if it makes 
money. And then we'd have to re-invent the group all over again to talk 
about the new series (or go to web-based forums /spit). In the immortal 
words of Sax Rohmer, "The world has not seen the last of ... !"

Plus, this was, my first Usenet "home". I'm just reluctant to tear the place 
down, even if it's only an empty shell these days gathering dust and not 
even a home for squatters.

On 2007-07-09, Mike McKeown  wrote:
> I can see where you're coming from Paul - I missed the discussion thread 
> though - because I don't browse umtss much any more. If you wanted to kill 
> off the Babylon 5 or Buffy newsgroups, there might be a stronger case for 
> them. But there again, with TV's penchant for coming around again these 
> days, Never Say Never Again.
>
> But the thing about Star Trek, in particular, is that it's a bit like 
> Dracula - just when you think you've driven in the last stake, it pops back 
> up again for another round.
>
> I can easily see "original" Star Trek being given the Battlestar Galactica 
> re-imagining treatment, possibly on the back of the next movie if it makes 
> money. And then we'd have to re-invent the group all over again to talk 
> about the new series (or go to web-based forums /spit). In the immortal 
> words of Sax Rohmer, "The world has not seen the last of ... !"
>
> Plus, this was, my first Usenet "home". I'm just reluctant to tear the place 
> down, even if it's only an empty shell these days gathering dust and not 
> even a home for squatters.

I agree with the sentiments posted in this thread.
TV shows have highs and lows. While this may by one of the lowest lows
that Star Trek has has since the end of the original series, but there's
a reasonable probability that it will bounce back.

The cost of keeping it is near-zero.

On 09 Jul 2007 23:48:44 GMT, Av 
wrote:

Rounding up the points made by all posters so far...

>The cost of keeping it is near-zero.

Well, not entirely. The cost of keeping redundant groups hanging
around is the loss of the automatic group-creation that the UK
hierarchy enjoys among the vast majority of usenet suppliers. It's
exactly because the UK hierarchy actively manages down it's dead wood
and is careful how we create new groups that we're made welcome on
their machines. It's one less management headache for them.

The points made elsewhere about the B5 group and Buffy group I can
easily answer:

On the B5 group, I proposed its removal a little while back (having
already removed two of the three B5 groups a while back), but the
valid point was made that we *know* there is new B5 material in the
form of Straczynski's latest franchise extension, the direct-to-dvd
"Lost Tales". The first of these hits the stores in the States this
month, and over here in September, so it is known that there will be
new material to discuss. I still don't think it will resurrect the
dead group, but it is a valid reason for giving it a chance.

The Buffy group, I do not subscribe to, and a removal is best coming
from within (like in my case the two B5 groups, and the broadband
media group as well). I just seems bad manners to storm in somewhere
and start talking about removing the place!

....

Nostalgia is a terrible thing. I know, I suffer from it horrendously.
This place, at its peak, generated over a thousand messages a day,
with dozens and dozens of people all joining in all the time. Great
times.

Past times - those times have gone, we have to acknowledge that. The
wider demise of usenet at the onslaught of Facebook and MySpace and
the other social-networking web-based fora is looking less like the
hype we(I) dismissed it as a few years back, and more like reality.

For the valid reason cited in my first paragraph above, we still need
to tidy up behind ourselves, lest that decline be speeded up when it
becomes difficult to propagate new groups because we're no longer on
"automatic creation" in the uk.* groups.

The thing is, this group *isn't* being used. The regular posting of a
faq, and the weekly caption competition results do not constitute a
group that is being used! In just about every other aspect, it's dead.
I *know* the movie is coming out before much longer, and that might
generate a few hundred posts over a few weeks or months, but it'll be
a flash in the pan. There are no new developments that we know of that
will cause this place to be used regularly again.

However fond we are of it, we *not* using it, and it shouldn't be left
around sitting in the corner of the living room like some elderly
relative until one day someone asks what the bad smell is. It deserves
a decent burial.

Paul.
-- 
.. Bill Maher: "Tulips aren't flowers, they're gay onions"
.. A .sig is all well and good, but it's no substitute for a personality
.. Is there a moron carrot above?  Have you replied to it?  Are you sure?
.. EMail: Unless invited to, don't; it's likely to be automatically deleted.

Paul Harper wrote:
> On 09 Jul 2007 23:48:44 GMT, Av 
> wrote:
>
> Rounding up the points made by all posters so far...
>
>> The cost of keeping it is near-zero.
>
> Well, not entirely. The cost of keeping redundant groups hanging
> around is the loss of the automatic group-creation that the UK
> hierarchy enjoys among the vast majority of usenet suppliers. It's
> exactly because the UK hierarchy actively manages down it's dead wood
> and is careful how we create new groups that we're made welcome on
> their machines. It's one less management headache for them.
>
> The points made elsewhere about the B5 group and Buffy group I can
> easily answer:
>
> On the B5 group, I proposed its removal a little while back (having
> already removed two of the three B5 groups a while back), but the
> valid point was made that we *know* there is new B5 material in the
> form of Straczynski's latest franchise extension, the direct-to-dvd
> "Lost Tales". The first of these hits the stores in the States this
> month, and over here in September, so it is known that there will be
> new material to discuss. I still don't think it will resurrect the
> dead group, but it is a valid reason for giving it a chance.

By that token , we know there is a new Trek film being made , and while this 
group is very quiet it's not entirely dead.
It won't get back to as busy as it was , but that's no reason to kill it off 
just yet.
As an aside I know when and why the group died , and it wasn't really 
anything to do with trek.
-- 
Alex

"I laugh in the face of danger. Then I hide until it goes away"

www.drzoidberg.co.uk www.ebayfaq.co.uk

Paul Harper wrote:
> 
> On the B5 group, I proposed its removal a little while back (having
> already removed two of the three B5 groups a while back), but the
> valid point was made that we *know* there is new B5 material in the
> form of Straczynski's latest franchise extension, the direct-to-dvd
> "Lost Tales". The first of these hits the stores in the States this
> month, and over here in September, so it is known that there will be
> new material to discuss. I still don't think it will resurrect the
> dead group, but it is a valid reason for giving it a chance.
> 
> The Buffy group, I do not subscribe to, and a removal is best coming
> from within (like in my case the two B5 groups, and the broadband
> media group as well). I just seems bad manners to storm in somewhere
> and start talking about removing the place!
> 

Just to point out that a new Star Trek film has already been announced 
and will be out at the end of next year.

Also, from this autumn the new Virgin 1 channel (available on Freeview, 
Sky and Cable) will be showing a lot of Star Trek TNG, DS9 and Voyager 
so it's like that that will also increase traffic here again.  It's 
difficult to talk about stuff when there's nothing being shown at the 
moment.

On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 09:03:43 +0100, "Dr Zoidberg"
<alexNOOOOOO!!!!!!!@drzoidberg.co.uk> wrote:

>By that token , we know there is a new Trek film being made , and while this 
>group is very quiet it's not entirely dead.

That was covered in the snipped bit.

>It won't get back to as busy as it was , but that's no reason to kill it off 
>just yet.
>As an aside I know when and why the group died , and it wasn't really 
>anything to do with trek.

If you are referring to the events of 1st July 2002, for the 12 months
following that to June 2003, the group had 5198, 2873, 2663, 2267,
2112, 1810, 3113, 3130, 2265, 2508, 2627 and 2909 posts respectively*.

Hardly a group dying!

Whereas this year, January to June, it managed 51, 62, 77, 26, 60 and
49 posts each month*, and as I said in my rationale, most of those are
regular posts rather than any discussion (and the "high spots" if they
can be so-called, are discussion on whether the group should be
removed or not!).

* Source: 

Cambridge University stats page:

http://www.cam.ac.uk/cs/newsserver/hierarchy-stats/uk/

Paul.
-- 
.. Bill Maher: "Tulips aren't flowers, they're gay onions"
.. A .sig is all well and good, but it's no substitute for a personality
.. Is there a moron carrot above?  Have you replied to it?  Are you sure?
.. EMail: Unless invited to, don't; it's likely to be automatically deleted.

Dr Zoidberg wrote:
> Paul Harper wrote:
>> On 09 Jul 2007 23:48:44 GMT, Av 
>> wrote:
>>
>> Rounding up the points made by all posters so far...
>>
>>> The cost of keeping it is near-zero.
>> Well, not entirely. The cost of keeping redundant groups hanging
>> around is the loss of the automatic group-creation that the UK
>> hierarchy enjoys among the vast majority of usenet suppliers. It's
>> exactly because the UK hierarchy actively manages down it's dead wood
>> and is careful how we create new groups that we're made welcome on
>> their machines. It's one less management headache for them.
>>
>> The points made elsewhere about the B5 group and Buffy group I can
>> easily answer:
>>
>> On the B5 group, I proposed its removal a little while back (having
>> already removed two of the three B5 groups a while back), but the
>> valid point was made that we *know* there is new B5 material in the
>> form of Straczynski's latest franchise extension, the direct-to-dvd
>> "Lost Tales". The first of these hits the stores in the States this
>> month, and over here in September, so it is known that there will be
>> new material to discuss. I still don't think it will resurrect the
>> dead group, but it is a valid reason for giving it a chance.
> 
> By that token , we know there is a new Trek film being made , and while this 
> group is very quiet it's not entirely dead.
> It won't get back to as busy as it was , but that's no reason to kill it off 
> just yet.
> As an aside I know when and why the group died , and it wasn't really 
> anything to do with trek.

As has been said already, There will be more Trek. I'm sure there are 
other groups worth pruning. As Alex said, there is a new Trek film being 
made and it will eventually pop up on TV again. What's the use in 
dumping a group only for someone to request it's creation again in the 
future?

Aaron - Just adding his voice and realizes he has no idea how much 
space/time/bandwidth/cash/etc it costs to retain a quiet (but not quite 
silent) group.

On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 08:26:42 GMT, Stevie  wrote:

>It's 
>difficult to talk about stuff when there's nothing being shown at the 
>moment.

It's easy to talk about stuff. Just not easy to talk about new Trek
stuff. But since when has umtss been about Trek?!  Its off-topic posts
have historically always far outweighed any on-topic stuff.

But these days there is little, or none, of either.

There were always a handful of "movers-and-shakers" on umtss, they
have all moved on in recent months and years, and lurkers alone are
not capable of sustaining a viable group (in my less than humble
opinion).

Otherwise it would be busier, no?

Paul.
-- 
.. Bill Maher: "Tulips aren't flowers, they're gay onions"
.. A .sig is all well and good, but it's no substitute for a personality
.. Is there a moron carrot above?  Have you replied to it?  Are you sure?
.. EMail: Unless invited to, don't; it's likely to be automatically deleted.

On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 09:03:43 +0100, Dr Zoidberg said...
> 
> By that token , we know there is a new Trek film being made , and while this 
> group is very quiet it's not entirely dead.
> It won't get back to as busy as it was , but that's no reason to kill it off 
> just yet.

Agreed.

> As an aside I know when and why the group died , and it wasn't really 
> anything to do with trek.

And the irony is killing me. I thought Harper would leave us alone after 
he'd swanned off to alt.adjective. I suppose he thinks we should move 
the caption comp there too, once this place is removed.

So, still need to be in control, eh, Paul? Give it a rest please, this 
really is very annoying.

-- 
Mark Myers
usenet2 at mcm2002 dot f9 dot co dot uk
I call that a radical interpretation of the text.

In news:MPG.20fd89f386a33482989717@news.altopia.net,
Mark Myers  typed:
> On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 09:03:43 +0100, Dr Zoidberg said...
>>
>> By that token , we know there is a new Trek film being made , and
>> while this group is very quiet it's not entirely dead.
>> It won't get back to as busy as it was , but that's no reason to
>> kill it off just yet.
>
> Agreed.
>
>> As an aside I know when and why the group died , and it wasn't really
>> anything to do with trek.
>
> And the irony is killing me. I thought Harper would leave us alone
> after he'd swanned off to alt.adjective. I suppose he thinks we
> should move
> the caption comp there too, once this place is removed.
>
> So, still need to be in control, eh, Paul? Give it a rest please, this
> really is very annoying.

Paul is only carrying through a discussion that took place a while ago,
were you part of that discussion, Mark? You obviously have issues
with Paul (that's your concern), however.......in my opinion this thread
isn't the place to air them!

As I see it, there is nothing wrong with this discussion, it is gathering
views from a wider spectrum than before and it's looking like the
group will still be around after that discussion. Will you? I look
forward to your input if the answer is yes.

Dave

Paul Harper wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 09:03:43 +0100, "Dr Zoidberg"
> <alexNOOOOOO!!!!!!!@drzoidberg.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> By that token , we know there is a new Trek film being made , and
>> while this group is very quiet it's not entirely dead.
>
> That was covered in the snipped bit.
>
>> It won't get back to as busy as it was , but that's no reason to
>> kill it off just yet.
>> As an aside I know when and why the group died , and it wasn't really
>> anything to do with trek.
>
> If you are referring to the events of 1st July 2002, for the 12 months
> following that to June 2003, the group had 5198, 2873, 2663, 2267,
> 2112, 1810, 3113, 3130, 2265, 2508, 2627 and 2909 posts respectively*.
>
> Hardly a group dying!

Most of those were the ongoing arguments , and the whole social atmosphere 
of the group died a death.
Many of the regular posters left (to other groups or usenet entirely) , 
never to return.
-- 
Alex

"I laugh in the face of danger. Then I hide until it goes away"

www.drzoidberg.co.uk www.ebayfaq.co.uk

Paul Harper wrote:
>
> Traffic to this group has dropped to a level very close to zero, with
> the only regular posts being the FAQ and comments relating to a web-
> based competition.
>
> A recent small thread on this newsgroup discussing the nature of the
> group threw up only a few posts, none against the idea of the group
> being disbanded.

I would be reluctant to remove any once-active groups on these grounds - at 
least until we can see the future of Usenet a bit clearer.  There's 
slippery-slope argument - it is hard to see how any group would be safe, and 
Krusty is bound to pop up suggesting the removal of unnc :-)
-- 
John Briggs

On Mon, 09 Jul 2007 19:59:58 GMT, "John Briggs"
 wrote:

>Paul Harper wrote:
>>
>> Traffic to this group has dropped to a level very close to zero, with
>> the only regular posts being the FAQ and comments relating to a web-
>> based competition.
>>
>> A recent small thread on this newsgroup discussing the nature of the
>> group threw up only a few posts, none against the idea of the group
>> being disbanded.
>
>I would be reluctant to remove any once-active groups on these grounds - at 
>least until we can see the future of Usenet a bit clearer.

I agree, it seems like a case of removing it just "because
we can". Of course I could say the same about any removal
request, but in this case "close to zero" isn't synonymous
with "zero" so I'd give it the benefit of the doubt... for
now.

>Krusty is bound to pop up suggesting the removal of unnc :-)

The way Usenet is going it may have a point :-(

-- 
John Bean

"John Bean"  wrote in message 
news:lr5593purvmuaqrc08n05s6pmm1mt7kj4v@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 09 Jul 2007 19:59:58 GMT, "John Briggs"
>  wrote:
>
>>Paul Harper wrote:
>>>
>>> Traffic to this group has dropped to a level very close to zero, with
>>> the only regular posts being the FAQ and comments relating to a web-
>>> based competition.
>>>
>>> A recent small thread on this newsgroup discussing the nature of the
>>> group threw up only a few posts, none against the idea of the group
>>> being disbanded.
>>
>>I would be reluctant to remove any once-active groups on these grounds - 
>>at
>>least until we can see the future of Usenet a bit clearer.
>
> I agree, it seems like a case of removing it just "because
> we can". Of course I could say the same about any removal
> request, but in this case "close to zero" isn't synonymous
> with "zero" so I'd give it the benefit of the doubt... for
> now.
>
>>Krusty is bound to pop up suggesting the removal of unnc :-)
>
> The way Usenet is going it may have a point :-(
>
> -- 
> John Bean

I can see where you're coming from Paul - I missed the discussion thread 
though - because I don't browse umtss much any more. If you wanted to kill 
off the Babylon 5 or Buffy newsgroups, there might be a stronger case for 
them. But there again, with TV's penchant for coming around again these 
days, Never Say Never Again.

But the thing about Star Trek, in particular, is that it's a bit like 
Dracula - just when you think you've driven in the last stake, it pops back 
up again for another round.

I can easily see "original" Star Trek being given the Battlestar Galactica 
re-imagining treatment, possibly on the back of the next movie if it makes 
money. And then we'd have to re-invent the group all over again to talk 
about the new series (or go to web-based forums /spit). In the immortal 
words of Sax Rohmer, "The world has not seen the last of ... !"

Plus, this was, my first Usenet "home". I'm just reluctant to tear the place 
down, even if it's only an empty shell these days gathering dust and not 
even a home for squatters.

On 2007-07-09, Mike McKeown  wrote:
> I can see where you're coming from Paul - I missed the discussion thread 
> though - because I don't browse umtss much any more. If you wanted to kill 
> off the Babylon 5 or Buffy newsgroups, there might be a stronger case for 
> them. But there again, with TV's penchant for coming around again these 
> days, Never Say Never Again.
>
> But the thing about Star Trek, in particular, is that it's a bit like 
> Dracula - just when you think you've driven in the last stake, it pops back 
> up again for another round.
>
> I can easily see "original" Star Trek being given the Battlestar Galactica 
> re-imagining treatment, possibly on the back of the next movie if it makes 
> money. And then we'd have to re-invent the group all over again to talk 
> about the new series (or go to web-based forums /spit). In the immortal 
> words of Sax Rohmer, "The world has not seen the last of ... !"
>
> Plus, this was, my first Usenet "home". I'm just reluctant to tear the place 
> down, even if it's only an empty shell these days gathering dust and not 
> even a home for squatters.

I agree with the sentiments posted in this thread.
TV shows have highs and lows. While this may by one of the lowest lows
that Star Trek has has since the end of the original series, but there's
a reasonable probability that it will bounce back.

The cost of keeping it is near-zero.

On 09 Jul 2007 23:48:44 GMT, Av 
wrote:

Rounding up the points made by all posters so far...

>The cost of keeping it is near-zero.

Well, not entirely. The cost of keeping redundant groups hanging
around is the loss of the automatic group-creation that the UK
hierarchy enjoys among the vast majority of usenet suppliers. It's
exactly because the UK hierarchy actively manages down it's dead wood
and is careful how we create new groups that we're made welcome on
their machines. It's one less management headache for them.

The points made elsewhere about the B5 group and Buffy group I can
easily answer:

On the B5 group, I proposed its removal a little while back (having
already removed two of the three B5 groups a while back), but the
valid point was made that we *know* there is new B5 material in the
form of Straczynski's latest franchise extension, the direct-to-dvd
"Lost Tales". The first of these hits the stores in the States this
month, and over here in September, so it is known that there will be
new material to discuss. I still don't think it will resurrect the
dead group, but it is a valid reason for giving it a chance.

The Buffy group, I do not subscribe to, and a removal is best coming
from within (like in my case the two B5 groups, and the broadband
media group as well). I just seems bad manners to storm in somewhere
and start talking about removing the place!

....

Nostalgia is a terrible thing. I know, I suffer from it horrendously.
This place, at its peak, generated over a thousand messages a day,
with dozens and dozens of people all joining in all the time. Great
times.

Past times - those times have gone, we have to acknowledge that. The
wider demise of usenet at the onslaught of Facebook and MySpace and
the other social-networking web-based fora is looking less like the
hype we(I) dismissed it as a few years back, and more like reality.

For the valid reason cited in my first paragraph above, we still need
to tidy up behind ourselves, lest that decline be speeded up when it
becomes difficult to propagate new groups because we're no longer on
"automatic creation" in the uk.* groups.

The thing is, this group *isn't* being used. The regular posting of a
faq, and the weekly caption competition results do not constitute a
group that is being used! In just about every other aspect, it's dead.
I *know* the movie is coming out before much longer, and that might
generate a few hundred posts over a few weeks or months, but it'll be
a flash in the pan. There are no new developments that we know of that
will cause this place to be used regularly again.

However fond we are of it, we *not* using it, and it shouldn't be left
around sitting in the corner of the living room like some elderly
relative until one day someone asks what the bad smell is. It deserves
a decent burial.

Paul.
-- 
.. Bill Maher: "Tulips aren't flowers, they're gay onions"
.. A .sig is all well and good, but it's no substitute for a personality
.. Is there a moron carrot above?  Have you replied to it?  Are you sure?
.. EMail: Unless invited to, don't; it's likely to be automatically deleted.

Paul Harper wrote:
> On 09 Jul 2007 23:48:44 GMT, Av 
> wrote:
>
> Rounding up the points made by all posters so far...
>
>> The cost of keeping it is near-zero.
>
> Well, not entirely. The cost of keeping redundant groups hanging
> around is the loss of the automatic group-creation that the UK
> hierarchy enjoys among the vast majority of usenet suppliers. It's
> exactly because the UK hierarchy actively manages down it's dead wood
> and is careful how we create new groups that we're made welcome on
> their machines. It's one less management headache for them.
>
> The points made elsewhere about the B5 group and Buffy group I can
> easily answer:
>
> On the B5 group, I proposed its removal a little while back (having
> already removed two of the three B5 groups a while back), but the
> valid point was made that we *know* there is new B5 material in the
> form of Straczynski's latest franchise extension, the direct-to-dvd
> "Lost Tales". The first of these hits the stores in the States this
> month, and over here in September, so it is known that there will be
> new material to discuss. I still don't think it will resurrect the
> dead group, but it is a valid reason for giving it a chance.

By that token , we know there is a new Trek film being made , and while this 
group is very quiet it's not entirely dead.
It won't get back to as busy as it was , but that's no reason to kill it off 
just yet.
As an aside I know when and why the group died , and it wasn't really 
anything to do with trek.
-- 
Alex

"I laugh in the face of danger. Then I hide until it goes away"

www.drzoidberg.co.uk www.ebayfaq.co.uk

Paul Harper wrote:
> 
> On the B5 group, I proposed its removal a little while back (having
> already removed two of the three B5 groups a while back), but the
> valid point was made that we *know* there is new B5 material in the
> form of Straczynski's latest franchise extension, the direct-to-dvd
> "Lost Tales". The first of these hits the stores in the States this
> month, and over here in September, so it is known that there will be
> new material to discuss. I still don't think it will resurrect the
> dead group, but it is a valid reason for giving it a chance.
> 
> The Buffy group, I do not subscribe to, and a removal is best coming
> from within (like in my case the two B5 groups, and the broadband
> media group as well). I just seems bad manners to storm in somewhere
> and start talking about removing the place!
> 

Just to point out that a new Star Trek film has already been announced 
and will be out at the end of next year.

Also, from this autumn the new Virgin 1 channel (available on Freeview, 
Sky and Cable) will be showing a lot of Star Trek TNG, DS9 and Voyager 
so it's like that that will also increase traffic here again.  It's 
difficult to talk about stuff when there's nothing being shown at the 
moment.

On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 09:03:43 +0100, "Dr Zoidberg"
<alexNOOOOOO!!!!!!!@drzoidberg.co.uk> wrote:

>By that token , we know there is a new Trek film being made , and while this 
>group is very quiet it's not entirely dead.

That was covered in the snipped bit.

>It won't get back to as busy as it was , but that's no reason to kill it off 
>just yet.
>As an aside I know when and why the group died , and it wasn't really 
>anything to do with trek.

If you are referring to the events of 1st July 2002, for the 12 months
following that to June 2003, the group had 5198, 2873, 2663, 2267,
2112, 1810, 3113, 3130, 2265, 2508, 2627 and 2909 posts respectively*.

Hardly a group dying!

Whereas this year, January to June, it managed 51, 62, 77, 26, 60 and
49 posts each month*, and as I said in my rationale, most of those are
regular posts rather than any discussion (and the "high spots" if they
can be so-called, are discussion on whether the group should be
removed or not!).

* Source: 

Cambridge University stats page:

http://www.cam.ac.uk/cs/newsserver/hierarchy-stats/uk/

Paul.
-- 
.. Bill Maher: "Tulips aren't flowers, they're gay onions"
.. A .sig is all well and good, but it's no substitute for a personality
.. Is there a moron carrot above?  Have you replied to it?  Are you sure?
.. EMail: Unless invited to, don't; it's likely to be automatically deleted.

Dr Zoidberg wrote:
> Paul Harper wrote:
>> On 09 Jul 2007 23:48:44 GMT, Av 
>> wrote:
>>
>> Rounding up the points made by all posters so far...
>>
>>> The cost of keeping it is near-zero.
>> Well, not entirely. The cost of keeping redundant groups hanging
>> around is the loss of the automatic group-creation that the UK
>> hierarchy enjoys among the vast majority of usenet suppliers. It's
>> exactly because the UK hierarchy actively manages down it's dead wood
>> and is careful how we create new groups that we're made welcome on
>> their machines. It's one less management headache for them.
>>
>> The points made elsewhere about the B5 group and Buffy group I can
>> easily answer:
>>
>> On the B5 group, I proposed its removal a little while back (having
>> already removed two of the three B5 groups a while back), but the
>> valid point was made that we *know* there is new B5 material in the
>> form of Straczynski's latest franchise extension, the direct-to-dvd
>> "Lost Tales". The first of these hits the stores in the States this
>> month, and over here in September, so it is known that there will be
>> new material to discuss. I still don't think it will resurrect the
>> dead group, but it is a valid reason for giving it a chance.
> 
> By that token , we know there is a new Trek film being made , and while this 
> group is very quiet it's not entirely dead.
> It won't get back to as busy as it was , but that's no reason to kill it off 
> just yet.
> As an aside I know when and why the group died , and it wasn't really 
> anything to do with trek.

As has been said already, There will be more Trek. I'm sure there are 
other groups worth pruning. As Alex said, there is a new Trek film being 
made and it will eventually pop up on TV again. What's the use in 
dumping a group only for someone to request it's creation again in the 
future?

Aaron - Just adding his voice and realizes he has no idea how much 
space/time/bandwidth/cash/etc it costs to retain a quiet (but not quite 
silent) group.

On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 08:26:42 GMT, Stevie  wrote:

>It's 
>difficult to talk about stuff when there's nothing being shown at the 
>moment.

It's easy to talk about stuff. Just not easy to talk about new Trek
stuff. But since when has umtss been about Trek?!  Its off-topic posts
have historically always far outweighed any on-topic stuff.

But these days there is little, or none, of either.

There were always a handful of "movers-and-shakers" on umtss, they
have all moved on in recent months and years, and lurkers alone are
not capable of sustaining a viable group (in my less than humble
opinion).

Otherwise it would be busier, no?

Paul.
-- 
.. Bill Maher: "Tulips aren't flowers, they're gay onions"
.. A .sig is all well and good, but it's no substitute for a personality
.. Is there a moron carrot above?  Have you replied to it?  Are you sure?
.. EMail: Unless invited to, don't; it's likely to be automatically deleted.

On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 09:03:43 +0100, Dr Zoidberg said...
> 
> By that token , we know there is a new Trek film being made , and while this 
> group is very quiet it's not entirely dead.
> It won't get back to as busy as it was , but that's no reason to kill it off 
> just yet.

Agreed.

> As an aside I know when and why the group died , and it wasn't really 
> anything to do with trek.

And the irony is killing me. I thought Harper would leave us alone after 
he'd swanned off to alt.adjective. I suppose he thinks we should move 
the caption comp there too, once this place is removed.

So, still need to be in control, eh, Paul? Give it a rest please, this 
really is very annoying.

-- 
Mark Myers
usenet2 at mcm2002 dot f9 dot co dot uk
I call that a radical interpretation of the text.

In news:MPG.20fd89f386a33482989717@news.altopia.net,
Mark Myers  typed:
> On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 09:03:43 +0100, Dr Zoidberg said...
>>
>> By that token , we know there is a new Trek film being made , and
>> while this group is very quiet it's not entirely dead.
>> It won't get back to as busy as it was , but that's no reason to
>> kill it off just yet.
>
> Agreed.
>
>> As an aside I know when and why the group died , and it wasn't really
>> anything to do with trek.
>
> And the irony is killing me. I thought Harper would leave us alone
> after he'd swanned off to alt.adjective. I suppose he thinks we
> should move
> the caption comp there too, once this place is removed.
>
> So, still need to be in control, eh, Paul? Give it a rest please, this
> really is very annoying.

Paul is only carrying through a discussion that took place a while ago,
were you part of that discussion, Mark? You obviously have issues
with Paul (that's your concern), however.......in my opinion this thread
isn't the place to air them!

As I see it, there is nothing wrong with this discussion, it is gathering
views from a wider spectrum than before and it's looking like the
group will still be around after that discussion. Will you? I look
forward to your input if the answer is yes.

Dave

Paul Harper wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 09:03:43 +0100, "Dr Zoidberg"
> <alexNOOOOOO!!!!!!!@drzoidberg.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> By that token , we know there is a new Trek film being made , and
>> while this group is very quiet it's not entirely dead.
>
> That was covered in the snipped bit.
>
>> It won't get back to as busy as it was , but that's no reason to
>> kill it off just yet.
>> As an aside I know when and why the group died , and it wasn't really
>> anything to do with trek.
>
> If you are referring to the events of 1st July 2002, for the 12 months
> following that to June 2003, the group had 5198, 2873, 2663, 2267,
> 2112, 1810, 3113, 3130, 2265, 2508, 2627 and 2909 posts respectively*.
>
> Hardly a group dying!

Most of those were the ongoing arguments , and the whole social atmosphere 
of the group died a death.
Many of the regular posters left (to other groups or usenet entirely) , 
never to return.
-- 
Alex

"I laugh in the face of danger. Then I hide until it goes away"

www.drzoidberg.co.uk www.ebayfaq.co.uk

Paul Harper wrote:
> 
> For the valid reason cited in my first paragraph above, we still need
> to tidy up behind ourselves, lest that decline be speeded up when it
> becomes difficult to propagate new groups because we're no longer on
> "automatic creation" in the uk.* groups.
> 
> The thing is, this group *isn't* being used. The regular posting of a
> faq, and the weekly caption competition results do not constitute a
> group that is being used! In just about every other aspect, it's dead.
> I *know* the movie is coming out before much longer, and that might
> generate a few hundred posts over a few weeks or months, but it'll be
> a flash in the pan. There are no new developments that we know of that
> will cause this place to be used regularly again.
> 

If this is the case (we need to prune dead groups to stop being a burden 
to society) then there's loads of other candidates just in the 
uk.media.tv heirarchy for shows that are dead and have absolutely no 
chance of being resurrected:

uk.media.tv.xena
uk.media.tv.dawsons-creek
uk.media.tv.brookside
uk.media.tv.robot-wars
uk.media.tv.sf.farscape

are five that jump out.

A futher couple are

uk.media.tv.angel
uk.media.tv.buffy
uk.media.tv.sf.x-files

Although I'd class those as 'shows not completely dead' (Buffy/Angel is 
carrying on as a graphic novel, a 2nd X-Files film is supposed to be 
made in the next few years.

Let's get rid of these first before we scrap what someone in a few 
months time might actually want to use again.

On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 13:27:10 +0100, David Wilcox said...
> In news:MPG.20fd89f386a33482989717@news.altopia.net,
> Mark Myers  typed:
> > On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 09:03:43 +0100, Dr Zoidberg said...
> >>
> >> By that token , we know there is a new Trek film being made , and
> >> while this group is very quiet it's not entirely dead.
> >> It won't get back to as busy as it was , but that's no reason to
> >> kill it off just yet.
> >
> > Agreed.
> >
> >> As an aside I know when and why the group died , and it wasn't really
> >> anything to do with trek.
> >
> > And the irony is killing me. I thought Harper would leave us alone
> > after he'd swanned off to alt.adjective. I suppose he thinks we
> > should move
> > the caption comp there too, once this place is removed.
> >
> > So, still need to be in control, eh, Paul? Give it a rest please, this
> > really is very annoying.
> 
> Paul is only carrying through a discussion that took place a while ago,
> were you part of that discussion, Mark? 

I saw it. As I recall it was only you and PH who actually advocated 
shutting umtss down. And as it was unofficial I decided to ignore it.

But this call for a discussion on umtss closure is official, and 
crossposted to unnc so I'm making my views known. I'd like the group to 
continue.

> You obviously have issues
> with Paul (that's your concern), however.......in my opinion this thread
> isn't the place to air them!

You're probably right about that. It's just that this thread is making 
me suffer from irony overload. Perhaps if PH had continued to post on 
umtss, rather than leaving and taking 50 percent of the regulars with 
him, I might not find it so ludicrous when he comes back five years 
later and tries to close umtss down. Obviously, depending on which side 
of the fence you sat at the time, then YMMV.

> As I see it, there is nothing wrong with this discussion, it is gathering
> views from a wider spectrum than before and it's looking like the
> group will still be around after that discussion. Will you? I look
> forward to your input if the answer is yes.

I've never unsubscribed from umtss, no matter how quiet it's been, and I 
don't intend to while the group exists, but there's been precious little 
Trek to talk about recently. Hopefully the upcoming film will help with 
that.

-- 
Mark Myers
usenet2 at mcm2002 dot f9 dot co dot uk
I call that a radical interpretation of the text.

Stevie wrote:
> Paul Harper wrote:
>>
>> For the valid reason cited in my first paragraph above, we still need
>> to tidy up behind ourselves, lest that decline be speeded up when it
>> becomes difficult to propagate new groups because we're no longer on
>> "automatic creation" in the uk.* groups.
>>
>> The thing is, this group *isn't* being used. The regular posting of a
>> faq, and the weekly caption competition results do not constitute a
>> group that is being used! In just about every other aspect, it's
>> dead. I *know* the movie is coming out before much longer, and that
>> might generate a few hundred posts over a few weeks or months, but
>> it'll be a flash in the pan. There are no new developments that we
>> know of that will cause this place to be used regularly again.
>>
>
> If this is the case (we need to prune dead groups to stop being a
> burden to society) then there's loads of other candidates just in the
> uk.media.tv heirarchy for shows that are dead and have absolutely no
> chance of being resurrected:
>
> uk.media.tv.xena
> uk.media.tv.dawsons-creek
> uk.media.tv.brookside
> uk.media.tv.robot-wars
> uk.media.tv.sf.farscape
>
> are five that jump out.
>
> A futher couple are
>
> uk.media.tv.angel
> uk.media.tv.buffy
> uk.media.tv.sf.x-files
>
> Although I'd class those as 'shows not completely dead' (Buffy/Angel
> is carrying on as a graphic novel, a 2nd X-Files film is supposed to
> be made in the next few years.
>
> Let's get rid of these first before we scrap what someone in a few
> months time might actually want to use again.

Seems reasonable to me.
I'd certainly vote against it
-- 
Alex

"I laugh in the face of danger. Then I hide until it goes away"

www.drzoidberg.co.uk www.ebayfaq.co.uk

On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 14:58:22 +0100, "Dr Zoidberg"
<alexNOOOOOO!!!!!!!@drzoidberg.co.uk> wrote:

>Paul Harper wrote:
>> On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 09:03:43 +0100, "Dr Zoidberg"
>> <alexNOOOOOO!!!!!!!@drzoidberg.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> By that token , we know there is a new Trek film being made , and
>>> while this group is very quiet it's not entirely dead.
>>
>> That was covered in the snipped bit.
>>
>>> It won't get back to as busy as it was , but that's no reason to
>>> kill it off just yet.
>>> As an aside I know when and why the group died , and it wasn't really
>>> anything to do with trek.
>>
>> If you are referring to the events of 1st July 2002, for the 12 months
>> following that to June 2003, the group had 5198, 2873, 2663, 2267,
>> 2112, 1810, 3113, 3130, 2265, 2508, 2627 and 2909 posts respectively*.
>>
>> Hardly a group dying!
>
>Most of those were the ongoing arguments , and the whole social atmosphere 
>of the group died a death.
>Many of the regular posters left (to other groups or usenet entirely) , 
>never to return.

Looking at the numbers, that didn't have any significant effect on the
posting rate for at least a year afterwards.

I find it hard to believe that even umtss carried on arguments for a
whole year!!

Paul.
-- 
.. Bill Maher: "Tulips aren't flowers, they're gay onions"
.. A .sig is all well and good, but it's no substitute for a personality
.. Is there a moron carrot above?  Have you replied to it?  Are you sure?
.. EMail: Unless invited to, don't; it's likely to be automatically deleted.

Mark Myers wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 13:27:10 +0100, David Wilcox said...

>> Paul is only carrying through a discussion that took place a while ago,
>> were you part of that discussion, Mark?
> 
> I saw it. As I recall it was only you and PH who actually advocated
> shutting umtss down. And as it was unofficial I decided to ignore it.
> 
> But this call for a discussion on umtss closure is official, and
> crossposted to unnc so I'm making my views known. I'd like the group to
> continue.

this is my view as well

On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 13:20:59 +0100, Mark Myers  wrote:

>On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 09:03:43 +0100, Dr Zoidberg said...
>> 
>> By that token , we know there is a new Trek film being made , and while this 
>> group is very quiet it's not entirely dead.
>> It won't get back to as busy as it was , but that's no reason to kill it off 
>> just yet.
>
>Agreed.
>
>> As an aside I know when and why the group died , and it wasn't really 
>> anything to do with trek.
>
>And the irony is killing me. I thought Harper would leave us alone after 
>he'd swanned off to alt.adjective. I suppose he thinks we should move 
>the caption comp there too, once this place is removed.
>
>So, still need to be in control, eh, Paul? Give it a rest please, this 
>really is very annoying.

<curious look>

A strange attitude from someone who took no part in the informal
discussion that reached such a non-conclusion that the formal process
was started. Perhaps had you stated an opinion back then instead of
imperiously ignoring it, it might not have been necessary to formalise
the discussion to prompt people into life.

As to "give it a rest" - this implies activity. Which activity are you
referring to? I am genuinely puzzled here - clearly you have a huge
chip on your shoulder with respect to me, and I have no problem with
that (you are not a significant part of my life, and therefore by
implication are either insignificant or non-existant, and there is no
point getting upset about such things, so I don't), however I feel it
would help your case if you could stick to the point in hand.

The caption competition is already, and always has been, web-based. It
does not need moving.

Your annoyance is noted. I don't intend to do anything about it, but
it is noted.

Paul.
-- 
.. Bill Maher: "Tulips aren't flowers, they're gay onions"
.. A .sig is all well and good, but it's no substitute for a personality
.. Is there a moron carrot above?  Have you replied to it?  Are you sure?
.. EMail: Unless invited to, don't; it's likely to be automatically deleted.

On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 16:31:48 +0100, "Dr Zoidberg"
<alexNOOOOOO!!!!!!!@drzoidberg.co.uk> wrote:

>Seems reasonable to me.
>I'd certainly vote against it

A sensible response - thanks. People will have a chance to vote on the
topic in a few weeks time.

Paul.
-- 
.. Bill Maher: "Tulips aren't flowers, they're gay onions"
.. A .sig is all well and good, but it's no substitute for a personality
.. Is there a moron carrot above?  Have you replied to it?  Are you sure?
.. EMail: Unless invited to, don't; it's likely to be automatically deleted.

On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 16:19:38 +0100, Mark Myers  wrote:

>Perhaps if PH had continued to post on 
>umtss, rather than leaving and taking 50 percent of the regulars with 
>him

Gosh. I had no idea I was such a powerful deity figure. Wow. Okay,
time to regain a tenuous grip on reality here. If I left after a
falling out with someone, then that was my call. If others did too
that was their call. Nobody "took" anyone anywhere - there are few
sheep on umtss, and it is insulting to the group membership - past
regulars or otherwise - to label them as such.

If what was left after I'd gone was of insufficient interest to keep
the group going (and the quoted numbers don't by any means support
that assertion) then surely it represents a failure on the part of the
remaining group membership?

If this place solely relied upon me and a small handful of others to
keep it going - and that seems to be the accusation - then it never
*was* viable.

Paul (staggered that some people are so shallow as to still be pissed
off five years after the event [and yes, I do mean you Mark], despite
me being intermittently back in the group for a couple of years now
and them not saying a word in the interim. Absolutely staggered).
-- 
.. Bill Maher: "Tulips aren't flowers, they're gay onions"
.. A .sig is all well and good, but it's no substitute for a personality
.. Is there a moron carrot above?  Have you replied to it?  Are you sure?
.. EMail: Unless invited to, don't; it's likely to be automatically deleted.

In news:f6a7935vf6vu77r6gvfpqjj88udeeuuqjo@4ax.com,
Paul Harper  typed:
> On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 16:31:48 +0100, "Dr Zoidberg"
> <alexNOOOOOO!!!!!!!@drzoidberg.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> Seems reasonable to me.
>> I'd certainly vote against it
>
> A sensible response - thanks. People will have a chance to vote on the
> topic in a few weeks time.
>
> Paul.

To be honest I'm flabbergasted at the amount of support the
save it camp has received. If I knew there were so many people
out there that wanted to keep posting there I'd have kept my
mouth shut a few months ago and not come out with the throw
away comment about getting rid.

What I would like to know, to all the people I know and respect,
is what it is they all want to save exactly, when and what do people
intend to post on UMTSS. It's not really been a Star Trek group per
se for about 6 years! I've started threads, I've answered threads
and they die soon after. To me, there seems very little actual
interest in the group apart from, "well it might come back to life
again soon"!! That's been said for about 2 years now. I'm
cynically unconvinced to be honest.

If the group "regulars" say keep it then hey ho, it stays, I'll be
very interested to see how much traffic there is in the following
weeks and months.

Dave

On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 13:27:10 +0100, "David Wilcox"
 wrote:

>As I see it, there is nothing wrong with this discussion, it is gathering
>views from a wider spectrum than before and it's looking like the
>group will still be around after that discussion.

Agreed, it does seem that way. Though I suspect that any voices
dissenting from the norm might be afraid to speak up, so I will
probably ask UKV to run a vote at the end of it anyway, just to make
sure everyone gets a chance, and to actually put some numbers on the
feeling. After all, if only a dozen people want the group to continue,
it's hardly a vibrant entity, is it!

Still, with a little luck, if enough people *do* want it to continue,
this discussion might wake them up and make them think of posting here
again and getting something started.

If not, then as has been previously stated, this place is dead. If the
comatose (and very well hidden) "masses" can't be bothered to use a
group after it's been threatened with removal, it makes the point far
clearer than any RFD can.

And the process can always be repeated after a suitable period.

Paul.
-- 
.. Bill Maher: "Tulips aren't flowers, they're gay onions"
.. A .sig is all well and good, but it's no substitute for a personality
.. Is there a moron carrot above?  Have you replied to it?  Are you sure?
.. EMail: Unless invited to, don't; it's likely to be automatically deleted.

On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 08:24:15 +0100, Paul Harper 
wrote:

>On 09 Jul 2007 23:48:44 GMT, Av 
>wrote:
>
>Rounding up the points made by all posters so far...
>
>>The cost of keeping it is near-zero.
>
>Well, not entirely. The cost of keeping redundant groups hanging
>around is the loss of the automatic group-creation that the UK
>hierarchy enjoys among the vast majority of usenet suppliers. It's
>exactly because the UK hierarchy actively manages down it's dead wood
>and is careful how we create new groups that we're made welcome on
>their machines. It's one less management headache for them.

Who are these 'usenet suppliers' you talk about?

I use NIN, panix and soon zen.

I don't think any of them care about the creation or removal of one
uk.* group.

Having read the other posts in this thread it seems to me that you
have a hidden agenda I don't understand.

I would vote against the removal of the Star Trek group.

Vic

On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 17:00:02 +0100, "David Wilcox"
 wrote:

>To be honest I'm flabbergasted at the amount of support the
>save it camp has received. If I knew there were so many people
>out there that wanted to keep posting there I'd have kept my
>mouth shut a few months ago and not come out with the throw
>away comment about getting rid.

Well, I count three tentative "no"s and three firm ones. I haven't
stated a view and neither have you. But then this is only the first
day and most folk aren't home yet. We'll see where it goes. Not a huge
response by any means so far, though.

>If the group "regulars" say keep it then hey ho, it stays, I'll be
>very interested to see how much traffic there is in the following
>weeks and months.

That'll be the proof of the assertion that it's worth keeping or
evidence that people are just pointlessly hanging onto a dead past.

I know where I suspect it'll go, and I hope I'm wrong.

Paul.
-- 
.. Bill Maher: "Tulips aren't flowers, they're gay onions"
.. A .sig is all well and good, but it's no substitute for a personality
.. Is there a moron carrot above?  Have you replied to it?  Are you sure?
.. EMail: Unless invited to, don't; it's likely to be automatically deleted.

On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 17:03:14 +0100, Victor Meldrew
 wrote:

>I don't think any of them care about the creation or removal of one
>uk.* group.

It's a principle thing. This has been explained elsewhere in the
thread.

>Having read the other posts in this thread it seems to me that you
>have a hidden agenda I don't understand.

Nope. Others (well, one other) may ascribe such a thing to me, but
that doesn't make them right. They say "mud sticks" but what they
forget to mention is that it mostly sticks to the person throwing it.

>I would vote against the removal of the Star Trek group.

Thank you for the information. That's all I needed.

Paul.
-- 
.. Bill Maher: "Tulips aren't flowers, they're gay onions"
.. A .sig is all well and good, but it's no substitute for a personality
.. Is there a moron carrot above?  Have you replied to it?  Are you sure?
.. EMail: Unless invited to, don't; it's likely to be automatically deleted.

In uk.media.tv.sf.startrek on Tue, 10 Jul 2007, Victor Meldrew wrote :
>On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 08:24:15 +0100, Paul Harper 
>wrote:
>
>>On 09 Jul 2007 23:48:44 GMT, Av 
>>wrote:
>>
>>Rounding up the points made by all posters so far...
>>
>>>The cost of keeping it is near-zero.
>>
>>Well, not entirely. The cost of keeping redundant groups hanging
>>around is the loss of the automatic group-creation that the UK
>>hierarchy enjoys among the vast majority of usenet suppliers. It's
>>exactly because the UK hierarchy actively manages down it's dead wood
>>and is careful how we create new groups that we're made welcome on
>>their machines. It's one less management headache for them.
>
>Who are these 'usenet suppliers' you talk about?
>
>I use NIN, panix and soon zen.
>
>I don't think any of them care about the creation or removal of one
>uk.* group.
>
>Having read the other posts in this thread it seems to me that you
>have a hidden agenda I don't understand.
>
>I would vote against the removal of the Star Trek group.

Me2
-- 
Paul 'Charts Fan' Hyett

In uk.media.tv.sf.startrek on Tue, 10 Jul 2007, Stevie wrote :
>Paul Harper wrote:
>>  For the valid reason cited in my first paragraph above, we still 
>>need
>> to tidy up behind ourselves, lest that decline be speeded up when it
>> becomes difficult to propagate new groups because we're no longer on
>> "automatic creation" in the uk.* groups.
>>  The thing is, this group *isn't* being used. The regular posting of 
>>
>> faq, and the weekly caption competition results do not constitute a
>> group that is being used! In just about every other aspect, it's dead.
>> I *know* the movie is coming out before much longer, and that might
>> generate a few hundred posts over a few weeks or months, but it'll be
>> a flash in the pan. There are no new developments that we know of that
>> will cause this place to be used regularly again.
>>
>
>If this is the case (we need to prune dead groups to stop being a 
>burden to society) then there's loads of other candidates just in the 
>uk.media.tv heirarchy for shows that are dead and have absolutely no 
>chance of being resurrected:
>
>uk.media.tv.xena
>uk.media.tv.dawsons-creek
>uk.media.tv.brookside

>uk.media.tv.robot-wars

That was one of mine - and even I agree it should receive the last 
rites...
-- 
Paul 'Charts Fan' Hyett

In uk.media.tv.sf.startrek on Tue, 10 Jul 2007, Paul Harper wrote :
>
>>If the group "regulars" say keep it then hey ho, it stays, I'll be
>>very interested to see how much traffic there is in the following
>>weeks and months.
>
>That'll be the proof of the assertion that it's worth keeping or
>evidence that people are just pointlessly hanging onto a dead past.

That's what kept the ST franchise alive after TOS was cancelled, don't 
forget... :)
-- 
Paul 'Charts Fan' Hyett

On 10 Jul, 16:42, Paul Harper  wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 16:31:48 +0100, "Dr Zoidberg"
>
> <alexNOOOOOO!!!!...@drzoidberg.co.uk> wrote:
> >Seems reasonable to me.
> >I'd certainly vote against it
>

so say we all...
oops, wrong show.
Still holds though

AndyB

Paul Harper wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 13:27:10 +0100, "David Wilcox"
>  wrote:
>
>> As I see it, there is nothing wrong with this discussion, it is
>> gathering views from a wider spectrum than before and it's looking
>> like the
>> group will still be around after that discussion.
>
> Agreed, it does seem that way. Though I suspect that any voices
> dissenting from the norm might be afraid to speak up, so I will
> probably ask UKV to run a vote at the end of it anyway, just to make
> sure everyone gets a chance, and to actually put some numbers on the
> feeling. After all, if only a dozen people want the group to continue,
> it's hardly a vibrant entity, is it!

Let me get this clear: you are saying that if no-one supports you, it is 
because they are too scared to do so, so you want to run the vote anyway? 
Are you sure you are not making an application to run for the Four Fuckwits 
of the Apocalypse [TM]?  Have you turned into Cummins or the other idiot?
-- 
John Briggs

The Trademark "Four Fuckwits of the Apocalypse" is the intellectual property
of Ali Hopkins (whom God preserve).

Paul Harper wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 17:03:14 +0100, Victor Meldrew
>  wrote:
>
>> I don't think any of them care about the creation or removal of one
>> uk.* group.
>
> It's a principle thing. This has been explained elsewhere in the
> thread.
>
>> Having read the other posts in this thread it seems to me that you
>> have a hidden agenda I don't understand.
>
> Nope. Others (well, one other) may ascribe such a thing to me, but
> that doesn't make them right. They say "mud sticks" but what they
> forget to mention is that it mostly sticks to the person throwing it.
>
>> I would vote against the removal of the Star Trek group.
>
> Thank you for the information. That's all I needed.

Hardly, because you've said you will go ahead regardless.
-- 
John Briggs

Paul Harper wrote:
>> The cost of keeping it is near-zero.
> 
> Well, not entirely. The cost of keeping redundant groups hanging
> around is the loss of the automatic group-creation that the UK
> hierarchy enjoys among the vast majority of usenet suppliers. It's
> exactly because the UK hierarchy actively manages down it's dead wood
> and is careful how we create new groups that we're made welcome on
> their machines. It's one less management headache for them.

Looking at the Cambridge University statistics pages, the group does
however appear to have been in the top 45% of the uk.* groups listed on
that page for May and June. Admittedly those figures are just taken from
one news server so are unlikely to be complete and they aren't
particularly impressive posting figures for the group, but would most
news servers see the removal of the group as being for that purpose? Is
the presence of this discussion more important to the UK hierarchy than
the actual removal of the group?

For reasons similar to those mentioned by Mike and Av, I would be voting
 against the removal of the group. Whilst the prospect of discussions
when the film comes out may not be enough of a reason to create such a
group, to me it seems enough to keep it going.

Ameet

On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 19:49:12 GMT, "John Briggs"
 wrote:

>Paul Harper wrote:
>> On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 17:03:14 +0100, Victor Meldrew
>>  wrote:

>>> I would vote against the removal of the Star Trek group.
>>
>> Thank you for the information. That's all I needed.
>
>Hardly, because you've said you will go ahead regardless.

It is needed for the summary of discussion if the summary is to be
accurate. Your white heat of righteous indignation is dimming your
sight John. Calm down.

Paul.
-- 
.. Bill Maher: "Tulips aren't flowers, they're gay onions"
.. A .sig is all well and good, but it's no substitute for a personality
.. Is there a moron carrot above?  Have you replied to it?  Are you sure?
.. EMail: Unless invited to, don't; it's likely to be automatically deleted.

On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 20:58:17 +0100, Ameet Shah
<ameet.shah.usenet@invalid.invalid> wrote:

>Looking at the Cambridge University statistics pages, the group does
>however appear to have been in the top 45% of the uk.* groups listed on
>that page for May and June. Admittedly those figures are just taken from
>one news server so are unlikely to be complete and they aren't
>particularly impressive posting figures for the group, but would most
>news servers see the removal of the group as being for that purpose? Is
>the presence of this discussion more important to the UK hierarchy than
>the actual removal of the group?

As mentioned in another post, what happens to other groups is a matter
for their subscribers (or Dr Death, should he every get over his
incapacitating hayfever). I subscribe to this group, and have been an
active member of it. It is not unreasonable for someone like that to
ask the question I am in the way I am.

>For reasons similar to those mentioned by Mike and Av, I would be voting
> against the removal of the group. Whilst the prospect of discussions
>when the film comes out may not be enough of a reason to create such a
>group, to me it seems enough to keep it going.

Thanks for the response, Ameet.

Paul.
-- 
.. Bill Maher: "Tulips aren't flowers, they're gay onions"
.. A .sig is all well and good, but it's no substitute for a personality
.. Is there a moron carrot above?  Have you replied to it?  Are you sure?
.. EMail: Unless invited to, don't; it's likely to be automatically deleted.

On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 20:58:17 +0100, Ameet Shah
<ameet.shah.usenet@invalid.invalid> wrote:

>Is
>the presence of this discussion more important to the UK hierarchy than
>the actual removal of the group?

A crown of gold to the man who in the middle of the wood, spots the
trees.

Paul.
-- 
.. Bill Maher: "Tulips aren't flowers, they're gay onions"
.. A .sig is all well and good, but it's no substitute for a personality
.. Is there a moron carrot above?  Have you replied to it?  Are you sure?
.. EMail: Unless invited to, don't; it's likely to be automatically deleted.

On Jul 10, 8:29 pm, AndyB  wrote:
> On 10 Jul, 16:42, Paul Harper  wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 16:31:48 +0100, "Dr Zoidberg"
>
> > <alexNOOOOOO!!!!...@drzoidberg.co.uk> wrote:
> > >Seems reasonable to me.
> > >I'd certainly vote against it
>
> so say we all...
> oops, wrong show.
> Still holds though
>
> AndyB

I would also vote against removing the group.

James

Paul Harper wrote:
>
> Traffic to this group has dropped to a level very close to zero, with
> the only regular posts being the FAQ and comments relating to a web-
> based competition.
>
> A recent small thread on this newsgroup discussing the nature of the
> group threw up only a few posts, none against the idea of the group
> being disbanded.

I would be reluctant to remove any once-active groups on these grounds - at 
least until we can see the future of Usenet a bit clearer.  There's 
slippery-slope argument - it is hard to see how any group would be safe, and 
Krusty is bound to pop up suggesting the removal of unnc :-)
-- 
John Briggs

On Mon, 09 Jul 2007 19:59:58 GMT, "John Briggs"
 wrote:

>Paul Harper wrote:
>>
>> Traffic to this group has dropped to a level very close to zero, with
>> the only regular posts being the FAQ and comments relating to a web-
>> based competition.
>>
>> A recent small thread on this newsgroup discussing the nature of the
>> group threw up only a few posts, none against the idea of the group
>> being disbanded.
>
>I would be reluctant to remove any once-active groups on these grounds - at 
>least until we can see the future of Usenet a bit clearer.

I agree, it seems like a case of removing it just "because
we can". Of course I could say the same about any removal
request, but in this case "close to zero" isn't synonymous
with "zero" so I'd give it the benefit of the doubt... for
now.

>Krusty is bound to pop up suggesting the removal of unnc :-)

The way Usenet is going it may have a point :-(

-- 
John Bean

"John Bean"  wrote in message 
news:lr5593purvmuaqrc08n05s6pmm1mt7kj4v@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 09 Jul 2007 19:59:58 GMT, "John Briggs"
>  wrote:
>
>>Paul Harper wrote:
>>>
>>> Traffic to this group has dropped to a level very close to zero, with
>>> the only regular posts being the FAQ and comments relating to a web-
>>> based competition.
>>>
>>> A recent small thread on this newsgroup discussing the nature of the
>>> group threw up only a few posts, none against the idea of the group
>>> being disbanded.
>>
>>I would be reluctant to remove any once-active groups on these grounds - 
>>at
>>least until we can see the future of Usenet a bit clearer.
>
> I agree, it seems like a case of removing it just "because
> we can". Of course I could say the same about any removal
> request, but in this case "close to zero" isn't synonymous
> with "zero" so I'd give it the benefit of the doubt... for
> now.
>
>>Krusty is bound to pop up suggesting the removal of unnc :-)
>
> The way Usenet is going it may have a point :-(
>
> -- 
> John Bean

I can see where you're coming from Paul - I missed the discussion thread 
though - because I don't browse umtss much any more. If you wanted to kill 
off the Babylon 5 or Buffy newsgroups, there might be a stronger case for 
them. But there again, with TV's penchant for coming around again these 
days, Never Say Never Again.

But the thing about Star Trek, in particular, is that it's a bit like 
Dracula - just when you think you've driven in the last stake, it pops back 
up again for another round.

I can easily see "original" Star Trek being given the Battlestar Galactica 
re-imagining treatment, possibly on the back of the next movie if it makes 
money. And then we'd have to re-invent the group all over again to talk 
about the new series (or go to web-based forums /spit). In the immortal 
words of Sax Rohmer, "The world has not seen the last of ... !"

Plus, this was, my first Usenet "home". I'm just reluctant to tear the place 
down, even if it's only an empty shell these days gathering dust and not 
even a home for squatters.

On 2007-07-09, Mike McKeown  wrote:
> I can see where you're coming from Paul - I missed the discussion thread 
> though - because I don't browse umtss much any more. If you wanted to kill 
> off the Babylon 5 or Buffy newsgroups, there might be a stronger case for 
> them. But there again, with TV's penchant for coming around again these 
> days, Never Say Never Again.
>
> But the thing about Star Trek, in particular, is that it's a bit like 
> Dracula - just when you think you've driven in the last stake, it pops back 
> up again for another round.
>
> I can easily see "original" Star Trek being given the Battlestar Galactica 
> re-imagining treatment, possibly on the back of the next movie if it makes 
> money. And then we'd have to re-invent the group all over again to talk 
> about the new series (or go to web-based forums /spit). In the immortal 
> words of Sax Rohmer, "The world has not seen the last of ... !"
>
> Plus, this was, my first Usenet "home". I'm just reluctant to tear the place 
> down, even if it's only an empty shell these days gathering dust and not 
> even a home for squatters.

I agree with the sentiments posted in this thread.
TV shows have highs and lows. While this may by one of the lowest lows
that Star Trek has has since the end of the original series, but there's
a reasonable probability that it will bounce back.

The cost of keeping it is near-zero.

On 09 Jul 2007 23:48:44 GMT, Av 
wrote:

Rounding up the points made by all posters so far...

>The cost of keeping it is near-zero.

Well, not entirely. The cost of keeping redundant groups hanging
around is the loss of the automatic group-creation that the UK
hierarchy enjoys among the vast majority of usenet suppliers. It's
exactly because the UK hierarchy actively manages down it's dead wood
and is careful how we create new groups that we're made welcome on
their machines. It's one less management headache for them.

The points made elsewhere about the B5 group and Buffy group I can
easily answer:

On the B5 group, I proposed its removal a little while back (having
already removed two of the three B5 groups a while back), but the
valid point was made that we *know* there is new B5 material in the
form of Straczynski's latest franchise extension, the direct-to-dvd
"Lost Tales". The first of these hits the stores in the States this
month, and over here in September, so it is known that there will be
new material to discuss. I still don't think it will resurrect the
dead group, but it is a valid reason for giving it a chance.

The Buffy group, I do not subscribe to, and a removal is best coming
from within (like in my case the two B5 groups, and the broadband
media group as well). I just seems bad manners to storm in somewhere
and start talking about removing the place!

....

Nostalgia is a terrible thing. I know, I suffer from it horrendously.
This place, at its peak, generated over a thousand messages a day,
with dozens and dozens of people all joining in all the time. Great
times.

Past times - those times have gone, we have to acknowledge tha