Quoting  Geoff Berrow  :
> wrote:
>>I'm impressed at the sheer amount of weaselling going on to suggest that a
>>piece of wording which is expected to be in every RFD should go nowhere
>>near the Guidelines, but at the end of the line, there's something to
>>document, document it. It's the committee's job.
>I repeat, it's not part of the official guidelines.  'No HTML' may
>well be  the de facto case but until someone writes an RFD to put it
>in the guidelines, there is nothing to document.  The committee can't
>simply alter the guidelines as it sees fit.

I'm not suggesting you do, of course. I am suggesting you RFD to update
the Guidelines to fit the actual practice.

Out of interest, if you don't think the Committee's mandate to document
processes includes updating the Guidelines, do you think it means anything
at all? And, if so, what?

>>Trying to prevent the RFD for urcm from being posted to urc was nothing
>>but obstructionism on the Committee's part, for example.
>Members of the committee simply gave well intentioned advice.

No, that particular piece of obstructionism was neither advice nor
helpful. God knows what the intention was.
-- 
David Damerell  Oil is for sissies
Yesterday was Second Chedday, September - a weekend.
Today is Second Stilday, September - a weekend.
Tomorrow will be First Potmos, October.

David Damerell  said:


>
> I'm not suggesting you do, of course. I am suggesting you RFD to
> update the Guidelines to fit the actual practice.
>

Why don't you do it?


-- 
kat
   >^..^<

On 09 Oct 2009 12:55:43 +0100 (BST), David Damerell
 wrote:

>>I repeat, it's not part of the official guidelines.  'No HTML' may
>>well be  the de facto case but until someone writes an RFD to put it
>>in the guidelines, there is nothing to document.  The committee can't
>>simply alter the guidelines as it sees fit.
>
>I'm not suggesting you do, of course. I am suggesting you RFD to update
>the Guidelines to fit the actual practice.

Me?  Or by 'you' do you mean the committee collectively?  If you mean
collectively, well there is simply no mechanism or precedent for that
happening AFAIK. Nor would it be advisable.  Ian is already accusing
the committee of bikeshedding - can you imagine the flak that would
come our way if we tried to change the rules as well?????  You simply
haven't thought this through have you?

I could do it personally, of course, as could you.  This is precisely
why I accused you of being like Krusty.  If it bothers you, RFD it.

>
>Out of interest, if you don't think the Committee's mandate to document
>processes includes updating the Guidelines, 

It doesn't.

  Rule Changes
  Any changes to these rules, or those in the companion documents, 
  shall be proposed in an RFD in accordance with the GUIDELINES FOR
  GROUP CREATION WITHIN THE UK HIERARCHY, insofar as they are   
  applicable. 

and according to the GUIDELINES FOR GROUP CREATION WITHIN THE UK
HIERARCHY 

  # A request for discussion (RFD) on the creation of a new newsgroup
  shall be mailed to control@usenet.org.uk

This means that the process for changing the rules is the same as for
creating a group, leaving out all the bits pertinent to creating a
group.  The rules make no mention of who makes the request or that the
committee has any duty in this regard.


>do you think it means anything
>at all? And, if so, what?

It really couldn't be much clearer.

  It will ensure that the rules for group creation are documented, 
  followed and applied.

documented = We'll keep a public copy of the rules

followed = We'll ensure the rules are followed

applied = We'll ensure groups will be created according to the rules.


The reality of it is that most of the time the committee needs to do
nothing.  Frankly most people prefer it that way since it means that
changes come form the users.  Or not, in your case.

-- 
Geoff Berrow (Put thecat out to email)
It's only Usenet, no one dies.
My opinions, not the committee's, mine.
Simple RFDs www.ckdog.co.uk/rfdmaker

On 09 Oct 2009 12:55:43 +0100 (BST), David Damerell put finger to
keyboard and typed:

>Quoting  Geoff Berrow  :
>> wrote:
>>>I'm impressed at the sheer amount of weaselling going on to suggest that a
>>>piece of wording which is expected to be in every RFD should go nowhere
>>>near the Guidelines, but at the end of the line, there's something to
>>>document, document it. It's the committee's job.
>>I repeat, it's not part of the official guidelines.  'No HTML' may
>>well be  the de facto case but until someone writes an RFD to put it
>>in the guidelines, there is nothing to document.  The committee can't
>>simply alter the guidelines as it sees fit.
>
>I'm not suggesting you do, of course. I am suggesting you RFD to update
>the Guidelines to fit the actual practice.

I don't think it's necesary to do so. If you do, then go ahead and do
it. Put up or shut up.

>
>Out of interest, if you don't think the Committee's mandate to document
>processes includes updating the Guidelines, do you think it means anything
>at all? And, if so, what?
>
>>>Trying to prevent the RFD for urcm from being posted to urc was nothing
>>>but obstructionism on the Committee's part, for example.
>>Members of the committee simply gave well intentioned advice.
>
>No, that particular piece of obstructionism was neither advice nor
>helpful. God knows what the intention was.

The intention was to be helpful. In the light of the proponent's
behaviour subsequently, I wish we had been obstructive. I've half a
mind to RFD the group's removal, now.

Mark

-- 
Blog: http://mark.goodge.co.uk
Stuff: http://www.good-stuff.co.uk

Mark Goodge  writes:

> The intention was to be helpful. In the light of the proponent's
> behaviour subsequently, I wish we had been obstructive. I've half a
> mind to RFD the group's removal, now.

Do you have to wait for it to be created first? ITWSBT.

Matthew

-- 
Rapun.sel - outermost outpost of the Pick Empire
http://www.pick.ucam.org

On 09 Oct 2009 21:53:30 +0100, Matthew Vernon put finger to keyboard
and typed:

>Mark Goodge  writes:
>
>> The intention was to be helpful. In the light of the proponent's
>> behaviour subsequently, I wish we had been obstructive. I've half a
>> mind to RFD the group's removal, now.
>
>Do you have to wait for it to be created first? ITWSBT.

Dunno. There's no history to go by.

Mark
-- 
Blog: http://mark.goodge.co.uk
Stuff: http://www.good-stuff.co.uk

On Fri, 09 Oct 2009 21:43:24 +0100, Mark Goodge
 wrote:

<snip>


>The intention was to be helpful. In the light of the proponent's
>behaviour subsequently, I wish we had been obstructive. I've half a
>mind to RFD the group's removal, now.
>
>Mark


Go for it.

--  

British Medical Association (BMA)
View on helmets:

Several studies provided solid scientific evidence that bicycle helmets
protect against head, brain, severe brain and facial injuries,
as well as death, as a result of cycling accidents

On Fri, 09 Oct 2009 22:52:52 +0100, jms put finger to keyboard and
typed:

>On Fri, 09 Oct 2009 21:43:24 +0100, Mark Goodge
> wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>
>>The intention was to be helpful. In the light of the proponent's
>>behaviour subsequently, I wish we had been obstructive. I've half a
>>mind to RFD the group's removal, now.
>>
>>Mark
>
>
>Go for it.

Nah, you've just dissuaded me.

Mark
-- 
Blog: http://mark.goodge.co.uk
Stuff: http://www.good-stuff.co.uk

Mark Goodge  wrote in 
news:jmcvc59d13q4avgror7asle3kotmlvt62d@news.markshouse.net:

> On Fri, 09 Oct 2009 22:52:52 +0100, jms put finger to keyboard and
> typed:
> 
>>On Fri, 09 Oct 2009 21:43:24 +0100, Mark Goodge
>> wrote:
>>
>><snip>
>>
>>
>>>The intention was to be helpful. In the light of the proponent's
>>>behaviour subsequently, I wish we had been obstructive. I've half a
>>>mind to RFD the group's removal, now.
>>>
>>>Mark
>>
>>
>>Go for it.
> 
> Nah, you've just dissuaded me.
> 
> Mark

Ian Jackson is a class A tosspot based on his reckless behaviour in the 
personal cycling videos he published recently.  I hope I never meet that 
wanker on the streets.  He gives cyclists a bad name.

On Sat, 10 Oct 2009 03:21:43 +0000 (UTC), "Mr. Benn"
<%%@invalid.invalid> wrote:

>Mark Goodge  wrote in 
>news:jmcvc59d13q4avgror7asle3kotmlvt62d@news.markshouse.net:
>
>> On Fri, 09 Oct 2009 22:52:52 +0100, jms put finger to keyboard and
>> typed:
>> 
>>>On Fri, 09 Oct 2009 21:43:24 +0100, Mark Goodge
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>><snip>
>>>
>>>
>>>>The intention was to be helpful. In the light of the proponent's
>>>>behaviour subsequently, I wish we had been obstructive. I've half a
>>>>mind to RFD the group's removal, now.
>>>>
>>>>Mark
>>>
>>>
>>>Go for it.
>> 
>> Nah, you've just dissuaded me.
>> 
>> Mark
>
>Ian Jackson is a class A tosspot based on his reckless behaviour in the 
>personal cycling videos he published recently.  I hope I never meet that 
>wanker on the streets.  He gives cyclists a bad name.

Surely you didn't seriously think that Jackson, Chapman or any of the
others cared a jot about real road safety?

On Fri, 09 Oct 2009 21:43:24 +0100, Mark Goodge
 wrote:

>>No, that particular piece of obstructionism was neither advice nor
>>helpful. God knows what the intention was.
>
>The intention was to be helpful. In the light of the proponent's
>behaviour subsequently, I wish we had been obstructive. I've half a
>mind to RFD the group's removal, now.


Out of interest I just downloaded the latest 100 headers from urc.

Not much evidence of a troll problem now, so perhaps you'd better keep
that RFD handy.
-- 
Geoff Berrow (Put thecat out to email)
It's only Usenet, no one dies.
My opinions, not the committee's, mine.
Simple RFDs www.ckdog.co.uk/rfdmaker

On Fri, 09 Oct 2009 23:02:16 +0100, Mark Goodge
 wrote:

>On Fri, 09 Oct 2009 22:52:52 +0100, jms put finger to keyboard and
>typed:
>
>>On Fri, 09 Oct 2009 21:43:24 +0100, Mark Goodge
>> wrote:
>>
>><snip>
>>
>>
>>>The intention was to be helpful. In the light of the proponent's
>>>behaviour subsequently, I wish we had been obstructive. I've half a
>>>mind to RFD the group's removal, now.
>>>
>>>Mark
>>
>>
>>Go for it.
>
>Nah, you've just dissuaded me.
>
>Mark


Good - thought it would.

I'm looking forward to it.

Will people be allowed to use different names when they post in the
new group?

(Is it true that chiark is buggered and Jackson's looking for some
cans  and twine to make Mark II ?)


--  

British Medical Association (BMA)
View on helmets:

Several studies provided solid scientific evidence that bicycle helmets
protect against head, brain, severe brain and facial injuries,
as well as death, as a result of cycling accidents

Old Skullface wrote:

> Surely you didn't seriously think that Jackson, Chapman or any of the
> others cared a jot about real road safety?


What's 'real road safety?'

Is there a group of idealists like the Real IRA to promote it.?
Does it come with added 'common sense' or a touch of 'everyone knows'?



-- 
Its never too late to reinvent the bicycle

jms wrote:

> 
> (Is it true that chiark is buggered and Jackson's looking for some
> cans  and twine to make Mark II ?)
> 


Your previous posts about 'chiark' demonstrate that there is a huge lack 
of understanding what it is and how it functions. As you are well aware 
it has nothing to do with cans and twine as it has no problems with 
communication.

Any hardware issues are likely to be the product of industrial disputes 
between the elves that handle the I/O section and the imps that are in 
charge of keeping the hard drives spinning by use of tiny little bicycles.


-- 
Its never too late to reinvent the bicycle

On Sun, 11 Oct 2009 11:07:16 +0100, Keitht <KeithT> wrote:

<snip>

> As you are well aware 
>it has nothing to do with cans and twine as it has no problems with 
>communication.


Oh really - there is a surprise.

I though that it could not handle email communications from several
million users world wide because  Microsoft refuse to make their
communication systems compatible with chiark. 

Are you saying the problem has been fixed?

Well done to Jackson and /or Microsoft for fixing this long standing
problem.

Many thanks for pointing it out - good that you are so on the ball as
ever.



-- 
Latest DfT Figures: Passenger casualty rates by mode Per billion passenger kilometers:
Killed or seriously injured:  Pedal Cyclists : 527    Pedestrians 371
All casualties:  Pedal Cyclists : 3494    Pedestrians : 1631
Which is more dangerous?

On Sun, 11 Oct 2009 10:55:04 +0100, Keitht <KeithT> wrote:

>What's 'real road safety?'

In Nuxx's book it basically means turning a blind eye to speeding.
 
Guy
-- 
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/

On Sun, 11 Oct 2009 11:46:40 +0100, %steve%@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth)
wrote:

>Disingenuous. The thread in question was started by "spindrift" a urc
>regular who habitually posts anti-motorist propaganda into motoring
>groups. His posts belong in urc, not in motoring related groups.

They are no more welcome in urc. The right place is uk.tosspot, I
reckon, which is not specific to any mode.
 
Guy
-- 
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/

On Sun, 11 Oct 2009 18:10:52 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
 wrote:

>On Sun, 11 Oct 2009 10:55:04 +0100, Keitht <KeithT> wrote:
>
>>What's 'real road safety?'
>
>In Nuxx's book it basically means turning a blind eye to speeding.
> 
>Guy


Ho, ho, ho - trying to entrap someone are you.

I just love this - Chapman tells people that he is having a problem
with Nuxx - and he has then put this "problem" in the hands of the
police.

For some reason he didn't say this is public - you had to send a
private email to him to find this out.

Now what is he doing - prodding and pushing  Nuxx with no good reason
- is he looking for some response?  Perhaps he knows that Nuxx  - and
indeed  no-one else - has ever phoned him, but he is hoping that he
can annoy someone so much that they  will.

I bet Nuxx has more sense than that.

Why would Chapman be doing that?

Have I told you - he is despicable?

--          

I have never said that I encourage my children to wear helmets.
I would challenge judith to find the place where I said I encourage my children to wear helmets.
I encourage my children to wear helmets. (Guy Chapman)

On Sun, 11 Oct 2009 18:10:52 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
 wrote:

>On Sun, 11 Oct 2009 10:55:04 +0100, Keitht <KeithT> wrote:
>
>>What's 'real road safety?'
>
>In Nuxx's book it basically means turning a blind eye to speeding.

Guy,

Let's leave Nuxxy out of it.  He's gone, and the less said about him
now the less likely he is to make a return anytime soon.

On Fri, 09 Oct 2009 23:02:16 +0100, Mark Goodge
 wrote:

>Nah, you've just dissuaded me.

Hi.  Can I ask you something?  I know that you like to advertise your
Christianity to all and sundry, like Chapman does.  So. if you were
asked a question, but you didn't want to answer truthfully because you
were worried that doing so would make you look bad, what would you do?
Would you lie, or would you just refuse to answer, in case God struck
you down or something for lying?  Or would you just tell the truth and
take the consequences like a man?  Presumably that's what God would
really want?

The reason I ask is that Chapman has consistently refused to answer
the question "Have you ever posted as Lou Knee?", because the real
answer is "Yes", but he doesn't want to admit it.  He seems to think
that refusing to answer means that he can keep God happy without
having to come clean.  But I'm not sure if God is too pleased with
that approach...what do you think?  Wouldn't God much prefer it if
Chapman told the truth?  Don't you think Chapman should face up to
what he's done, apologise to the people he insulted as Lou Knee, and
repent?

If so, perhaps you'd better tell Chapman yourself...we don't want him
getting punished by God after all, which could still happen, even if
the punishment would be more severe if Chapman had lied outright.
(Well, of course it couldn't really happen, because the whole "God
exists" thing is a load of bollocks, but I'm just humouring you for
the moment.  If you think God exists, and you think He would be
angered by someone dishonestly evading awkward questions and presuming
that He was OK with that, then surely you consider it your duty to
inform your fellow Christian brother that he risks the wrath of The
Almighty if he continues down the current path?)

While we're on the subject, if God exists, and praying makes a
difference, then how come the royal family aren't much healthier than
the rest of us, since they get so many more prayers on their behalf
than anyone else?  I can't see how you'd think that was a stupid
question, unless of course you know really that praying doesn't make
anything happen, because there's no-one or nothing to pray to.

(I don't know whether you really believe in God, but it's common
knowledge that a lot of people who call themselves Christians know
really that God doesn't exist, but it suits them to pretend otherwise,
e.g. because they like being holier-than-thou and using their
Christianity as a status badge, or they're looking for an excuse to be
homophobic, and "The bible says I have to be a bigot so I have to go
along with it" is a pretty handy way of avoiding having to justify
their inner prejudices properly.)

Anyway thanks in advance for the help that I know God wants you to
give.  Chapman has incurred God's wrath by refusing to provide honest
answers, and as a Christian who's always right, it would be best all
round if you advised him to tell the truth and admit to posting as Lou
Knee.  Thank you both from me and God.

On Sun, 11 Oct 2009 19:14:40 +0100, Tom Crispin
<kije.remove@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge> wrote:

>Let's leave Nuxxy out of it.  He's gone, and the less said about him
>now the less likely he is to make a return anytime soon.

Er, Tom?  Old Skullface /is/ Nuxx.
 
Guy
-- 
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/

On Sun, 11 Oct 2009 19:27:26 +0100, "Yeller-Belly" 
wrote:

<snip usual crap>

Wow, another "brand new" Zen user bringing the same stale old
vendettas.  I wonder if this might possibly be related to the other
"brand new" Zen user bringing the same old vendettas?
 
Guy
-- 
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:

> On Sun, 11 Oct 2009 19:27:26 +0100, "Yeller-Belly" 
> wrote:
>
> <snip usual crap>
>
> Wow, another "brand new" Zen user bringing the same stale old
> vendettas.  I wonder if this might possibly be related to the other
> "brand new" Zen user bringing the same old vendettas?
>  
> Guy

Oi!  I reassemble that remark!

On Sun, 11 Oct 2009 19:35:29 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
 wrote:

>On Sun, 11 Oct 2009 19:27:26 +0100, "Yeller-Belly" 
>wrote:
>
><snip usual crap>
>
>Wow, another "brand new" Zen user bringing the same stale old
>vendettas.  I wonder if this might possibly be related to the other
>"brand new" Zen user bringing the same old vendettas?

You _really_ need to learn how to ignore such obvious trolls, you know
:-}

On Sun, 11 Oct 2009 19:32:58 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
 wrote:

>On Sun, 11 Oct 2009 19:14:40 +0100, Tom Crispin
><kije.remove@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge> wrote:
>
>>Let's leave Nuxxy out of it.  He's gone, and the less said about him
>>now the less likely he is to make a return anytime soon.
>
>Er, Tom?  Old Skullface /is/ Nuxx.

Oh!  I hadn't bothered reading its posts.

Was Nuxxy tossed?

jms wrote:
> On Sun, 11 Oct 2009 11:07:16 +0100, Keitht <KeithT> wrote:
> 
> <snip>
> 
>> As you are well aware 
>> it has nothing to do with cans and twine as it has no problems with 
>> communication.
> 
> 
> Oh really - there is a surprise.
> 
> I though that it could not handle email communications from several
> million users world wide because  Microsoft refuse to make their
> communication systems compatible with chiark. 
> 
> Are you saying the problem has been fixed?
> 
> Well done to Jackson and /or Microsoft for fixing this long standing
> problem.
> 
> Many thanks for pointing it out - good that you are so on the ball as
> ever.
> 
> 
> 

But no moans about stuff from Goggle Groups not appearing?
Ah, only your 'missing' posts are important.

Now I understand.

Your idea that M$ has fixed the spam issue is so far way off the mark 
it's not even laughable. You don't seem to have understood address 
spoofing or how spam software works or botnets.

If you hang around a while longer yuo might learn some more computer/IT 
terms you can use.

(read anything about Hotmail accounts being hacked recently?)

-- 
Its never too late to reinvent the bicycle

Yeller-Belly wrote:

> Anyway thanks in advance for the help that I know God wants you to
> give.  Chapman has incurred God's wrath by refusing to provide honest
> answers, and as a Christian who's always right, it would be best all
> round if you advised him to tell the truth and admit to posting as Lou
> Knee.  Thank you both from me and God.

Oh FFS - we are back to Kirk Douglas impressions again

I am Lou Knee!


-- 
Its never too late to reinvent the bicycle

Quoting  Mark Goodge  :
[Of the attempt to prevent the RFD for urcm being posted to urc]
>The intention was to be helpful.

In what _possible_ universe would hiding the RFD from all the interested
readers be helpful?

>In the light of the proponent's behaviour subsequently, I wish we had
>been obstructive. I've half a mind to RFD the group's removal, now.

Nice to know you're petty as well.
-- 
David Damerell  Oil is for sissies
Yesterday was First Epithumia, October - a weekend.
Today is First Olethros, October - a weekend.
Tomorrow will be Gaiman, October - a public holiday.

On Mon, 12 Oct 2009 10:07:06 +0100, Keitht <KeithT> wrote:

>jms wrote:
>> On Sun, 11 Oct 2009 11:07:16 +0100, Keitht <KeithT> wrote:
>> 
>> <snip>
>> 
>>> As you are well aware 
>>> it has nothing to do with cans and twine as it has no problems with 
>>> communication.
>> 
>> 
>> Oh really - there is a surprise.
>> 
>> I though that it could not handle email communications from several
>> million users world wide because  Microsoft refuse to make their
>> communication systems compatible with chiark. 
>> 
>> Are you saying the problem has been fixed?
>> 
>> Well done to Jackson and /or Microsoft for fixing this long standing
>> problem.
>> 
>> Many thanks for pointing it out - good that you are so on the ball as
>> ever.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>
>But no moans about stuff from Goggle Groups not appearing?
>Ah, only your 'missing' posts are important.
>
>Now I understand.
>
>Your idea that M$ has fixed the spam issue is so far way off the mark 
>it's not even laughable. You don't seem to have understood address 
>spoofing or how spam software works or botnets.
>
>If you hang around a while longer yuo might learn some more computer/IT 
>terms you can use.
>
>(read anything about Hotmail accounts being hacked recently?)


I can tell you how to set one up if you want
--  

British Medical Association (BMA)
View on helmets:

Several studies provided solid scientific evidence that bicycle helmets
protect against head, brain, severe brain and facial injuries,
as well as death, as a result of cycling accidents

On 16 Oct 2009 15:13:31 +0100 (BST), David Damerell put finger to
keyboard and typed:

>Quoting  Mark Goodge  :
>[Of the attempt to prevent the RFD for urcm being posted to urc]
>>The intention was to be helpful.
>
>In what _possible_ universe would hiding the RFD from all the interested
>readers be helpful?

I think you're talking at cross purposes here. At no time did the
committee suggest that the RFD should not be posted to urc. What we
did suggest was that it was better for follow-ups to be directed
solely to unnc, as previous experience has been that crossposted RFDs
often end up generating non-crossposted threads in the non-unnc group,
which can lead people to mistakenly believe that they are contributing
to the offficial discussion when in fact they are not. 

For the benefit of anyone else reading this who still has an open
mind, this is what I actually wrote on the committee mailing list at
the time (in response to the proponent stating that the guidelines
give him the right to choose where the follow-ups go):

-------------begin quote-------------------------------------------
You're right, the guidelines do allow you, as proponent, to choose
which groups the discussion should be crossposted to (other than in
circumstances where this isn't practical). However, in practice I'd
advise against having the follow-ups set to anywhere other than unnc,
as crossposting the substantive discussion can cause several problems.

Firstly, there will inevitably be people in the non-unnc group who
will disregard the follow-ups and reply to the thread only in "their"
newsgroup, and then wonder why their comments aren't being considered
part of the discussion (which, under the guidelines, they cannot be),
while others will reply only in unnc, thus excluding those in the
other group who are mistakenly under the impression that they are
seeing the whole of the discussion - which, also under the guidelines
as they stand, you cannot prevent. You cannot insist that all
contributions are crossposted, only that the initial RFD is
crossposted and follow-ups set. If someone chooses to disregard the
follow-ups and only reply to unnc, their contribution is part of the
definitive discussion, but if someone disregards the follow-ups and
only replies in urc, their contribution is not. This creates a strong
risk that your opponents will subscribe to unnc and only reply there,
leaving your supporters in urc who are reading the crossposted replies
unaware of the points being made contrary to their opinions, or
contributors being misdirected by people who deliberately alter the
follow-ups so as to direct comments away from unnc.

Secondly, there will be contributors to urc who simply aren't
interested in the proposal at all, and don't want the group cluttered
up with threads discussing it. I'm well aware that urc is something of
a flame-fest a the best of times anyway, so this may not necessarily
be a major issue there, but it's still worth considering. It doesn't
help your cause to irritate people unnecessarily.

For these reasons, I think it's usually better to set follow-ups to
unnc alone, and encourage everyone who wants to participate in the
discussion to subscribe to it. I think that's particularly true where
the proposal is for a new group rather than a change to an existing
group - even if the majority of contributors to the proposed urcm will
come from the existing urc, it isn't directly about urc in the way
that, for example, an RFD to re-charter it would be. 
-----end quote---------------------------------------------------

You may well want to interpret that as "obstructionism", but I think
it's fairly clear from my text that this isn't what was intended.

>>In the light of the proponent's behaviour subsequently, I wish we had
>>been obstructive. I've half a mind to RFD the group's removal, now.
>
>Nice to know you're petty as well.

No, just fed up with the whole lot of you.

Mark
-- 
Blog: http://mark.goodge.co.uk
Stuff: http://www.good-stuff.co.uk