In article <hcn35r$2ro$1@news.eternal-september.org>,
Tony   wrote:
>Neither is 100% valid, but people *new* to this group didn't seem
>interested in the hierarchy management, and now they are, but maybe they
>don't have the history to understand how we got to where we are.

I do understand why the rules are as they are.  I've been involved in
newsgroup creation and management, on and off, since 1992.

I am complaining (amongst other things) that the Committee didn't
follow the rules.

-- 
Ian Jackson                  personal email: 
These opinions are my own.        http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~ijackson/
PGP2 key 1024R/0x23f5addb,     fingerprint 5906F687 BD03ACAD 0D8E602E FCF37657

Ian Jackson  wrote:
> In article <hcn35r$2ro$1@news.eternal-september.org>,
> Tony   wrote:
>>Neither is 100% valid, but people *new* to this group didn't seem
>>interested in the hierarchy management, and now they are, but maybe they
>>don't have the history to understand how we got to where we are.
 
> I do understand why the rules are as they are.  I've been involved in
> newsgroup creation and management, on and off, since 1992.
 
> I am complaining (amongst other things) that the Committee didn't
> follow the rules.
 
I don't include you in the 'new' people, since I know you've been around
unnm for more than 10 years on and off.

I don't agree with you either, but for different reasons.

I'm talking about some of those folk who saw comments in uk.misc, or cam.*
groups, or chiark.* groups and came along to see what was happening.  It's
a small number I'm sure.  But I feel some of them stepped into a
conversation which has 10 years of history, without realising it.

-- 
Tony Evans
Saving trees and wasting electrons since 1993
blog -> http://perceptionistruth.com/
olmr -> http://www.onelinemoviereviews.co.uk/
[ anything below this line wasn't written by me ]

On 03 Nov 2009 11:35:19 +0000 (GMT), Ian Jackson
 wrote:

>I am complaining (amongst other things) that the Committee didn't
>follow the rules.

You are complaining that the committee did not follow /your/
interpretation of the rules. No one on the committee seems to agree.

The same way that it appears the police don't agree with the way you
interpret the rules of the road.

When you are at odds with the entire committee (and the police) don't
you ever wonder if possibly, just possibly, it may be you who is out
of step?
-- 
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

In  on Tue, 03 Nov
2009 15:30:43 +0000, Geoff Berrow  wrote:

>When you are at odds with the entire committee (and the police) don't
>you ever wonder if possibly, just possibly, it may be you who is out
>of step?

There is a hoary old Scots tale about a woman watching a
regimental march-past which includes her son who has recently
joined up.

"Look - they're all out of step except our Jock."

-- 
DG

In article ,
Geoff Berrow   wrote:
>On 03 Nov 2009 11:35:19 +0000 (GMT), Ian Jackson
> wrote:
>>I am complaining (amongst other things) that the Committee didn't
>>follow the rules.
>
>You are complaining that the committee did not follow /your/
>interpretation of the rules. No one on the committee seems to agree.

An example: 

Control and the Committee blocked my first draft of the first RFD on
the grounds that it wasn't complete because it didn't complain a list
of moderators, and that such an incomplete RFD should not be posted.

Whereas the Guidelines say:

   The RFD should include as much as possible of the following
   information concerning the proposed group:

      * The Name
      * The Charter
      * Whether it is to be Moderated
      * The name of the Moderator (if appropriate)
      * A One-line Summary of the charter (max. 79 characters)
      * The Initial Time to be allowed for discussion (which must be at
      least 10 days). 

   Any of these items missing from the RFD must be resolved during the
   discussion.

Therefore the Guidelines specifically permit the posting of an RFD for
a moderated group which does not contain a list of the moderators.
Nevertheless my RFD was blocked until I was able to produce such a
list.

-- 
Ian Jackson                  personal email: 
These opinions are my own.        http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~ijackson/
PGP2 key 1024R/0x23f5addb,     fingerprint 5906F687 BD03ACAD 0D8E602E FCF37657

Ian Jackson  wrote:
> In article ,
> Geoff Berrow   wrote:
>>On 03 Nov 2009 11:35:19 +0000 (GMT), Ian Jackson
>> wrote:
>>>I am complaining (amongst other things) that the Committee didn't
>>>follow the rules.
>>
>>You are complaining that the committee did not follow /your/
>>interpretation of the rules. No one on the committee seems to agree.
> 
> An example: 

<snip>

You have said this before, over and over.  Stating it again won't change
anyone's mind.  Either people believe you, or they don't.  You'll find a
lot of people here think the situation is more complex than you claim and
that you were at least partly responsible, due to your nature if not the
process itself, and that until you accept some responsibility all of your
claims are moot.

However, the most aggravating thing is that you continue to post the same
stuff over, and over.  You're in a position to end this.  I suggest you
just keep your mouth shut and if you get voted onto the committee you can
change things from within and make the uk.* hierarchy a better place.

-- 
Tony Evans
Saving trees and wasting electrons since 1993
blog -> http://perceptionistruth.com/
olmr -> http://www.onelinemoviereviews.co.uk/
[ anything below this line wasn't written by me ]

On 03 Nov 2009 16:40:39 +0000 (GMT), Ian Jackson
 wrote:

<snip usual shite>

    6   Ian Jackson                              Candidate F
    7   David Damerell                           Candidate B

I might have to rethink this, at least Damerell has shut up or fucked
off, I care not which.

-- 
vic

In <1j8mkcs.bjm28up4qmjrN%%steve%@malloc.co.uk> on Tue, 3 Nov 2009
21:49:00 +0000, %steve%@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth) wrote:

>I get railed at for having a short fuse over these matters. In fact I
>tolerated them and their stupidity for what seemed like an incredibly
>long time before sanity asserted itself and, as you have, I pointed out
>their status as fuckwits. The poor little dears then started to bleat
>and piss and moan about how "rude" I am.

I'm not noted for having a long fuse either :) I think my ability
to hold out a bit longer before the switch finally tripped is that
I pulled out of unnc as the cycling tantrum was still on the up. I
don't like moderated groups, couldn't give a fuck whether the
cyclists have one or not, and while I wasn't going to vote for it,
I wasn't going to vote against it as it was pretty obvious that
there was substantial support. So I kept out of unnc until the
group was created. 

I thought the hysterical footstamping was all over but debate
about and with the Jackboot Tendency has dominated the election
and come more and more to resemble the old adage : "If you wrestle
with a pig in mud, you both get dirty - and the pig likes it." 

>Oddly enough, the ones calling committee members liars, having Violet
>Elisabeth Bott tantrums and generally acting like a bunch of arses never
>see their behaviour as "rude".

Well, the ability to be self-critical is not one commonly found in
fuckwits.

-- 
DG