rissa@attctc.Dallas.TX.US (Patricia O Tuama) (12/22/89)
In article <37462@apple.Apple.COM> chuq@Apple.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) writes: >Scientific discussions go in sci.aquaria. Hobbyist discussions in rec. Seems >clear to me. They're complimentary, but not overlapping. I'll rephrase my question: now that Peter's new vote-taking scheme has been declared legitimate, does this mean anyone can call for a similar vote to create a complimentary but not overlapping copy of any other duly-elected newsgroup? Please note: I am -not- asking a specific question about .aquaria per se. I would simply like to know, now that Peter has added this exciting new dimension to the newgroup creation guidelines, whether this process can be used to create similar groups. And I assume everyone else is also free to ignore the discussion period just as Peter did?
lear@genbank.BIO.NET (Eliot Lear) (12/23/89)
What the vote told me was that people would prefer to have rec.aquaria over any other .aquaria. -- Eliot Lear [lear@net.bio.net]
" Maynard) (12/23/89)
In article <10706@attctc.Dallas.TX.US> rissa@attctc.Dallas.TX.US (Patricia O Tuama) writes: >Please note: I am -not- asking a specific question about .aquaria >per se. I would simply like to know, now that Peter has added this >exciting new dimension to the newgroup creation guidelines, whether >this process can be used to create similar groups. And I assume >everyone else is also free to ignore the discussion period just as >Peter did? *sigh*. No clue at all, Trish. You have no clue at all. rec.aquaria did *not* sneak in without a discussion period. Indeed, it was perhaps the most over-discussed group in net.history. Many, many gigabytes of discussion were posted over more than the six weeks it took to create sci.aquaria. It was obvious to even the most dull-witted student - nay, even the most rabid Richard Sexton Sycophant(tm) - that rec.aquaria would be an acceptable group name to nearly everybody, while sci.aquaria was patently unacceptable to an unprecedented number of people. Given this fact, was a discussion period really needed? You're just bitching because you and the rest of the bizarrites that Richard sucked in didn't get your way completely. Tough. -- Jay Maynard, EMT-P, K5ZC, PP-ASEL | Never ascribe to malice that which can jay@splut.conmicro.com (eieio)| adequately be explained by stupidity. {attctc,bellcore}!texbell!splut!jay +---------------------------------------- Here come Democrats...here come Democrats...throwing money a-way...
rissa@attctc.Dallas.TX.US (Patricia O Tuama) (12/24/89)
In article <7VY+N.@splut.conmicro.com> jay@splut.conmicro.com (Jay "you ignorant splut!" Maynard) writes >>Please note: I am -not- asking a specific question about .aquaria >>per se. I would simply like to know, now that Peter has added this >>exciting new dimension to the newgroup creation guidelines, whether >>this process can be used to create similar groups. And I assume >>everyone else is also free to ignore the discussion period just as >>Peter did? >*sigh*. No clue at all, Trish. You have no clue at all. [irrelevant discussion wrt rec.aquaria deleted] Sigh. You just don't get it do you, Jay. My question doesn't have anything to do with Peter's group per se. I just want to know now that the newgroup creation guidelines have been amended to include the da Silva Process, whether or not anyone else who wishes to follow the same procedure is required to hold a separate discussion period or whether he/she can simply skip that step like Peter did. Now if you have an answer to my question, Jay, I'd like to hear it. But if you and your fellow bizarrites are going to continue to wander off on unrelated tangents about the .aquaria groups then please don't bother.
" Maynard) (12/24/89)
In article <10728@attctc.Dallas.TX.US> rissa@attctc.Dallas.TX.US (Patricia O Tuama) writes: >My question doesn't have anything to do with Peter's group per se. >I just want to know now that the newgroup creation guidelines have >been amended to include the da Silva Process, whether or not anyone >else who wishes to follow the same procedure is required to hold a >separate discussion period or whether he/she can simply skip that >step like Peter did. >Now if you have an answer to my question, Jay, I'd like to hear it. >But if you and your fellow bizarrites are going to continue to wander >off on unrelated tangents about the .aquaria groups then please don't >bother. You deleted my answer. rec.aquaria - and this is not irrelevant, since it's the group about the creation process of which you are complaining - had a discussion period. *It* *lasted* *TWO* *months*. There was no change, explicit or implicit, to the guidelines involved. Any other group in a similar situation - heavily overdiscussed, and clearly a consensus - is ready to be voted on. That is the intent of the guidelines. That is the result the guidelines envision. Now, will you stop being deliberately obtuse? -- Jay Maynard, EMT-P, K5ZC, PP-ASEL | Never ascribe to malice that which can jay@splut.conmicro.com (eieio)| adequately be explained by stupidity. {attctc,bellcore}!texbell!splut!jay +---------------------------------------- Here come Democrats...here come Democrats...throwing money a-way...
peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) (12/24/89)
In article <10728@attctc.Dallas.TX.US> rissa@attctc.Dallas.TX.US (Patricia O Tuama) writes: > I just want to know now that the newgroup creation guidelines have > been amended to include the da Silva Process, whether or not anyone > else who wishes to follow the same procedure is required to hold a > separate discussion period or whether he/she can simply skip that > step like Peter did. Jesus Harold Christ on a Bicycle. For the last time, I didn't skip the discussion period. I skipped the call for discussion because the discussion was already going on. I, at least, would see nothing wrong with you having held a call for votes for talk.skeptic immediately after the vote for sci.skeptic, because the discussion of sci.skeptic included a lively discussion of talk.skeptic (lively, yeh, H-bombs are lively:->). However if you were to want to hold such a vote *now* you'd have to go through all the motions. -- `-_-' Peter da Silva. +1 713 274 5180. <peter@ficc.uu.net>. 'U` Also <peter@ficc.lonestar.org> or <peter@sugar.lonestar.org>. "It was just dumb luck that Unix managed to break through the Stupidity Barrier and become popular in spite of its inherent elegance." -- gavin@krypton.sgi.com
rissa@attctc.Dallas.TX.US (Patricia O Tuama) (12/27/89)
In article <7411@ficc.uu.net> peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes: >yeh, H-bombs are lively:->). However if you were to want to hold such a vote >*now* you'd have to go through all the motions. Well, now we're getting somewhere! Excellent, Peter! Now, please tell us how much time may pass between the end of the first discussion period and the call for votes for the second news- group. For example: January 18-31 discussion period for rec.abc February 1-21 voting period for rec.abc Now, how much time between the end of the discussion period (ie Jan- uary 31st) may elapse before it is too late to call for a separate vote for the creation of talk.abc without holding another discussion period? You'll want to remember before you reply that the discussion period for sci.aquaria ended October 15th and votes were taken between then and November 5th. I don't remember when you started your vote but you posted the results on December 12th, so let's say it was on or about November 20th (please feel free to supply the exact date). I'm sure you're now going to tell me that the discussion period con- tinued way past October 15th and in fact continues to this day well over a month since the original group was created and that's fine with me. But does this mean that as long as at least someone is still writing about the subject, that the formal discussion period is considered to be still in process? And if not, what is the cut- off point?
rissa@attctc.Dallas.TX.US (Patricia O Tuama) (12/27/89)
In article <FRZ5-B@splut.conmicro.com> jay@splut.conmicro.com (Jay "you ignorant splut!" Maynard) writes: >You deleted my answer. And I deleted this one, too. I told you, Jay -- I'm not interested in discussing the creation of the .aquaria groups, hon. Sorry, you and your obtuseness will just have to find someone else at whom to bitch.
peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) (12/27/89)
In article <10747@attctc.Dallas.TX.US> rissa@attctc.Dallas.TX.US (Patricia O Tuama) writes: > Now, please tell us how much time may pass between the end of the > first discussion period and the call for votes for the second news- > group. No time at all. Oh, you can call for discussion or call for an end to discussion until you're blue in the face. But the only real way to know if the discussion is still going on is to read news.groups and see what people are talking about. That's the way Usenet works. When I called for votes, the discussion was definitely still going on. It seems to have died down, now. If you wanted to call for misc.aquaria it'd probably be wise to go through all the motions. -- `-_-' Peter da Silva. +1 713 274 5180. <peter@ficc.uu.net>. 'U` Also <peter@ficc.lonestar.org> or <peter@sugar.lonestar.org>. "It was just dumb luck that Unix managed to break through the Stupidity Barrier and become popular in spite of its inherent elegance." -- gavin@krypton.sgi.com
rissa@attctc.Dallas.TX.US (Patricia O Tuama) (12/28/89)
In article <7425@ficc.uu.net> peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes: >> Now, please tell us how much time may pass between the end of the >> first discussion period and the call for votes for the second news- >> group. >No time at all. Great! So a vote may be taken at any time as long as someone on the net is still discussing the original proposal. Next question: under the da Silva voting guidelines, how long is the discussion period required to last? As we know, the Usenet guidelines specifiy two weeks. What do your guidelines require? > But the only real way to know if the discussion is still >going on is to read news.groups and see what people are talking about. Uh.... yes, Peter? Did you just feel like stating the obvious or were you intending to make some sort of point by mentioning this? >That's the way Usenet works. I know how Usenet works, Peter dear -- what I want know is how your new voting guidelines work. >When I called for votes, "When (you) called for votes" -- god, I love it! My favorite thing about the da Silva voting process is how neatly it turns an informal "opinion poll" into a formal "call for votes" after the "poll" is finished. This is absolutely brilliant, Peter. And so much easier than doing anything that might actually be considered voting oops!! I meant to say -opinion poll- fraud. > the discussion was definitely still going on. I didn't say it wasn't, Peter. It's obvious that it's with us still even today.
" Maynard) (12/28/89)
In article <10749@attctc.Dallas.TX.US> rissa@attctc.Dallas.TX.US (Patricia O Tuama) writes: >In article <FRZ5-B@splut.conmicro.com> jay@splut.conmicro.com (Jay "you ignorant splut!" Maynard) writes: >>You deleted my answer. >And I deleted this one, too. I told you, Jay -- I'm not interested >in discussing the creation of the .aquaria groups, hon. Sorry, you >and your obtuseness will just have to find someone else at whom to >bitch. Don't you just love Trish's style of debate, folks? She complains mightily about how rec.aquaaria was created. She asks how the creation of rec.aquaria changed the rules. She ignores any answer that involves rec.aquaria. Come back when you're interested in having a discussion and not ignoring responsive answers. -- Jay Maynard, EMT-P, K5ZC, PP-ASEL | Never ascribe to malice that which can jay@splut.conmicro.com (eieio)| adequately be explained by stupidity. {attctc,bellcore}!texbell!splut!jay +---------------------------------------- Here come Democrats...here come Democrats...throwing money a-way...
karl@giza.cis.ohio-state.edu (Karl Kleinpaste) (12/28/89)
one.of.the.comabatants writes:
Come back when you're interested in having a discussion and not ignoring
responsive answers.
Do us all a favor: Go away and stay away as long as this issue is on
your minds - all (three?) of you.rissa@attctc.Dallas.TX.US (Patricia O Tuama) (12/29/89)
In article <_.4Q_-@splut.conmicro.com> jay@splut.conmicro.com (Jay "you ignorant splut!" Maynard) writes:
[posting once again deleted as irrelevant]
No, Jay, this won't work either. Of course, you're free to write
about the *.aquaria groups all you want but you're wrong in your
assumption that I am upset about the creation of rec.aquaria. I
think it's a fine idea and that it will serve a useful function.
There simply isn't anything here for us to "debate."
And Karl, if you don't wish to follow this discussion, I strongly
suggest you put us in your killfile or type "n" or "K" or whatever
it is you do when you don't wish read certain postings.
Followups to alt.flame, please, since that seems to be Jay's pri-
mary purpose in attacking me.chuq@Apple.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) (12/31/89)
rissa@attctc.Dallas.TX.US (Patricia O Tuama) writes: >My question doesn't have anything to do with Peter's group per se. >I just want to know now that the newgroup creation guidelines have >been amended to include the da Silva Process, whether or not anyone >else who wishes to follow the same procedure is required to hold a >separate discussion period or whether he/she can simply skip that >step like Peter did. Pat: If you'd only ask the right person... As one of the people who decided to make 'rec.aquaria' official (as official as anything gets on this wonderful network), let me answer you explicitly: No. The guidelines have not been amended or modified to include a new voting system or to change the discussion period. There's no intention to. What *really* happened was that we decided that the procedure used to create rec.aquaria was reasonable when compared to the intent of the guidelines. Remember, they're only guidelines, not hard and fast rules, and what we (we being Spaf, myself and Greg, the triad that are doing newgroup stuff this week) basically decided was that Peter's proposal was in the spirit of the newgroup creation setup. I, personally, plan to look whether a proposal is done within the intent of the rules rather than nitpick details, since that's what the net has told us is more important (for example, if you want to start arguing about violations of the guidelines, we can talk about the breaches of sci.aquaria. But it was created, so there's precedent for this). Rather than getting bogged down in administrivia, I think it's important to worry more about what's good for the net. They're only guidelines, after all. So if something isn't strictly conforming to the guidelines and seems to have a positive basis in the net, I'll be lenient. I don't know how Spaf and Greg will react, but it seems to me that it's more important to do the right thing than it is to uphold silly rules nobody cares about. Excuse me, guidelines. So no, we're not changing the guidelines. And, no, you can't just vote on a group without a discussion -- the intent of the guidelines are clear. If there's an active discussion, implicit or explicit -- about the group, that seems good enough for me. A formal 'call for discussion' seems like a silly formality when it's already being discussed. Have fun intentionally misinterpreteing everything I just said. I"m looking forward to seeing you do to this what you've been doing to peter. Should be fun. -- Chuq Von Rospach <+> chuq@apple.com <+> [This is myself speaking] An argument requires two voices. Without the opposition, it's just a whine. To argue, you have to listen to and rebut the opposition. Most USENET arguments aren't. They're simply two monologues happening at once.
rissa@attctc.Dallas.TX.US (Patricia O Tuama) (12/31/89)
In article <37521@apple.Apple.COM> chuq@Apple.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) writes: >Pat: Charley! >If you'd only ask the right person... You're right -- I should have realized Peter didn't know what he was talking about, he so seldom does. >The guidelines have not been amended or modified to include a new voting >system or to change the discussion period. There's no intention to. Well, why not? >newgroup creation setup. I, personally, plan to look whether a proposal is >done within the intent of the rules rather than nitpick details, since >that's what the net has told us is more important Heavens! When did the net tell you that? Was this recently? >Rather than getting bogged down in administrivia, I think it's important to >worry more about what's good for the net. They're only guidelines, after >all. So if something isn't strictly conforming to the guidelines and seems >to have a positive basis in the net, I'll be lenient. I don't know how Spaf >and Greg will react, but it seems to me that it's more important to do the >right thing than it is to uphold silly rules nobody cares about. If they're silly rules that nobody cares about then why are they part of the guidelines? Surely it would be better to amend the guidelines to remove the extraneous ones, yes? After all, the reason why we have them in the first place is so that all 500,000 of us have at least the same basic understanding of how new groups are created. You made a lot of noise about Richard supposedly bending the rules yet when Peter came up with a whole new voting process, you didn't say a word in protest. The guidelines you accused Richard of "breaching" suddenly turned into "silly rules nobody cares about." You're operat- ing a double standard here, one for groups of which you personally ap- prove and one for those you don't. And that's wrong, Chuq. >there's an active discussion, implicit or explicit -- about the group, that >seems good enough for me. A formal 'call for discussion' seems like a silly >formality when it's already being discussed. Then you have an obligation to write this into the guidelines so that it's clear to everyone. You also have an obligation to point out that an "opinion poll" is the same thing as a "formal call for votes" and that either one can be declared after at least two weeks of discussion have passed. >Have fun intentionally misinterpreteing everything I just said. I"m looking I didn't misinterpret what Peter wrote. Like Jay Maynard, Peter in- sisted on trying to second guess me and to turn the conversation to- wards a rehashing of the *.aquaria debate. My refusing to be drawn into that particular net.feud does not translate as misinterpretation. I deliberately stayed out of the *.aquaria debate and I was not about to allow either of them to steer the conversation in that direction.
brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton) (01/01/90)
In article <37521@apple.Apple.COM> chuq@Apple.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) writes: >So no, we're not changing the guidelines. And, no, you can't just vote on a >group without a discussion -- the intent of the guidelines are clear. If I am not so sure of this. The intent of the guidlines, as I see it, is "To provide an objective demonstration that it would be a good idea to create this group, by default, over the entire net." Does anybody disagree? In many cases, I doubt the discussion phase much affects how people feel about the group itself. But discussion phases have indeed changed the results of surveys, sometimes considerably. a) They have increased the number of people who participate, by drawing attention to the proposal through volume, volume, volume. b) They have caused people to respond based on personality and nits in proposals rather than on the group itself. c) They have caused people to argue and respond based on the group name. The key word here (not said well in the guidelines) is *demonstration*. That's what this whole thing is about. You have to show objective evidence that your group is a good idea. I would say that the validity of the demonstration is probably not improved a great deal through the discussion phase, and often is diminished by it. So I am all for creation of groups without discussion, and I think it follows the intent of the guidelines just fine. -- Brad Templeton, ClariNet Communications Corp. -- Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473
" Maynard) (01/01/90)
In article <10791@attctc.Dallas.TX.US> rissa@attctc.Dallas.TX.US (Patricia O Tuama) writes: >I didn't misinterpret what Peter wrote. Like Jay Maynard, Peter in- >sisted on trying to second guess me and to turn the conversation to- >wards a rehashing of the *.aquaria debate. My refusing to be drawn >into that particular net.feud does not translate as misinterpretation. >I deliberately stayed out of the *.aquaria debate and I was not about >to allow either of them to steer the conversation in that direction. Are you having fun revising history? Or is it that you call using rec.aquaria as prime example of your thesis, then refusing to discuss rec.aquaria "steering the conversation in that direction"? I'm genuinely curious. I refuse to discuss your so-called "da Silva method" unless you will respond to my arguments. Otherwise, we'll just talk past each other again. -- Jay Maynard, EMT-P, K5ZC, PP-ASEL | Never ascribe to malice that which can jay@splut.conmicro.com (eieio)| adequately be explained by stupidity. {attctc,bellcore}!texbell!splut!jay +---------------------------------------- Here come Democrats...here come Democrats...throwing money a-way...
rissa@attctc.Dallas.TX.US (Patricia O Tuama) (01/01/90)
In article <1:776+@splut.conmicro.com> jay@splut.conmicro.com (Jay "you ignorant splut!" Maynard) writes: >I refuse to discuss your so-called "da Silva method" unless you will >respond to my arguments. Fine with me, Jay. And it's not my "da Silva method" -- it's Peter's "da Silva method."
bph@buengc.BU.EDU (Blair P. Houghton) (01/02/90)
In article <1:776+@splut.conmicro.com> jay@splut.conmicro.com (Jay "you ignorant splut!" Maynard) writes: [...in responding to Trish...] >I refuse to discuss your so-called "da Silva method" unless you will >respond to my arguments. Otherwise, we'll just talk past each other >again. Jay, you seem to have ignored the fact that everyone thinks you're talking past them, anyway. --Blair "Even your close personal friends."
mesard@bbn.com (Wayne Mesard) (01/02/90)
jay@splut.conmicro.com (Jay "you ignorant splut!" Maynard) writes: >I refuse to discuss your so-called "da Silva method" unless you will >respond to my arguments. Otherwise, we'll just talk past each other >again. Please. Knock yourselves out. But do it in eMail. The only thing in this thread that's been remotely interesting in the past two weeks is listening to Ms.T foam at the mouth, and if I had the time or desire for such indulgence I'd resubscribe to talk.bizarre. Wayne();
tjw@unix.cis.pitt.edu (TJ Wood WA3VQJ) (01/03/90)
In article <10791@attctc.Dallas.TX.US> rissa@attctc.Dallas.TX.US (Patricia O Tuama) writes: >word in protest. The guidelines you accused Richard of "breaching" >suddenly turned into "silly rules nobody cares about." You're operat- >ing a double standard here, one for groups of which you personally ap- >prove and one for those you don't. And that's wrong, Chuq. Well, it's taken a lot of articles, to get to your basic complaint. The rules (oops! Guidelines) aren't being applied evenly. Yes, you're right. They were bent. You can't bend them, however. Double standard? Yes. Too bad. They "win". You lose. Case closed. Next Case. Flame, flame, flame, flame. Why is "that" man smiling? Richard, I think you maybe a political genius. I never would have been able to do all of this. I'm impressed! Terry -- INTERNET: tjw@unix.cis.pitt.edu BITNET: TJW@PITTVMS CC-NET: 33802::tjw UUCP: {decwrl!decvax!idis, allegra, bellcore}!pitt!unix.cis.pitt.edu!tjw And if dreams could come true, I'd still be there with you, On the banks of cold waters at the close of the day. - as sung by Sally Rogers