«

[POSTED TO rec.photo.digital - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In < > on 22 Jul 2003 09:15:09
-0700, (Webkatz) wrote:

>John Navas <> wrote in message news:<omWQa.1991$>...
>
>> >Really? When did your little home-grown creation get voted on?
>>
>> Back when the marketplace reorganizations occurred.

>[SNIP]
>It's just an *interpretation* that was created after the actual vote
>on the individual charters. So sorry.

No, it was the specific *intent* of the reorganizations, and no amount of arm
waving by you (or Steve) can change that.

--
Best regards,
John Navas
[PLEASE NOTE: Ads belong *only* in rec.photo.marketplace.digital, as per
<http://bobatkins.photo.net/info/charter.htm> <http://rpdfaq.50megs.com/>]

"John Navas" <> wrote in message
news:cLfTa.4343$...
> [POSTED TO rec.photo.digital - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
> In < > on 22 Jul 2003
09:15:09
> -0700, (Webkatz) wrote:
>
> >John Navas <> wrote in message
news:<omWQa.1991$>...
> >
> >> >Really? When did your little home-grown creation get voted on?
> >>
> >> Back when the marketplace reorganizations occurred.
>
> >[SNIP]
> >It's just an *interpretation* that was created after the actual vote
> >on the individual charters. So sorry.
>
> No, it was the specific *intent* of the reorganizations, and no amount of
arm
> waving by you (or Steve) can change that.
>

No, actually that is just fine with me. I can live with the

http://bobatkins.photo.net/info/charter.htm being an un-ratified compilation

document meant to capture the intent of the actual votes on individual

charters. Thanks for finally admitting to it.

Just don't try and foist it off as either actually being the charter to any

group or superseding the charter of any other group. Otherwise you're just

lying to folks, like you did to me here:

John Navas <> wrote in message

news:<oB5Ra.2204$>...

> [POSTED TO rec.photo.digital - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

>

> In <> on Tue, 15 Jul 2003 20:14:50 -0500,

> "WebKatz" <> wrote:

>

> >"John Navas" <> wrote in message

> >newsmWQa.1991$...

> >>

> >> >Really? When did your little home-grown creation get voted on?

> >>

> >> Back when the marketplace reorganizations occurred.

> >

> >No it didn't.

>

> Yes it did. See below.



Bad John, bad, bad, bad...

[POSTED TO rec.photo.digital - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <> on Tue, 22 Jul 2003 18:27:05 -0500,
"WebKatz" <> wrote:

>"John Navas" <> wrote in message
>news:cLfTa.4343$...

>> No, it was the specific *intent* of the reorganizations, and no amount of arm
>> waving by you (or Steve) can change that.
>
>[SNIP arm waving]

I didn't think so.

--
Best regards,
John Navas
[PLEASE NOTE: Ads belong *only* in rec.photo.marketplace.digital, as per
<http://bobatkins.photo.net/info/charter.htm> <http://rpdfaq.50megs.com/>]

> "Helge Nareid" <> wrote

While the fella wearing the dunce cap feebly attempts to prop up your side of
the discussion, I was hoping you would see fit to comment on this post (below)
Helge. Especially on the 'PS', or an earlier post that contained your same
message. I trust my words were correct in stating that, if there was an
established voting procedure, you would have pointed to it then.
-----------
From: "Steve Young" <>
Msg-ID: 1HUSa.65628$
Sent: Monday, July 21, 2003 12:39 PM EDT
Subject: Re: FA: Cheap SD card on eBay

We've been through this a thousand times Helge
You know my position; anything after the vote doesn't count as anything
but opinion, (you know what they say about opinions).
So, what say we agree to disagree and go on?

> >> > Steve Young wrote:
> >> > This is not the charter!, it's simply one man's unratified opinion,
> >> > which happened to land as our group FAQ

> >> "Helge Nareid" <> wrote
> >> The man who actually _wrote_ the charter of this newsgroup
> >> has posted his interpretation at:
> >> http://bobatkins.photo.net/info/charter.htm
> >>
> >> But of course, you know this - you just don't want to acknowledge it.

> > "Steve Young" <> wrote
> > "posted his interpretation" still, only one man's words, at a date
> > later than the founding vote

> "Helge Nareid" <> wrote:
> Selective memory is a wonderful thing, and you certainly try to make the
> most of it. As I have pointed out to you a number of times, the man who
> actually wrote the charter, posted his interpretation of it a few months
> after it was voted through, given the large number of people who
> deliberately or not misinterpreted it.

Nothing is selective about my not wanting to incorporate opinion into fact,
especially without due process.

> But you ought to know that, Steve. It has certainly been pointed out to
> you a number of times, such as in the post I posted on the 28th
> september 2003 <>:

That's *all* you seem to know how to chew Helge
(Judging by the date, it seems you plan to chew it some more (

> :To clarify matters, Robert Atkins, who wrote the charters for all the
> :newsgroups created in the 1994 and 1995 reorganisations, posted
> :a message on rec.photo.misc on the 6th October 1995, which is
> :a bit too long to quote here, but can easily be found on Google:
>
> ::From: (Robert M Atkins)
> ::Subject: ALL ABOUT THE NEW REC.PHOTO NEWSGROUPS
> LONG!)
> :ate: Fri, 6 Oct 1995 17:54:21 GMT
> ::Lines: 1218

Ya know Helge, this is the best piece you've presented to date, because it
displays an order and every word was locked down by the day it was posted
Still though, it was after the fact and never voted.

> :An updated version of the same document, which includes later
> :changes to
> :the rec.photo.* hierarchy can be found at:
> : http://bobatkins.photo.net/info/charter.htm

Oh, the namesake, Dave calls out in this acronym: AHTGNBABAVOC
I tend to agree with Dave.

> :I would trust the interpretation of the man who actually wrote the
> :charter before Steve's any day.

Since Bob hasn't been active for nigh-on-to seven years, wunder who's been
keeping his cite current? It could all stink to high heaven

> :Of course Steve knows (or ought to know) this perfectly well. It has
> :certainly been pointed out to him often enough, but his attitude
> :seems to be summed up quite well by the classic quote:
> : "My mind is made up, don't try to confuse me with facts"

Not a fitting quote Helge, but its condensed version, more likely fits your
mindset: "My mind is made up" Sad, wunder if that's always been?

Steve Young

PS Would you please tender comment / thoughts on this post and the process it
points to, now that you've had time to reflect on it.:
http://makeashorterlink.com/?O21C22155

*thanks*

Too late.

It's did and done, John. *Intent* and *charter* ain't the same thing. You
may not think so, fine and dandy. I personal don't give an aerial attempt at
fornication with a rolling donut what you think. I have no need to prove
anything. I've sufficiently pointed out your "revisionist theology," so I
don't really feel the need to bat this ball around with you anymore. You can
take it and see if anyone else around here is interested in playing with
you.

When it comes down to it, there's nothing you really can do about hobbyist
FA, FS, or WTB posts in this group except flap your gums about them. Oh,
I'll still point out the error of your insensately net-copping ways, but
don't expect to have anymore 'discussions' about this.

Love,

Dave

"WebKatz" <> wrote in
news::

>
> "Helge Nareid" <> wrote in message
> news:...
>> "WebKatz" <> wrote in
>> news::
>
>> >
>> > One would assume you're referring the
>> > reverend-most-holy-and-anointed Bob Atkins. Funny thing is, way
>> > back in June 2001 Bob had this to say about the compilation
>> > document:
>>
>> No it is not. The quote below was posted by one "BigWaveDave". The
>> way you've quoted the post can be construed as a deliberate
>> misrepresentation of who actually posted it.
>>
>
> It's not a misrepresentation. I never said who posted it.

That is exactly why it _is_ a misrepresentation, you never said who posted
it.

You should have.

The careful editing of the message itself as well as the headers
(particularly removing the "From" header) indicate that the posting was
deliberately intended to mislead.

> But I'm sure
> Bob said what Bob said. Nothing changes that.If you doubt it, ask him
> yourself. Or if this is wrong, I'm sure he can take care of correcting
> it himself. Right Bob?

As has been already been pointed out, the quote is not necessarily
complete, nor has it been placed in any context.

> How about this: Bob, if you believe that Helge has a valid argument
> and is not just blowing smoke to cover up a badly concocted
> restructuring, knock twice.
>
>>
>> > "Dave - USENET and the newsgroups are ancient history to me at this
>> > point. I don't think I've looked at them in 5 years or more!I know
>> > the individual charters were voted on individually but I really
>> > don't remember how the "all groups" carter was arrived at.I presume
>> > the voting results were recorded somewhere, but not by me!"
>>
>> This is an excerpt from a private e-mail - which is something which
>> should never be posted on usenet without the explicit permission of
>> the sender in the first place.
>>
>
> No, this is taken (as you so pointedly pointed out) from a post by
> BWD. It was already out in the public domain and I can use it as I see
> fit.

That particular critisism was indeed aimed at the original poster. However,
that does not necessarily absolve you.

You have in previous discussions admitted to having been active on this
newsgroup before your current user identity, but have refused to reveal
under which username. Your exact identity is of no particular interest to
me, but I do find it of some interest that you consider it important to
hide your previous activities on this newsgroup.

Checking out the posting record of said "Big Wave Dave", he used at least
three different e-mail addresses. At the time he posted the message we
refer to, the address was <>.

However, he later switched to the somewhat suggestive e-mail of:
<>

With pointers to his homepage:
http://webpages.charter.net/webkatz/

That particular webpage now points to:
http://www.webkatz.net/

But ...
Wait a moment ...

Isn't that _your_ website?????

And you claimed to have no connection to Big Wave Dave?????

You have some explaining to do

> Besides, how do you know that Bob didn't supply the explicit
> permission? Sounds like your engaging in some misrepresentation.

Big Wave (i.e. you) was challenged on that point at the time. There was no
response. That rather indicates that such permission was not given.

>
>
>> > So the author of this alleged "higher power" interpretation doesn't
>> > even remember how it all came about.
>> >
>> > Ain't it a bitch when your source of authority disagrees with you?
>>
>> Check out my follow-up to the message (partially) quoted above, which
>> can be found at <>. People
>> may find it illuminating.
>>
>
> Nope.

You did not learn from it the first time.

A pity. But not a surprise.

--
- Helge Nareid
Nordmann i utlendighet, Aberdeen, Scotland
The "From:" field is valid, but e-mails are not necessarily read
For personal e-mail please use my initials only with the same domain

Still don't hear any knocking. Awww... too bad.

> And you claimed to have no connection to Big Wave Dave?????
>

Nope.


> You have some explaining to do
>

Nope.

STILL no knocking, eh?

> STILL no knocking, eh?
>
>

God, that HAS to suck.