Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > eBay: DeBabelizer Pro 5 $99 - HOURS left

Reply
Thread Tools

eBay: DeBabelizer Pro 5 $99 - HOURS left

 
 
KI7G
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-20-2003

DeBabelizer Pro 5 Auction starts at $99 US

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll...ayphotohosting
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Steve Young
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-20-2003
> "KI7G" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote
> DeBabelizer Pro 5 Auction starts at $99 US


I don't recognize your handle as being a participant here


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Steve Young
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-20-2003
> >> "KI7G" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote
> >> DeBabelizer Pro 5 Auction starts at $99 US


> > <(E-Mail Removed)> found these unused words floating about:
> >I don't recognize your handle as being a participant here


>"J. A. Mc." <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote
> Besides ... this isn't the .marketplace section!


I've been meaning to talk with you J.A.Mc
Would you please put a link to this text of yours below.
I've been all over google and I'm beginning to think your statement is hogwash

----- Original Message -----
From: "J. A. Mc." <(E-Mail Removed)>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.digital
Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2003 4:00 PM EDT
Subject: Re: Nikon D100 FULL SETUP for sale

all "rec." groups have an actual written charter or they would not
have been created in this heirarchy.

simply use a search engine to find the current location of all the
usenet "rec." charters.

the same location will give you the procedures for creating, amending
and many other items that control the "rec." groups.


 
Reply With Quote
 
J. A. Mc.
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-22-2003
On Thu, 21 Aug 2003 04:08:51 GMT, "Steve Young"
<(E-Mail Removed)> found these unused words floating about:

<excess snipped>
>
>When everything was said and done J. A. Mc, and though you made the last post
>to the thread with the above messages, I mistakenly thought you were telling
>me the procedures *were* out there, but now I see you were just rehashing
>where the discussion had been, before the unanswered volley with John Navas
>occurred. I think I was thrown off by the word "amending". My apologies for
>misconstruing your post and my hardy thanks for your reply. If you come
>across procedures to hold an existing group vote, would you please post the
>information?
>
>Thanks
>Steve Young
>

All the procedures *are* 'out there', just (at times) not in
convenient form.

If you can detail what you are intending (again, sorry) I'll try to
get that information for you in light of the clarification.

I can tell you this much. rec.collecting.stamps went through an
amendment dividing that group into r.c.s.discuss and
r.c.s.marketplace. That fell under 'renaming'.

To do so, there was a proposal of a 'new' (amended and clarified)
charter, an RFD (discussion of proposal), an appointment of a usenet
volunteer votetaker (UVV) and then the CFV to vote on the changes.

The whole took many months and some acrimony by some of those who
wanted a free-for-all in posting rather than structured sections.

After final voter approval an authorized usenet CNG message (two
actually) and a RNG message was sent to effect the changes. Some
providers never did delete the 'old' r.c.s !

I'm surprised that:
ftp://ftp.isc.org/pub/usenet/news.an...lines/20021111
didn't cover what you want, but then apparently I've lost track of
exactly what you'd intended to do.

The 'key', if you will, is that these really apply to the "Big-8"
groups only (this being one ... "rec"), though the alt section
sometimes follows.

 
Reply With Quote
 
Steve Young
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-23-2003
> <excess snipped>
you may have snipped the answer to your question below, but no harm

> > <(E-Mail Removed)> found these unused words
> >When everything was said and done J. A. Mc, and though you made the
> >last post to the thread, with the above messages, I mistakenly thought
> >you were telling me the procedures *were* out there, but now I see you
> >were just rehashing where the discussion had been, before the
> >unanswered volley with John Navas occurred. I think I was thrown
> >off by the word "amending". My apologies for misconstruing your post
> >and my hardy thanks for your reply. If you come across procedures
> >to hold an existing group vote, would you please post the
> >information?


> "J. A. Mc." <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote
> All the procedures *are* 'out there', just (at times) not in
> convenient form.


we'll test it

> If you can detail what you are intending (again, sorry) I'll try to
> get that information for you in light of the clarification.


Newsgroups need a means to vote to ratify rules & policy, so people don't have
arguments about the clarity of ambiguous rules, or even new challenges, as the
related technologies advance.

> I can tell you this much. rec.collecting.stamps went through an
> amendment dividing that group into r.c.s.discuss and
> r.c.s.marketplace. That fell under 'renaming'.


Yep, group splits We used to talk about that allot, but there is good reason
to keep it all together. This becomes mostly agreed on through the
discussions, or at least no one has mustered the energy to do anything..

> To do so, there was a proposal of a 'new' (amended and clarified)
> charter, an RFD (discussion of proposal), an appointment of a usenet
> volunteer votetaker (UVV) and then the CFV to vote on the changes.


Didn't this actually create new groups, with new names?

> The whole took many months and some acrimony by some of those who
> wanted a free-for-all in posting rather than structured sections.


That's a lot of what blows it apart here (no structure)

> After final voter approval an authorized usenet CNG message (two
> actually) and a RNG message was sent to effect the changes. Some
> providers never did delete the 'old' r.c.s !


So you get amended charters by forming new groups. The old group still has
the same ole charter ?

> I'm surprised that:
> ftp://ftp.isc.org/pub/usenet/news.an...lines/20021111
> didn't cover what you want, but then apparently I've lost track of
> exactly what you'd intended to do.


I'd like to see
this group (rec.photo.digital) formally ratify its rules & policy by
accepted public vote

> The 'key', if you will, is that these really apply to the "Big-8"
> groups only (this being one ... "rec"), though the alt section
> sometimes follows.


well we're a BIG 8 group

Steve Young


 
Reply With Quote
 
J. A. Mc.
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-23-2003
On Sat, 23 Aug 2003 01:55:50 GMT, "Steve Young"
<(E-Mail Removed)> found these unused words floating about:

>> <excess snipped>

>you may have snipped the answer to your question below, but no harm
>
>> > <(E-Mail Removed)> found these unused words
>> >When everything was said and done J. A. Mc, and though you made the
>> >last post to the thread, with the above messages, I mistakenly thought
>> >you were telling me the procedures *were* out there, but now I see you
>> >were just rehashing where the discussion had been, before the
>> >unanswered volley with John Navas occurred. I think I was thrown
>> >off by the word "amending". My apologies for misconstruing your post
>> >and my hardy thanks for your reply. If you come across procedures
>> >to hold an existing group vote, would you please post the
>> >information?

>
>> "J. A. Mc." <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote
>> All the procedures *are* 'out there', just (at times) not in
>> convenient form.

>
>we'll test it
>
>> If you can detail what you are intending (again, sorry) I'll try to
>> get that information for you in light of the clarification.

>
>Newsgroups need a means to vote to ratify rules & policy, so people don't have
>arguments about the clarity of ambiguous rules, or even new challenges, as the
>related technologies advance.


Clearly covered in the link I sent you.

>> I can tell you this much. rec.collecting.stamps went through an
>> amendment dividing that group into r.c.s.discuss and
>> r.c.s.marketplace. That fell under 'renaming'.

>
>Yep, group splits We used to talk about that allot, but there is good reason
>to keep it all together. This becomes mostly agreed on through the
>discussions, or at least no one has mustered the energy to do anything..


Marketplace already exists for this group!

>> To do so, there was a proposal of a 'new' (amended and clarified)
>> charter, an RFD (discussion of proposal), an appointment of a usenet
>> volunteer votetaker (UVV) and then the CFV to vote on the changes.

>
>Didn't this actually create new groups, with new names?


Yes, it has to because the name of the group was modified to denote
the purpose from a 'combined' single into two 'purpose' groups.

>> The whole took many months and some acrimony by some of those who
>> wanted a free-for-all in posting rather than structured sections.

>
>That's a lot of what blows it apart here (no structure)


The has (or had) to be a 'structure' or Usenet would not have allowed
the creation of the group. Covered in the link.

>> After final voter approval an authorized usenet CNG message (two
>> actually) and a RNG message was sent to effect the changes. Some
>> providers never did delete the 'old' r.c.s !

>
>So you get amended charters by forming new groups. The old group still has
>the same ole charter ?


The old group is 'officially' dead - nonexistant as far as Usenet
"Big-8" is concerned. Newsgroups are based on many servers loosely
agreeing to carry the groups. Should some server's admin decide NOT to
follow a RNG message, the the 'group' continues a limited existance.

IS rec.collecting.stamps available in your 'all groups' list or are
just r.c.s.d and r.c.s.m listed ?

>> I'm surprised that:
>> ftp://ftp.isc.org/pub/usenet/news.an...lines/20021111
>> didn't cover what you want, but then apparently I've lost track of
>> exactly what you'd intended to do.

>
>I'd like to see
>this group (rec.photo.digital) formally ratify its rules & policy by
>accepted public vote


Again, they did - or the group would not exist. If you want to modify
any of the original charter, the link above gives you the procedure!

>> The 'key', if you will, is that these really apply to the "Big-8"
>> groups only (this being one ... "rec"), though the alt section
>> sometimes follows.

>
>well we're a BIG 8 group


!!!!

>Steve Young
>


 
Reply With Quote
 
WebKatz
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-25-2003

"Tony Spadaro" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:BjS0b.19491$(E-Mail Removed) om...
> Ebay abuse
>
> Ebay contact, including SPAM complaints:
> http://pages.ebay.com/help/basics/select-RS.html
>
> UseNet SPAM policy:
> http://pages.ebay.com/help/usenet_policy.html
>
> Be sure to include all headers.
>


"DaVidaMundi" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed) om...
> John Navas <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message

news:<e3k%a.12223$(E-Mail Removed)>...
> > [POSTED TO rec.photo.digital - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
> >
> > In <(E-Mail Removed)> on Thu, 14 Aug 2003

16:21:36 -0500,
> > "WebKatz" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> >
> > >eBay honors our charter

> >
> > eBay only gets involved in serious abuses.

>
>
> Then you still ain't got squat. What are you gonna do, gum 'em to death?
>
> Viva!




You still ain't got squat.

I sold 3 items on eBay after posting here. There were threats,
accusations, bullying, name calling, and spamming by the local volunteer
constabulary, but nothing came of it. eBay honors our charter, not the
hokey, un-ratified, compilation document that keeps getting foisted around
here.

The official charter for this and other rec.photo.* groups can be
found at ftp://ftp.isc.org/pub/usenet/control/rec.

EBay's Usenet policy can be found at
http://pages.ebay.com/help/new/usenet-policy.html

My current auctions can be found at
http://cgi6.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dl...erid=webkatz02
&include=0&since=-1&sort=3&rows=50

Take care,

Dave

P.S. Lovely cross-posting there.


 
Reply With Quote
 
Steve Young
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-25-2003
> >> > <(E-Mail Removed)> found these unused words
> >> >When everything was said and done J. A. Mc, and though you made the
> >> >last post to the thread, with the above messages, I mistakenly thought
> >> >you were telling me the procedures *were* out there, but now I see you
> >> >were just rehashing where the discussion had been, before the
> >> >unanswered volley with John Navas occurred. I think I was thrown
> >> >off by the word "amending". My apologies for misconstruing your post
> >> >and my hardy thanks for your reply. If you come across procedures
> >> >to hold an existing group vote, would you please post the
> >> >information?


> >> "J. A. Mc." <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote
> >> All the procedures *are* 'out there', just (at times) not in
> >> convenient form.


> > <(E-Mail Removed)>
> >we'll test it


> >> If you can detail what you are intending (again, sorry) I'll try to
> >> get that information for you in light of the clarification.


> >Newsgroups need a means to vote to ratify rules & policy, so people don't
> >have arguments about the clarity of ambiguous rules, or even new
> >challenges, as the related technologies advance.


> Clearly covered in the link I sent you.


What is "clearly covered"? Only the creation of new groups is clearly
covered. Here, I'll paste the entire guideline message and you point out
where we can use this to hold a vote to ratify this newsgroup's rules. Note
particularly #3 which specifically disallows what you've stated. (amending)
Here goes:

From http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed) Mon Nov 11 00:46:29 2002
Path: news.isc.org!not-for-mail
Date: 11 Nov 2002 00:46:28 -0000
From: news.announce.newgroups Moderation Team <(E-Mail Removed)>
Subject: Guidelines for Big Eight Newsgroup Creation
Newsgroups: news.announce.newgroups,news.groups
Approved: (E-Mail Removed)
Expires: 16 Dec 2002 00:46:28 -0000
Supersedes: <big-eight-faq-1036137602$(E-Mail Removed)>
Message-ID: <big-eight-faq-1036975588$(E-Mail Removed)>
Lines: 253
Xref: news.isc.org news.announce.newgroups:11835 news.groups:420667

Last-modified: 2002-11-11 (revision 1.2)
Posted-by: postfaq 1.6 (Perl 5.6.1)
Archive-name: usenet/creating-newsgroups/big-eight
URL: http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/faqs/big-eight.html
Posting-frequency: monthly

THE BIG EIGHT NEWSGROUP CREATION PROCESS

These guidelines document the process to create, rename, remove, or change
the moderation status of newsgroups in the Big Eight hierarchies (those
newsgroups with names starting with comp.*, humanities.*, misc.*, news.*,
rec.*, sci.*, soc.*, and talk.*). Proposals under this process must go
through a discussion phase, a voting phase, and a verification phase as
described below.

For information on how to submit a proposal and advice on working within
this process, please see the FAQs posted to news.announce.newgroups and
news.groups.

New group proponents should be aware that the entire process typically
takes three months, and must be followed precisely. Those who have not
proposed a group before may wish to ask (E-Mail Removed) for
assistance. Processes for creating groups in other hierarchies, such as
alt.*, are often quite different and sometimes much less formal; please
see the appropriate groups within those hierarchies for details.

The goal of this process is to reach consensus on a relatively stable list
of widely useful newsgroups that can be used without change at many Usenet
sites. A Usenet site should be able to use the results of this process to
determine the list of newsgroups to carry and their moderation status
without needing to separately evaluate at each site whether a given
newsgroup should be added or dropped. The process is biased in favor of
stability and requires that new newsgroups meet a minimum standard of
demonstrated interest. The process also attempts to ensure new newsgroups
are reasonably named, have an acceptable moderation policy if moderated,
and would not have damaging effects on Usenet as a whole.

Most of this procedure is at the discretion of the news.announce.newgroups
moderator or moderation team (hereafter referred to as the n.a.n
moderator), who can be reached at (E-Mail Removed). All
subjective determinations, particularly in points 5-10, 12, 13, 24, 27,
and 29 below, will be made by the n.a.n moderator.

These guidelines have been accepted by the n.a.n moderator and may be
changed at the sole discretion of the n.a.n moderator.

GENERAL RULE

1. Only postings to news.announce.newgroups authorized by the n.a.n
moderator are considered official in this process. All time limits
and deadlines will be based on the Date headers of those posts.

THE DISCUSSION

2. A proposal officially begins with the posting of a Request for
Discussion (RFD) in news.announce.newgroups. A valid RFD must contain
a rationale for the proposal, charters for all newsgroups which would
be created or changed, and moderator information sections for all
created or changed groups that are proposed to be moderated. The RFD
must be crossposted to news.groups, should be crossposted to groups
likely to be affected by the proposal, and may be crossposted to other
related newsgroups.

Crossposts to poorly propagated or regional newsgroups may be
disallowed at the discretion of the n.a.n moderator. Proposals will
only be posted or crossposted to moderated groups with the explicit
permission of the moderators of those groups. The total length of the
Newsgroups header in the RFD (and CFV) must not exceed 200 characters,
including "Newsgroups: ". The Followup-To header will be set to
news.groups only (but see point 11). The RFD, after it has been
posted, may be redistributed freely.

Due to the crosspost filters of some large ISPs, it is recommended
(but not required) that proposals be crossposted to no more than five
groups (including n.a.n and news.groups).

3. A proposal must consist of one or more of the following changes to Big
Eight newsgroups: Create a new newsgroup, remove an existing
newsgroup (by subsuming it into an existing group), change the
moderation status of an existing newsgroup, or rename a newsgroup. No
other types of proposals will be accepted, nor will proposals to
create, change, or remove newsgroups outside the Big Eight.

4. All proposed group names must be within the Big Eight hierarchies. A
group name is made up of name components separated by '.' (period or
dot). Each component must consist solely of lowercase ASCII letters,
digits, '+' (plus), or '-' (dash), must contain at least one letter
(a-z), and must be no more than twenty characters long.

5. A proposal may include multiple changes if they are closely related,
but each individual change (as defined in point 3) will be voted on
separately. The n.a.n moderator may require closely-related proposals
submitted at the same time to be combined into a single RFD. The
n.a.n moderator may also require that unrelated proposals combined in
a single RFD be split into multiple RFDs. Once a proposal has been
posted as an RFD, the n.a.n moderator will not require that it be
combined with another proposal, and instead overlapping proposals will
be dealt with according to point 8.

6. A proposal that is substantially similar to a previous failed proposal
may not be made until at least six months after the close of voting on
the last such failed proposal.

7. A proposal that significantly affects the same groups as a previous
successful proposal may not be made until at least three months after
the implementation (point 27) of the last such successful proposal.

8. Two proposals with overlapping purposes, newsgroup names, or effects
may not proceed at the same time. Precedence is normally given to the
first group to present a formal proposal, but repeat proposals under
point 6 above may be handled differently at the discretion of the
n.a.n moderator (to prevent monopolization of a proposal).

9. Proposals that unmoderate or change the moderator(s) of an actively
moderated group against the desire of the moderator(s) will be
rejected.

10. Proposals may be rejected by the n.a.n moderator in the extremely rare
circumstance that the proposal would be opposed by the vast majority
of news administrators or have a sufficiently deleterious effect on
the Big Eight as a whole as to make it dangerously unworkable or
extremely ill-advised (for example, a proposal for a newsgroup where
the act of posting on charter would be almost universally illegal).

11. All discussion of active proposals should be posted to news.groups.
If desired by the readership of closely affected groups, it may be
crossposted to those groups, but care must be taken to ensure that all
discussion appears in news.groups.

12. Additional RFDs for a proposal may be posted as needed, as the
proposal changes in response to discussion. An additional RFD is
needed if there have been major changes to the proposal or if 60 days
have passed since the previous RFD. Examples of major changes include
any change to a group's name or moderation status or a significant
alteration to the charter. Examples of minor changes not requiring an
additional RFD include the addition or removal of a proponent or
tidying up some wording in the rationale or charter.

13. The discussion period must be a minimum of 21 days. If a proposal
remains in the RFD phase for more than 120 days, the proposal may be
suspended and a competing proposal allowed to go forward. If it has
been more than 120 days since the latest RFD for a proposal and a
Proponent Questionnaire (see point 14) was not submitted within 60
days of the latest RFD, the proposal will be considered withdrawn.

THE VOTE

14. Success or failure of a proposal will be determined by the results
of a general interest poll conducted by a member of the Usenet
Volunteer Votetakers (UVV). Before the poll begins, the proponent
must submit a Proponent Questionnaire (PQ) to the UVV. The votetaker
will post a CFV (Call for Votes) based on the PQ, generally to the
same newsgroups to which the RFD was posted. Each proposed change
from the list in point 3 above will be voted on separately and will
pass or fail independently.

15. The first CFV may be posted between 10 and 60 days after the latest
RFD for the proposal. At least 21 days must have elapsed between the
first RFD and the first CFV.

16. The voting period will last 21 days. The votetaker will post a second
CFV near the middle of that period. Only votes that arrive at the
votetaker's machine prior to the close of voting will be considered
valid.

17. The votetaker may reject votes not cast precisely according to the
instructions in the CFV.

18. Only one vote per person is permitted. If multiple votes are received
from a single account, only the last vote will be counted, even if the
account is used by more than one person. Multiple votes which are, in
the judgment of the votetaker, attempts to bypass these restrictions
may all be rejected.

19. Votes from undeliverable addresses (including transformations of valid
addresses intended to avoid spam) are not valid. The votetaker will
e-mail an acknowledgment of the vote in response to each vote, and if
this acknowledgment bounces, the corresponding vote will not count
towards the total. Voters are responsible for investigating what
happened if their votes are not acknowledged.

20. Anonymous, forwarded, or proxy votes are not valid. Votes mailed by
WWW/HTML/CGI forms are considered proxy votes and are not valid. The
precise definition of anonymous is at the discretion of the votetaker
but should not be interpreted as requiring all voters to use their
real name; votes from well-established pseudonyms should be accepted.

21. The explicit voting instructions in the CFV may not be distributed, in
whole or in part, to any forum, by anyone except the votetaker.
People wishing to vote should be referred to the CFV posted in
news.announce.newgroups or told to contact the votetaker for a copy.
Violations may result in invalidation of votes by the votetaker or
long-term suspension of the proposal by the n.a.n moderator.

22. Whether or not the CFV may be sent to mailing lists is at the
discretion of the votetaker, and if done should only be done by the
votetaker directly.

23. The validity of any given vote is determined by the votetaker. Votes
may be disqualified for violation of the above points or for any other
actions seriously detrimental to the integrity of the vote, at the
discretion of the votetaker. The decision of the votetaker may be
appealed to the n.a.n moderator. The decision of the n.a.n moderator
is final.

24. If there are significant problems with the vote, if the votetaker is
unable to collect the votes, or if there are other serious flaws in
the voting procedure, the n.a.n moderator will normally cancel the
vote and hold an immediate revote without disclosing the results of
the first vote.

THE RESULT

25. After the completion of the vote, the votetaker will tally the result
and post it to the same newsgroups to which the votetaker posted the
CFV. The posted result will contain the name, a form of the e-mail
address, and the vote of everyone who voted except for those people
who subsequently cancelled their vote.

26. Each separate proposed change will be considered to have passed if and
only if it received at least 100 more YES than NO votes and received
at least twice as many YES as NO votes.

27. After the result posting, there will be a five day period when any
objections to the vote may be raised in news.groups. The n.a.n
moderator should also be informed (at (E-Mail Removed)) of
any objections or inaccuracies that could change the outcome.

28. At the conclusion of this waiting period, the n.a.n moderator will
either validate the results or will put the proposal on hold while
objections are considered. The final determination of whether a vote
has passed or failed will be made by the n.a.n moderator; the n.a.n
moderator may also call for a revote or take other appropriate action
to deal with severely flawed votes.

29. Flaws in the voting process caused by good faith lapses on the
part of the UVV may not be cause for cancelling a vote. If the voting
period lasted at least 21 days with at least one posted CFV and the
flaws are, in the discretion of the n.a.n moderator, extremely
unlikely to have caused a change in the outcome, the n.a.n moderator
may accept the voting results even if the above procedure is not
followed exactly.

30. All portions of the proposal that passed will be implemented by
control messages issued by the n.a.n moderator. Control messages are
sent at 10:30am US Eastern time, Monday through Thursday. Ordinarily,
control messages implementing the portions of a proposal which passed
will be sent at the first such time at least five days (120 hours)
after the posting of the result. Delays may be caused by unresolved
objections from point 25, major holidays, initial setup of moderation,
or transition periods (for example, during renames, removal of an
existing group may be delayed until creation of its replacement has
had time to propagate).

--- END paste ---------

> >> I can tell you this much. rec.collecting.stamps went through an
> >> amendment dividing that group into r.c.s.discuss and
> >> r.c.s.marketplace. That fell under 'renaming'.


> >Yep, group splits We used to talk about that allot, but there is good
> >reason to keep it all together. This becomes mostly agreed on through
> >the discussions, or at least no one has mustered the energy to do
> >anything..


> Marketplace already exists for this group!


Who said anything about marketplace?. You jumping to some conclusion?

> >> To do so, there was a proposal of a 'new' (amended and clarified)
> >> charter, an RFD (discussion of proposal), an appointment of a usenet
> >> volunteer votetaker (UVV) and then the CFV to vote on the changes.


> >Didn't this actually create new groups, with new names?


> Yes, it has to because the name of the group was modified to denote
> the purpose from a 'combined' single into two 'purpose' groups.


Fine, but it was the only way you could do it according to the n.a.n.
guidelines. (create new groups). You couldn't just create one, then amend the
charter of the existing group.

> >> The whole took many months and some acrimony by some of those who
> >> wanted a free-for-all in posting rather than structured sections.


> >That's a lot of what blows it apart here (no structure)


> The has (or had) to be a 'structure' or Usenet would not have allowed
> the creation of the group. Covered in the link.


Can't you see, I'm talking about *today*? Not back when our charter was
initially screwed up, through oversight and poor word choice.

> >> After final voter approval an authorized usenet CNG message (two
> >> actually) and a RNG message was sent to effect the changes. Some
> >> providers never did delete the 'old' r.c.s !


> >So you get amended charters by forming new groups. The old group still has
> >the same ole charter ?


> The old group is 'officially' dead - nonexistant as far as Usenet
> "Big-8" is concerned. Newsgroups are based on many servers loosely
> agreeing to carry the groups. Should some server's admin decide NOT to
> follow a RNG message, the the 'group' continues a limited existance.


Why would we want to eliminate this newsgroup, just because we want to ratify
a current set of rules, which would be more specific and clearly defined than
our current charter?

> IS rec.collecting.stamps available in your 'all groups' list or are
> just r.c.s.d and r.c.s.m listed ?


only the latter 2

> >> I'm surprised that:
> >> ftp://ftp.isc.org/pub/usenet/news.an...lines/20021111
> >> didn't cover what you want, but then apparently I've lost track of
> >> exactly what you'd intended to do.


You should pay closer attention if you're a player

> >I'd like to see
> >this group (rec.photo.digital) formally ratify its rules & policy by
> >accepted public vote


> Again, they did - or the group would not exist. If you want to modify
> any of the original charter, the link above gives you the procedure!


Huh? I'm not talking about the creation of a new group. Our charter has a
flaw in it, which only forbids commercial advertising. Or is that the way it
was intended? If so, why is someone always netcopping hobbyist ad posters?

> >> The 'key', if you will, is that these really apply to the "Big-8"
> >> groups only (this being one ... "rec"), though the alt section
> >> sometimes follows.


> >well we're a BIG 8 group


> !!!!


Steve Young


 
Reply With Quote
 
Tony Spadaro
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-25-2003
I'm more concerned with knocking out spamming idiots.

--
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com
home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto
The Improved Links Pages are at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html
New email - Contact on the Menyou page.
"WebKatz" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> Knock yourself out, please.
>
>



 
Reply With Quote
 
J. A. Mc.
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-25-2003
On Mon, 25 Aug 2003 14:36:05 GMT, "Steve Young"
<(E-Mail Removed)> found these unused words floating about:

>> >> I'm surprised that:
>> >> ftp://ftp.isc.org/pub/usenet/news.an...lines/20021111
>> >> didn't cover what you want, but then apparently I've lost track of
>> >> exactly what you'd intended to do.

>
>You should pay closer attention if you're a player


Thanks, Steve ... I'm obviously not in -your- league ! Good luck with
-your- team.

>> >I'd like to see
>> >this group (rec.photo.digital) formally ratify its rules & policy by
>> >accepted public vote

>
>> Again, they did - or the group would not exist. If you want to modify
>> any of the original charter, the link above gives you the procedure!

>
>Huh? I'm not talking about the creation of a new group. Our charter has a
>flaw in it, which only forbids commercial advertising. Or is that the way it
>was intended? If so, why is someone always netcopping hobbyist ad posters?


I would say that's the way the group intended, because the group VOTED
for that charter!

Those ARE the rules & policy for this group, at this time!

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Recorded 2 hours, deleted 2 hours, no space left? Tony Tee DVD Video 5 07-25-2007 10:20 AM
Date::Manip hours elapsed not business hours elapsed rutherf Perl Misc 2 10-28-2006 08:05 AM
1700 series: S0 is up 2 hours, down 2 hours, up, down, arghgh! Ivan Cisco 11 10-14-2004 08:41 AM
FA: DeBabelizer Pro 5.0 $79 - Lower Price KI7G Digital Photography 3 08-26-2003 02:06 PM
Hi im going to make a "time counter" from hours to hours and a loggfile export system Rahmi Acar C++ 0 07-17-2003 08:28 PM



Advertisments