Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > Re: goodbye rec.photo.digital -hello rec.photo.digital.slr-systems?

Reply
Thread Tools

Re: goodbye rec.photo.digital -hello rec.photo.digital.slr-systems?

 
 
Woodchuck Bill
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-24-2004
"Steve Young" <bowtieATbrightdslDOTnet> wrote in
news:(E-Mail Removed):

>> That is a lie. Not a single vote has been ruled as "invalid" by the
>> NAN team.

>
> You have the cart before the horse Bill. There is a 5 day period for
> discussion and then NAN may take up the case. Don't you remember the
> sequence from Full Metal Jacket?


In the FMJ case, someone properly challenged a series of *specific*
votes with compelling evidence and a solid reason for voiding those
votes.

Here is the *official* challenge, with proof..


http://makeashorterlink.com/?E28824999

Message-ID: <(E-Mail Removed) >


The original RESULT..


http://makeashorterlink.com/?Q19813999

Message-ID: <(E-Mail Removed)>


The revised RESULT..


http://makeashorterlink.com/?A1A823999

Message-ID: <(E-Mail Removed)>


In the original RESULT, the group failed. There were 2 challenges
made..to the Full Metal Jacket "no" votes, and to the Stromboli "yes"
votes. In the end, the FMJ votes were thrown out, and the Stromboli
votes were upheld by the NAN team. The group passed, solely due to the
Stromboli block of votes.

Not a single vote has been properly challenged for the RPD reorg vote,
with any offered proof of invalidity. The losing side cries "voter
fraud" on almost every CFV, and nothing is ever reversed without
compelling evidence of voter fraud. Unfamiliarity of a voter name is not
grounds for voiding a vote, as there is no previous posting requirement
for voters. In order for this result to be invalidated, you would need to
come up with a list of roughly 250+ invalid votes, and offer proof why
you purport *each* of them to be invalid, above and beyond the claim
that you do not 'recognize' the names.

The RPD reorg vote will stand, and the new groups will be created within
the next few days.

--
Bill
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Matt Ion
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-24-2004
Just one question...

WHO the **** cares?!?!


Woodchuck Bill wrote:

> "Steve Young" <bowtieATbrightdslDOTnet> wrote in
> news:(E-Mail Removed):
>
>
>>>That is a lie. Not a single vote has been ruled as "invalid" by the
>>>NAN team.

>>
>>You have the cart before the horse Bill. There is a 5 day period for
>>discussion and then NAN may take up the case. Don't you remember the
>>sequence from Full Metal Jacket?

>
>
> In the FMJ case, someone properly challenged a series of *specific*
> votes with compelling evidence and a solid reason for voiding those
> votes.
>
> Here is the *official* challenge, with proof..
>
>
> http://makeashorterlink.com/?E28824999
>
> Message-ID: <(E-Mail Removed) >
>
>
> The original RESULT..
>
>
> http://makeashorterlink.com/?Q19813999
>
> Message-ID: <(E-Mail Removed)>
>
>
> The revised RESULT..
>
>
> http://makeashorterlink.com/?A1A823999
>
> Message-ID: <(E-Mail Removed)>
>
>
> In the original RESULT, the group failed. There were 2 challenges
> made..to the Full Metal Jacket "no" votes, and to the Stromboli "yes"
> votes. In the end, the FMJ votes were thrown out, and the Stromboli
> votes were upheld by the NAN team. The group passed, solely due to the
> Stromboli block of votes.
>
> Not a single vote has been properly challenged for the RPD reorg vote,
> with any offered proof of invalidity. The losing side cries "voter
> fraud" on almost every CFV, and nothing is ever reversed without
> compelling evidence of voter fraud. Unfamiliarity of a voter name is not
> grounds for voiding a vote, as there is no previous posting requirement
> for voters. In order for this result to be invalidated, you would need to
> come up with a list of roughly 250+ invalid votes, and offer proof why
> you purport *each* of them to be invalid, above and beyond the claim
> that you do not 'recognize' the names.
>
> The RPD reorg vote will stand, and the new groups will be created within
> the next few days.
>

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Woodchuck Bill
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-24-2004
Matt Ion <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
newsQIed.10298$%k.1888@pd7tw2no:

> Just one question...
>
> WHO the **** cares?!?!


Obviously not you, but some people apparently do, so please ignore what you
don't want to read and let others carry on as they desire.

--
Bill
 
Reply With Quote
 
dj_nme
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-24-2004
Woodchuck Bill wrote:
> "Steve Young" <bowtieATbrightdslDOTnet> wrote in
> news:(E-Mail Removed):
>
>
>>>That is a lie. Not a single vote has been ruled as "invalid" by the
>>>NAN team.

>>
>>You have the cart before the horse Bill. There is a 5 day period for
>>discussion and then NAN may take up the case. Don't you remember the
>>sequence from Full Metal Jacket?

>
>
> In the FMJ case, someone properly challenged a series of *specific*
> votes with compelling evidence and a solid reason for voiding those
> votes.
>
> Here is the *official* challenge, with proof..
>
>
> http://makeashorterlink.com/?E28824999
>
> Message-ID: <(E-Mail Removed) >
>
>
> The original RESULT..
>
>
> http://makeashorterlink.com/?Q19813999
>
> Message-ID: <(E-Mail Removed)>
>
>
> The revised RESULT..
>
>
> http://makeashorterlink.com/?A1A823999
>
> Message-ID: <(E-Mail Removed)>
>
>
> In the original RESULT, the group failed. There were 2 challenges
> made..to the Full Metal Jacket "no" votes, and to the Stromboli "yes"
> votes. In the end, the FMJ votes were thrown out, and the Stromboli
> votes were upheld by the NAN team. The group passed, solely due to the
> Stromboli block of votes.
>
> Not a single vote has been properly challenged for the RPD reorg vote,
> with any offered proof of invalidity. The losing side cries "voter
> fraud" on almost every CFV, and nothing is ever reversed without
> compelling evidence of voter fraud. Unfamiliarity of a voter name is not
> grounds for voiding a vote, as there is no previous posting requirement
> for voters. In order for this result to be invalidated, you would need to
> come up with a list of roughly 250+ invalid votes, and offer proof why
> you purport *each* of them to be invalid, above and beyond the claim
> that you do not 'recognize' the names.
>
> The RPD reorg vote will stand, and the new groups will be created within
> the next few days.
>


To those that like things the way they are, just post as you normaly
would to the current (apropriate) newsgroup.
Just killfile the NG creation threads and it will seem just like it was
before the vote.
I will do that myself to all three threads that have been clogging up
RPD for the past few weeks.

Considering that all digital cameras and accessories are on topic (ad
will remain on topic) in RPD, it won't make any difference to me.

The new sub-groups will probably wither due to ISPs not subscribing
their servers to them anyway (and the resulting lack of posts).

Have fun complaining either way in this thread, because I will leave you
to it.
 
Reply With Quote
 
me
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-24-2004
"Matt Ion" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
newsQIed.10298$%k.1888@pd7tw2no...
> Just one question...
>
> WHO the **** cares?!?!


ROTFL! Ahem, now that I've recovered, I like your style Matt but IMHO a
better question might be, is there an NG for the discussion of NG creation?
Perhaps that might be a better venue for this sort of thing?

> Woodchuck Bill wrote:
>
> > "Steve Young" <bowtieATbrightdslDOTnet> wrote in
> > news:(E-Mail Removed):
> >
> >
> >>>That is a lie. Not a single vote has been ruled as "invalid" by the
> >>>NAN team.
> >>
> >>You have the cart before the horse Bill. There is a 5 day period for
> >>discussion and then NAN may take up the case. Don't you remember the
> >>sequence from Full Metal Jacket?

> >
> >
> > In the FMJ case, someone properly challenged a series of *specific*
> > votes with compelling evidence and a solid reason for voiding those
> > votes.
> >
> > Here is the *official* challenge, with proof..
> >
> >
> > http://makeashorterlink.com/?E28824999
> >
> > Message-ID: <(E-Mail Removed) >
> >
> >
> > The original RESULT..
> >
> >
> > http://makeashorterlink.com/?Q19813999
> >
> > Message-ID: <(E-Mail Removed)>
> >
> >
> > The revised RESULT..
> >
> >
> > http://makeashorterlink.com/?A1A823999
> >
> > Message-ID: <(E-Mail Removed)>
> >
> >
> > In the original RESULT, the group failed. There were 2 challenges
> > made..to the Full Metal Jacket "no" votes, and to the Stromboli "yes"
> > votes. In the end, the FMJ votes were thrown out, and the Stromboli
> > votes were upheld by the NAN team. The group passed, solely due to the
> > Stromboli block of votes.
> >
> > Not a single vote has been properly challenged for the RPD reorg vote,
> > with any offered proof of invalidity. The losing side cries "voter
> > fraud" on almost every CFV, and nothing is ever reversed without
> > compelling evidence of voter fraud. Unfamiliarity of a voter name is not
> > grounds for voiding a vote, as there is no previous posting requirement
> > for voters. In order for this result to be invalidated, you would need

to
> > come up with a list of roughly 250+ invalid votes, and offer proof why
> > you purport *each* of them to be invalid, above and beyond the claim
> > that you do not 'recognize' the names.
> >
> > The RPD reorg vote will stand, and the new groups will be created within
> > the next few days.
> >



 
Reply With Quote
 
me
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-24-2004
"me" <anonymous@_.com> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> "Matt Ion" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> newsQIed.10298$%k.1888@pd7tw2no...
> > Just one question...
> >
> > WHO the **** cares?!?!

>
> ROTFL! Ahem, now that I've recovered, I like your style Matt but IMHO a
> better question might be, is there a NG for the discussion of NG creation?


I answer my own question: news.groups news.announce.newgroups

> Perhaps that might be a better venue for this sort of thing?
>
> > Woodchuck Bill wrote:
> >
> > > "Steve Young" <bowtieATbrightdslDOTnet> wrote in
> > > news:(E-Mail Removed):
> > >
> > >
> > >>>That is a lie. Not a single vote has been ruled as "invalid" by the
> > >>>NAN team.
> > >>
> > >>You have the cart before the horse Bill. There is a 5 day period for
> > >>discussion and then NAN may take up the case. Don't you remember the
> > >>sequence from Full Metal Jacket?
> > >
> > >
> > > In the FMJ case, someone properly challenged a series of *specific*
> > > votes with compelling evidence and a solid reason for voiding those
> > > votes.
> > >
> > > Here is the *official* challenge, with proof..
> > >
> > >
> > > http://makeashorterlink.com/?E28824999
> > >
> > > Message-ID: <(E-Mail Removed) >
> > >
> > >
> > > The original RESULT..
> > >
> > >
> > > http://makeashorterlink.com/?Q19813999
> > >
> > > Message-ID: <(E-Mail Removed)>
> > >
> > >
> > > The revised RESULT..
> > >
> > >
> > > http://makeashorterlink.com/?A1A823999
> > >
> > > Message-ID: <(E-Mail Removed)>
> > >
> > >
> > > In the original RESULT, the group failed. There were 2 challenges
> > > made..to the Full Metal Jacket "no" votes, and to the Stromboli "yes"
> > > votes. In the end, the FMJ votes were thrown out, and the Stromboli
> > > votes were upheld by the NAN team. The group passed, solely due to the
> > > Stromboli block of votes.
> > >
> > > Not a single vote has been properly challenged for the RPD reorg vote,
> > > with any offered proof of invalidity. The losing side cries "voter
> > > fraud" on almost every CFV, and nothing is ever reversed without
> > > compelling evidence of voter fraud. Unfamiliarity of a voter name is

not
> > > grounds for voiding a vote, as there is no previous posting

requirement
> > > for voters. In order for this result to be invalidated, you would need

> to
> > > come up with a list of roughly 250+ invalid votes, and offer proof why
> > > you purport *each* of them to be invalid, above and beyond the claim
> > > that you do not 'recognize' the names.
> > >
> > > The RPD reorg vote will stand, and the new groups will be created

within
> > > the next few days.
> > >

>
>



 
Reply With Quote
 
Woodchuck Bill
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-24-2004
"me" <anonymous@_.com> wrote in news:(E-Mail Removed):

> is there a NG for the discussion of NG creation?
>
> I answer my own question: news.groups news.announce.newgroups


You provided an incomplete answer. You forgot to add..

...all newsgroups named in the distribution list of the particular proposal
and/or any other groups thay may be affected by the proposal.

--
Bill
 
Reply With Quote
 
Alan Browne
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-24-2004
Matt Ion wrote:

> Just one question...
>
> WHO the **** cares?!?!


If you don't, then (and using your language) you know what to do.

--
-- rec.photo.equipment.35mm user resource:
-- http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.--
 
Reply With Quote
 
drwxr-xr-x
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-24-2004
On 24 Oct 2004 07:43:58 GMT, Woodchuck Bill hath writ:
> Matt Ion <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
> newsQIed.10298$%k.1888@pd7tw2no:
>
>> Just one question...
>>
>> WHO the **** cares?!?!

>
> Obviously not you, but some people apparently do, so please ignore what you
> don't want to read and let others carry on as they desire.


Well, what _will_ happen is that folks ignoring nettique will
now be cross-posting to even _more_ ng's than this thread is.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Mike
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-24-2004

"Matt Ion" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
newsQIed.10298$%k.1888@pd7tw2no...
> Just one question...
>
> WHO the **** cares?!?!
>
>

LOL, you beat me to it Matt


 
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
Goodbye "Goodbye Ruby" Robert Schaaf Ruby 7 04-18-2009 09:37 PM
Goodbye Mozilla Joe S. Firefox 11 01-31-2005 11:08 AM
Goodbye Bush, and good riddance paul MCSE 135 11-05-2004 05:59 PM
goodbye Wapi choo MCSE 4 12-20-2003 01:25 AM
goodbye Wapi choo MCSE 1 12-19-2003 08:27 PM



Advertisments