eBay: DeBabelizer Pro 5 $99 - HOURS left

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by KI7G, Aug 20, 2003.

  1. KI7G

    KI7G Guest

    KI7G, Aug 20, 2003
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. KI7G

    Steve Young Guest

    Re: DeBabelizer Pro 5 $99 - HOURS left

    > "KI7G" <> wrote
    > DeBabelizer Pro 5 Auction starts at $99 US


    I don't recognize your handle as being a participant here :(
     
    Steve Young, Aug 20, 2003
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. KI7G

    Steve Young Guest

    Re: DeBabelizer Pro 5 $99 - HOURS left

    > >> "KI7G" <> wrote
    > >> DeBabelizer Pro 5 Auction starts at $99 US


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


    >"J. A. Mc." <> 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." <>
    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.
     
    Steve Young, Aug 20, 2003
    #3
  4. KI7G

    J. A. Mc. Guest

    Re: Steve Young's "Hogwash" links

    On Thu, 21 Aug 2003 04:08:51 GMT, "Steve Young"
    <> 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.announce.newgroups/Guidelines/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.
     
    J. A. Mc., Aug 22, 2003
    #4
  5. KI7G

    Steve Young Guest

    Re: Steve Young's "Hogwash" links

    > <excess snipped>
    you may have snipped the answer to your question below, but no harm ;)

    > > <> 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." <> 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.announce.newgroups/Guidelines/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
     
    Steve Young, Aug 23, 2003
    #5
  6. KI7G

    J. A. Mc. Guest

    Re: Steve Young's "Hogwash" links

    On Sat, 23 Aug 2003 01:55:50 GMT, "Steve Young"
    <> found these unused words floating about:

    >> <excess snipped>

    >you may have snipped the answer to your question below, but no harm ;)
    >
    >> > <> 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." <> 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.announce.newgroups/Guidelines/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
    >
     
    J. A. Mc., Aug 23, 2003
    #6
  7. KI7G

    WebKatz Guest

    Re: DeBabelizer Pro 5 $99 - HOURS left

    "Tony Spadaro" <> wrote in message
    news:BjS0b.19491$...
    > 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" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > John Navas <> wrote in message

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

    16:21:36 -0500,
    > > "WebKatz" <> 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.dll?ViewSellersOtherItems&userid=webkatz02
    &include=0&since=-1&sort=3&rows=50

    Take care,

    Dave

    P.S. Lovely cross-posting there.
     
    WebKatz, Aug 25, 2003
    #7
  8. KI7G

    Steve Young Guest

    J. A. Mc's "Hogwash" links still hogwash

    > >> > <> 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." <> 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.


    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 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 <>
    Subject: Guidelines for Big Eight Newsgroup Creation
    Newsgroups: news.announce.newgroups,news.groups
    Approved:
    Expires: 16 Dec 2002 00:46:28 -0000
    Supersedes: <big-eight-faq-1036137602$>
    Message-ID: <big-eight-faq-1036975588$>
    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 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 . 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 ) 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.announce.newgroups/Guidelines/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
     
    Steve Young, Aug 25, 2003
    #8
  9. KI7G

    Tony Spadaro Guest

    Tony Spadaro, Aug 25, 2003
    #9
  10. KI7G

    J. A. Mc. Guest

    Re: J. A. Mc's "Hogwash" links still hogwash

    On Mon, 25 Aug 2003 14:36:05 GMT, "Steve Young"
    <> found these unused words floating about:

    >> >> I'm surprised that:
    >> >> ftp://ftp.isc.org/pub/usenet/news.announce.newgroups/Guidelines/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!
     
    J. A. Mc., Aug 25, 2003
    #10
  11. KI7G

    WebKatz Guest

    Re: DeBabelizer Pro 5 $99 - HOURS left

    "Tony Spadaro" <> wished in message
    news:<BjS0b.19491$>...
    > 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.
    >


    Hmmm... looks to still be there. Maybe you should tap your heels
    together harder?

    DeBabelizer Pro 5 Graphics Software
    http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=3623609897&category=188

    DeBabelizer Pro 5

    The Most Powerful Software for Automated Media Production!
    You are bidding on a new and unregistered edition of Debabelizer Pro
    5. Comes with Software, Large Manual, Original box, registration forms
    and supplementary literature from Equalibrium.

    Feature Highlights for DeBabelizer Pro 5

    Automatically publish Web catalogs with HTML, thumbnails and JPEG
    files
    Embed Digimarc® digital watermarks or composite a logo to
    right-protect images
    New Palm® OS and Windows® CE color palette optimization
    Apply multiple scripts to multiple batches within a command line;
    Convert and compress QuickTimeT, AVI and RealVideo® files
    Easy-to-use drag and drop Hot Folder processing
    Enhanced GIF and JPEG compression
    Increased Batch Automation
    Powerful Conditional scripting
    CMYK Support
     
    WebKatz, Aug 25, 2003
    #11
  12. KI7G

    WebKatz Guest

    Re: DeBabelizer Pro 5 $99 - HOURS left

    "Tony Spadaro" <> wrote in message
    news:dMr2b.17459$...
    > I'm more concerned with knocking out spamming idiots.
    >


    Oh, please, Tony, stop with the stunning retorts. You're killin' me.

    If you want to decrease the spamming in this group - go find yourself some
    real spammers to go after. Me, I'm just a guy who happens to disagree with
    your interpretation of our charter. My FA posts have been fair-and-square
    legal and okay-dokay with eBay. And their opinion matters a whole lot more
    to me than that of some guy who has to recruit others to do his dirty work.

    If you want to decrease the idiots in this group - unsubscribe yourself.

    Take care,

    Dave

    ---
    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.dll?ViewSellersOtherItems&userid=webkatz02
    &include=0&since=-1&sort=3&rows=50
     
    WebKatz, Aug 25, 2003
    #12
  13. KI7G

    Steve Young Guest

    In conclusion

    > "J. A. Mc." wrote:
    > Thanks, Steve ... I'm obviously not in -your- league ! Good luck with
    > -your- team.


    I don't mean to offend anyone J. A. Mc. I find it better not beat around the
    bush, as it tends to make for endless discussion, deficient of resolution.
    I'd be pleased as punch if the documents you pointed us to offered a method to
    ratify a current set of rules and thereby amend our charter, consistent with
    the majority's desire.

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


    > >> "J. A. Mc." wrote:
    > >> 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!


    > >Steve Young wrote:
    > >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!


    Yep, though some here try to change it by adding words from other charters.
    A group only has one charter, and unfortunately, many don't like what ours
    actually says.

    Steve Young
     
    Steve Young, Aug 25, 2003
    #13
  14. KI7G

    WebKatz Guest

    Re: DeBabelizer Pro 5 $99 - HOURS left

    "Tony Spadaro" <> wrote in message
    news:ZJv2b.17494$...
    > Getting worried, Sunshine?
    >


    About what? I have the charter on my side and you're just not the kind of
    guy who's capable of worrying anyone too much.

    Dave

    ----
    The official charter for this and other rec.photo.* groups can be
    found at ftp://ftp.isc.org/pub/usenet/control/rec.
     
    WebKatz, Aug 26, 2003
    #14
  15. KI7G

    WebKatz Guest

    Re: DeBabelizer Pro 5 $99 - HOURS left

    "Tony Spadaro" <> wrote in message
    news:UXf2b.15033$...
    > So there you have it Webkatz is an admitted spammer who has done it three
    > (or possibly more) times. This is why I post the abuse notice and why
    > everyone should use it every time one of these ebay weasles spams the

    group.
    > If there were enough complaints even the rather high handed bunch who run
    > ebay would run Webkatz out of town.
    > So get to it. We know the nasty little spammer is worried or he

    wouldn't
    > be trying to convince us that it's useless to complain - hit him hard
    >


    Any luck rounding up that posse? I would think not. You are so amazingly
    lame, Tony.

    Dave

    P.S. DeBabelizer Pro 5 Graphics Software still FA on eBay for $79 at
    http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=3623609897&category=188
     
    WebKatz, Aug 26, 2003
    #15
  16. KI7G

    Tony Spadaro Guest

    Re: DeBabelizer Pro 5 $99 - HOURS left

    Then why are you so afraid of me?

    --
    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" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >
    > "Tony Spadaro" <> wrote in message
    > news:UXf2b.15033$...
    > > So there you have it Webkatz is an admitted spammer who has done it

    three
    > > (or possibly more) times. This is why I post the abuse notice and why
    > > everyone should use it every time one of these ebay weasles spams the

    > group.
    > > If there were enough complaints even the rather high handed bunch who

    run
    > > ebay would run Webkatz out of town.
    > > So get to it. We know the nasty little spammer is worried or he

    > wouldn't
    > > be trying to convince us that it's useless to complain - hit him hard
    > >

    >
    > Any luck rounding up that posse? I would think not. You are so amazingly
    > lame, Tony.
    >
    > Dave
    >
    > P.S. DeBabelizer Pro 5 Graphics Software still FA on eBay for $79 at
    > http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=3623609897&category=188
    >
    >
     
    Tony Spadaro, Aug 26, 2003
    #16
  17. KI7G

    Tony Spadaro Guest

    Re: DeBabelizer Pro 5 $99 - HOURS left

    Then you really don't care a bit, but have taken the time to try to stop
    me and others a few hundred times. There is something wrong with your logic,
    Dave. Why don't you open the pod door and let a little thought into that
    vacuum in your head?

    --
    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" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > "Tony Spadaro" <> wrote in message
    > news:ZJv2b.17494$...
    > > Getting worried, Sunshine?
    > >

    >
    > About what? I have the charter on my side and you're just not the kind of
    > guy who's capable of worrying anyone too much.
    >
    > Dave
    >
    > ----
    > The official charter for this and other rec.photo.* groups can be
    > found at ftp://ftp.isc.org/pub/usenet/control/rec.
    >
    >
     
    Tony Spadaro, Aug 26, 2003
    #17
  18. KI7G

    WebKatz Guest

    Re: DeBabelizer Pro 5 $99 - HOURS left

    "Tony Spadaro" <> wrote in message
    news:_hA2b.17875$...
    > You are a spammer. It's that simple. If you don't have the brains to know
    > that you are a spammer, there is little I can do about that flaw in your
    > brain.
    > I can educate the educatable, but idiots like you only learn by
    > getting their fingers burnt.
    >


    Yeah, yeah, yeah... keep up the gum flapping.
     
    WebKatz, Aug 26, 2003
    #18
  19. KI7G

    WebKatz Guest

    Re: DeBabelizer Pro 5 $99 - HOURS left

    "Tony Spadaro" <> wrote in message
    news:FjA2b.17892$...
    > Then you really don't care a bit, but have taken the time to try to

    stop
    > me and others a few hundred times.



    Stop, you? No, I encourage you to knock yourself out, please.
     
    WebKatz, Aug 26, 2003
    #19
  20. KI7G

    Steve Young Guest

    Re: DeBabelizer Pro 5 $99 - HOURS left

    > "Tony Spadaro" <> wrote

    > I can educate the educatable, but idiots like you only learn by
    > getting their fingers burnt.



    my guess is you're not educatable yourself
    (a hellova teacher that makes)











    (cause you already know it all :-((
     
    Steve Young, Aug 26, 2003
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Ivan
    Replies:
    11
    Views:
    1,115
    Velvet
    Oct 14, 2004
  2. KI7G

    FA: DeBabelizer Pro 5.0 $79 - Lower Price

    KI7G, Aug 25, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    360
  3. Tony Tee
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    1,257
    Stan Brown
    Jul 25, 2007
  4. Bigbazza
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    2,775
    Bigbazza
    Oct 16, 2007
  5. Bigbazza

    ebay ebay ebay

    Bigbazza, Oct 16, 2007, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    862
    Bigbazza
    Oct 16, 2007
Loading...

Share This Page