Rec.photo** Hijacking

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Guy Macon, Sep 9, 2004.

  1. Guy Macon

    Guy Macon Guest

    Be aware that there is an effort by Alan Browne and several others of
    this newsgroup to create four new rec.photo** newsgroups. Creation of
    these groups will kill this group. Worst of all, the charter of this NG
    will not be affected if any of these new groups are passed, which means
    that this group will abandoned by the talented folks. Alan Browne is on
    record for wanting a charter change for this newsgroup. Russ Allmighty
    of news.groups declared that charter amendments are not possible, so
    this is Alan and his gang's way of creating a safety zone for the
    elite. Please do not fall for this line of subterfuge. It is a crock.
    Guy Macon
    Guy Macon, Sep 9, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Guy Macon

    Rick Guest

    "Guy Macon" <> wrote in message news:choq7k$...
    > Be aware that there is an effort by Alan Browne and several others of
    > this newsgroup to create four new rec.photo** newsgroups. Creation of
    > these groups will kill this group. Worst of all, the charter of this NG
    > will not be affected if any of these new groups are passed, which means
    > that this group will abandoned by the talented folks. Alan Browne is on
    > record for wanting a charter change for this newsgroup. Russ Allmighty
    > of news.groups declared that charter amendments are not possible, so
    > this is Alan and his gang's way of creating a safety zone for the
    > elite. Please do not fall for this line of subterfuge. It is a crock.
    > Guy Macon


    Charter amendments are not recognized by Usenet admins
    and never have been -- for very good reasons.

    And as for new groups "killing" this one, now *that's* a
    crock. E.g. the second largest ISP in the world (Earthlink)
    hasn't added *any* new groups since January, and isn't
    planning to do so in the foreseeable future.

    Rick
    Rick, Sep 9, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Guy Macon

    Steve Young Guest

    "Rick" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > "Guy Macon" <> wrote in message
    > news:choq7k$...
    >> Be aware that there is an effort by Alan Browne and several others of
    >> this newsgroup to create four new rec.photo** newsgroups. Creation of
    >> these groups will kill this group. Worst of all, the charter of this NG
    >> will not be affected if any of these new groups are passed, which means
    >> that this group will abandoned by the talented folks. Alan Browne is on
    >> record for wanting a charter change for this newsgroup. Russ Allmighty
    >> of news.groups declared that charter amendments are not possible, so
    >> this is Alan and his gang's way of creating a safety zone for the
    >> elite. Please do not fall for this line of subterfuge. It is a crock.
    >> Guy Macon


    > Charter amendments are not recognized by Usenet admins
    > and never have been -- for very good reasons.


    Would you happen to know a couple of those "good reasons" off hand?

    > And as for new groups "killing" this one, now *that's* a
    > crock. E.g. the second largest ISP in the world (Earthlink)
    > hasn't added *any* new groups since January, and isn't
    > planning to do so in the foreseeable future.


    For good reason as well, I take it?
    That'd mean Earthlink folks would never see the new groups? The
    appearance to an Earthlink reader would be the authors ran and hid from
    them. So it would probably be best if everything was crossposted ?
    Steve Young, Sep 9, 2004
    #3
  4. Guy Macon wrote:

    > Be aware that there is an effort by Alan Browne and several others of
    > this newsgroup to create four new rec.photo** newsgroups. Creation of
    > these groups will kill this group. Worst of all, the charter of this NG
    > will not be affected if any of these new groups are passed, which means
    > that this group will abandoned by the talented folks. Alan Browne is on
    > record for wanting a charter change for this newsgroup. Russ Allmighty
    > of news.groups declared that charter amendments are not possible, so
    > this is Alan and his gang's way of creating a safety zone for the
    > elite. Please do not fall for this line of subterfuge. It is a crock.
    > Guy Macon
    >

    The above forged post is not by Guy Macon, who is a regular in news.groups.

    Others can/will speak to the merits and demerits of the proposal, as
    will I, later, but this is someone who is trying to make Steve Young
    look irresponsible.

    --
    John McWilliams
    John McWilliams, Sep 9, 2004
    #4
  5. Steve Young wrote:

    << Snipped bits out >>

    Steve-

    Maybe you could help out here by noting to others that the top is a forgery.

    This regardless of the whole Charter rewrite, etc.

    --

    John McWilliams
    John McWilliams, Sep 9, 2004
    #5
  6. On Thu, 09 Sep 2004 14:54:46 GMT, John McWilliams <> wrote:

    >
    >> Be aware that there is an effort by Alan Browne and several others of
    >> this newsgroup to create four new rec.photo** newsgroups. Creation of
    >> these groups will kill this group. Worst of all, the charter of this NG
    >> will not be affected if any of these new groups are passed, which means
    >> that this group will abandoned by the talented folks.


    forgery or not, this is moot. any CFV for this set of 8 or 10 new usenetgroups
    will fail for lack of interest or mostly confused lack of interest. for
    example, I who usually votes actively, would skip the whole process since it is
    apparently being rolled into one vote for some reason.

    Most people just do not want more groups. they just want what they have cleaned
    up and if possible, moderated if that is what is required.

    fwiw
    --
    chas
    The new Canon DSLR elist. no trolls, etc
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/canon-dslr/join

    ....
    schuetzen - RKBA!, Sep 9, 2004
    #6
  7. Guy Macon

    Steve Young Guest

    "John McWilliams" <> wrote in message
    news:Za_%c.156156$Fg5.59725@attbi_s53...
    > Steve Young wrote:
    >
    > << Snipped bits out >>
    >
    > Steve-
    >
    > Maybe you could help out here by noting to others that the top is a
    > forgery.


    > This regardless of the whole Charter rewrite, etc.


    Yes John, you're right, the Guy Macon post above is a forgery. I was
    responding to Rick's post, which I believe may be genuine. I see him post
    occasionally in the different groups I read, but I may be mistaken, as
    there's so much of this going around.

    Thanks for clarifying the purpose of the forgery in your other post.

    This sure has become a confusing mess hasn't it?

    Steve Young
    Steve Young, Sep 9, 2004
    #7
  8. schuetzen - RKBA! <> wrote in
    news::

    > forgery or not, this is moot. any CFV for this set of 8 or 10 new
    > usenetgroups


    There are 4 proposed groups..not 8 or 10.

    > will fail for lack of interest or mostly confused lack of
    > interest. for example, I who usually votes actively, would skip the
    > whole process since it is apparently being rolled into one vote for
    > some reason.


    The four proposals were merged at the request of the NAN moderation
    volunteers. There will be a common ballot, but each group will have it's
    own poll question on the ballot.

    --
    Bill
    Woodchuck Bill, Sep 9, 2004
    #8
  9. Guy Macon

    Jeremy Nixon Guest

    Steve Young <bowtieATbrightdslDOTnet> wrote:

    >> Charter amendments are not recognized by Usenet admins
    >> and never have been -- for very good reasons.

    >
    > Would you happen to know a couple of those "good reasons" off hand?


    You were told the reasons in news.groups already. You just didn't like
    what you heard.

    --
    Jeremy |
    Jeremy Nixon, Sep 9, 2004
    #9
  10. Guy Macon

    Jeremy Nixon Guest

    schuetzen - RKBA! <> wrote:

    > any CFV for this set of 8 or 10 new usenetgroups will fail for lack of
    > interest or mostly confused lack of interest. for example, I who usually
    > votes actively, would skip the whole process since it is apparently being
    > rolled into one vote for some reason.


    Confused is right -- you don't understand it either. It's not being rolled
    into one vote. You will be able to vote, or not, on each individual group
    in the proposal.

    --
    Jeremy |
    Jeremy Nixon, Sep 9, 2004
    #10
  11. "Rick" <> wrote in news::

    > And as for new groups "killing" this one, now *that's* a
    > crock. E.g. the second largest ISP in the world (Earthlink)
    > hasn't added *any* new groups since January, and isn't
    > planning to do so in the foreseeable future.


    Keep in mind that there have not been that many Big-8 proposals that passed
    this year..I'm not sure if there were any to pass this year, actually.
    While Earthlink and other ISPs may have a ban on adding new alt* groups,
    Big-8 groups are generally accepted by all news admins.

    --
    Bill
    Woodchuck Bill, Sep 9, 2004
    #11
  12. Guy Macon

    Steve Young Guest

    "Jeremy Nixon" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Steve Young <bowtieATbrightdslDOTnet> wrote:
    >
    >>> Charter amendments are not recognized by Usenet admins
    >>> and never have been -- for very good reasons.

    >>
    >> Would you happen to know a couple of those "good reasons" off hand?

    >
    > You were told the reasons in news.groups already. You just didn't like
    > what you heard.


    Rick had stated there were "good reasons"
    I'm not so sure I saw any.

    What would have happened if someone would have submitted to rename
    rec.photo.digital, because of the split? From what I understand of the
    process, it would be right there with the rest of them on the RFD. Or, it
    would have its own RFDs and its own voting process? right?
    Certainly by the topics being split from this group, it would be better to
    name this group rec.photo.digital.amateur, or rec.photo.digital.newbie /
    beginner, etc?, you name it. Though it's not imperative, if a revised
    charter clarifies it.

    My request was to not wrangle through the physical aspect of the grouping,
    but simply to receive a conformed, amended and ratified charter through
    the splitting process, without the need to actually remove this news
    group. It simply seemed like that would save a lot of effort and
    straighten things out. As it is, I'm not so sure the split is desired
    here. Under the current scenario, my votes will be no.

    Steve Young

    --
    One thing you can guarantee, though: if you don't try, you'll never
    have to find out it might have succeeded, and you can be very smug
    about your species' extinction as it is happening: "I _told_ them
    there was no way to bring peace to this planet!"
    - xanthian
    Steve Young, Sep 9, 2004
    #12
  13. "Steve Young" <bowtieATbrightdslDOTnet> wrote in
    news::

    > Certainly by the topics being split from this group, it would be
    > better to name this group rec.photo.digital.amateur, or
    > rec.photo.digital.newbie / beginner, etc?,


    Thad explained this already in another post. There is no intention to
    separate newbies from experienced photographers in any of the proposed new
    groups, or in RPD. In each proposed group, there will be newbies and
    experienced photographers. How would the newbies learn anything if all the
    experienced photographers leave? Each camera category of the proposed
    groups will have newbies, experienced photographers, and in between..for
    that type of camera. The rangefinder group will be open to newbies and
    experienced photographers users alike. The same will apply to the p&s, ZLR,
    and SLR systems groups.

    There is no proposal to rename RPD, or to make it a newbie group. It will
    remain as-is.

    --
    Bill
    Woodchuck Bill, Sep 9, 2004
    #13
  14. Guy Macon

    Steve Young Guest

    "Woodchuck Bill" <> wrote in message
    news:Xns955F8B5755A42bswr607h4@130.133.1.4...
    > "Steve Young" <bowtieATbrightdslDOTnet> wrote in
    > news::
    >
    >> Certainly by the topics being split from this group, it would be
    >> better to name this group rec.photo.digital.amateur, or
    >> rec.photo.digital.newbie / beginner, etc?,

    >
    > Thad explained this already in another post. There is no intention to
    > separate newbies from experienced photographers in any of the proposed
    > new groups, or in RPD. In each proposed group, there will be newbies
    > and experienced photographers. How would the newbies learn anything
    > if all the experienced photographers leave? Each camera category of the
    > proposed groups will have newbies, experienced photographers, and in
    > between..for that type of camera. The rangefinder group will be open to
    > newbies and experienced photographers users alike. The same will apply
    > to the p&s, ZLR, and SLR systems groups.


    > There is no proposal to rename RPD,


    I thought I said this in what you snipped?
    And this is exactly why I didn't also submit an RFD, so it didn't get
    removed and renamed. I opted for a slightly different course to solution,
    banking on what I was told many months ago in news.groups, to my question
    concerning a new ratified charter.

    > or to make it a newbie group. It will
    > remain as-is.


    With all the high end topics split to elsewhere, and left with a defunct
    charter. We may have no choice but to forfeit this group to the trol;ls

    Steve Young
    Steve Young, Sep 9, 2004
    #14
  15. Guy Macon

    Jeremy Nixon Guest

    Steve Young <bowtieATbrightdslDOTnet> wrote:

    >> You were told the reasons in news.groups already. You just didn't like
    >> what you heard.

    >
    > Rick had stated there were "good reasons"
    > I'm not so sure I saw any.


    Then you didn't read the replies to your rants in news.groups.

    > What would have happened if someone would have submitted to rename
    > rec.photo.digital, because of the split? From what I understand of the
    > process, it would be right there with the rest of them on the RFD. Or, it
    > would have its own RFDs and its own voting process? right?


    Right. However, it is wiser not to rename this group to avoid the major
    disruption it would cause here -- and, in the context of the current
    proposal, there is no need to change this group. The only "renaming"
    that would be appropriate would be to change the name to add a .misc onto
    the end, but keep everything else (including the charter) the same.

    > Certainly by the topics being split from this group, it would be better to
    > name this group rec.photo.digital.amateur, or rec.photo.digital.newbie /
    > beginner, etc?, you name it.


    No, it would not be better, nor would it be appropriate. This group is not
    being "changed" into any such thing, nor is anyone trying to change it in
    that way, nor even hinting that they'd like to. *You* seem to be the only
    one who thinks that is the case. Everyone else realizes that the proposal
    is not changing this group at all, and everyone else also realizes that
    beginners, amateurs, and newbies will be just as welcome and at home in
    the new groups as anyone else, and as they are here.

    > My request was to not wrangle through the physical aspect of the grouping,
    > but simply to receive a conformed, amended and ratified charter through
    > the splitting process, without the need to actually remove this news
    > group. It simply seemed like that would save a lot of effort and
    > straighten things out.


    There is nothing to straighten out, apart from your total misunderstanding
    of what is being proposed. Somehow, you have managed to convince yourself
    of a scenario completely divorced from reality.

    > Under the current scenario, my votes will be no.


    It's always unfortunate when people vote based on their own ignorance, but
    I guess it can't really be prevented.

    --
    Jeremy |
    Jeremy Nixon, Sep 9, 2004
    #15
  16. "Steve Young" <bowtieATbrightdslDOTnet> wrote in news:SYudnWaZtYjJAd3cRVn-
    :

    >>> Certainly by the topics being split from this group, it would be
    >>> better to name this group rec.photo.digital.amateur, or
    >>> rec.photo.digital.newbie / beginner, etc?,

    >>
    >> Thad explained this already in another post. There is no intention to
    >> separate newbies from experienced photographers in any of the proposed
    >> new groups, or in RPD. In each proposed group, there will be newbies
    >> and experienced photographers. How would the newbies learn anything
    >> if all the experienced photographers leave? Each camera category of the
    >> proposed groups will have newbies, experienced photographers, and in
    >> between..for that type of camera. The rangefinder group will be open to
    >> newbies and experienced photographers users alike. The same will apply
    >> to the p&s, ZLR, and SLR systems groups.

    >
    >> There is no proposal to rename RPD,

    >
    > I thought I said this in what you snipped?
    > And this is exactly why I didn't also submit an RFD, so it didn't get
    > removed and renamed. I opted for a slightly different course to solution,
    > banking on what I was told many months ago in news.groups, to my question
    > concerning a new ratified charter.
    >
    >> or to make it a newbie group. It will
    >> remain as-is.

    >
    > With all the high end topics split to elsewhere, and left with a defunct
    > charter. We may have no choice but to forfeit this group to the trol;ls


    It is interesting how you didn't respond to the points that I made. It was
    explained to you that there is no process to alter the charter of RPD by
    people in charge of the process. Why burden the proponents with this?

    Removals and renamings don't work anymore because not all news servers do
    not honor rmgroup requests..some do, but many do not. This affects
    propagation.

    --
    Bill
    Woodchuck Bill, Sep 9, 2004
    #16
  17. Jeremy Nixon <> wrote in
    news::

    > The only "renaming"
    > that would be appropriate would be to change the name to add a .misc onto
    > the end, but keep everything else (including the charter) the same.


    That would require a removal of RPD. That is not the intentions of the
    proposal. Besides, removals may not be honored on all news servers. This
    would create major propagation problems. There are good reasons why things
    are done the way they are.

    --
    Bill
    Woodchuck Bill, Sep 9, 2004
    #17
  18. Guy Macon

    Steve Young Guest

    "Jeremy Nixon" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Steve Young <bowtieATbrightdslDOTnet> wrote:

    [...]

    >> My request was to not wrangle through the physical aspect
    >> of the grouping, but simply to receive a conformed, amended
    >> and ratified charter through the splitting process,
    >> without the need to actually remove this news group.
    >> It simply seemed like that would save a lot of effort and
    >> straighten things out.


    > There is nothing to straighten out, apart from your total
    > misunderstanding of what is being proposed.
    > Somehow, you have managed to convince
    > yourself of a scenario completely divorced from reality.


    >> Under the current scenario, my votes will be no.


    > It's always unfortunate when people vote based on their own ignorance,
    > but I guess it can't really be prevented.


    oh I'm sure it's just me,
    but this old charter doesn't look anything like the new ones.
    Steve Young, Sep 9, 2004
    #18
  19. Guy Macon

    Frank ess Guest

    Jeremy Nixon wrote:
    > Steve Young <bowtieATbrightdslDOTnet> wrote:
    >
    >>> Charter amendments are not recognized by Usenet admins
    >>> and never have been -- for very good reasons.

    >>
    >> Would you happen to know a couple of those "good reasons" off hand?

    >
    > You were told the reasons in news.groups already. You just didn't
    > like what you heard.


    Here's what I would like:

    Make whatever new groups you believe would be identifiable destinations
    for thoughtful people with related interests.

    Leave RPD as is.

    Let me find out about the new groups the way I always have found groups
    with related interests: mention the names of the new groups in places
    people with related interests frequent; let me survey the list of
    destinations my news service offers.

    If one day I were to ask my service to show me RPD and it shrugs its
    shoulders and gags, you have not done it right.

    --
    Frank ess
    Frank ess, Sep 9, 2004
    #19
  20. Guy Macon

    Jeremy Nixon Guest

    Steve Young <bowtieATbrightdslDOTnet> wrote:

    > oh I'm sure it's just me,
    > but this old charter doesn't look anything like the new ones.


    So? Is there some particular reason you need it to "look" the same?

    --
    Jeremy |
    Jeremy Nixon, Sep 9, 2004
    #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. Thad
    Replies:
    217
    Views:
    2,564
    David Dyer-Bennet
    Sep 8, 2004
  2. Lionel
    Replies:
    16
    Views:
    724
    Ken Tough
    Sep 17, 2004
  3. Woodchuck Bill
    Replies:
    15
    Views:
    546
  4. Woodchuck Bill
    Replies:
    36
    Views:
    786
  5. SMS 斯蒂文• å¤

    "rec.photo.digital.txt" and "rec.photo.digital.dat" Filter DataUpdated and Posted

    SMS 斯蒂文• å¤, Nov 26, 2007, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    423
    SMS ???• ?
    Nov 26, 2007
Loading...

Share This Page