VOTING CLOSED for R.P.D. reorganization

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Woodchuck Bill, Oct 21, 2004.

  1. To all interested and uninterested parties:

    Voting has officially closed for the reorganization of rec.photo.digital,
    which was a proposal to create four new photo newsgroups..

    rec.photo.digital.point+shoot
    rec.photo.digital.rangefinder
    rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
    rec.photo.digital.zlr

    The RESULT will soon be posted to this newsgroup, which will announce the
    creation or failure of any or all of the proposed groups above. A complete
    list of voters will also be included as part of the RESULT.

    Should you miss the RESULT post, you can also check the following web page
    for up-to-date information..

    http://www.uvv.org/cgi-bin/daily_status

    If you missed the vote, you still might want to have a look at the
    proposal, in retrospect..

    http://tinyurl.com/4s2np
    Message-ID: <>

    --
    Bill
    Woodchuck Bill, Oct 21, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Woodchuck Bill

    Mark M Guest

    "Woodchuck Bill" <> wrote in message
    news:Xns9588EC96A8DF7bswr607h4@130.133.1.4...
    > To all interested and uninterested parties:
    >
    > Voting has officially closed for the reorganization of rec.photo.digital,
    > which was a proposal to create four new photo newsgroups..


    The legitimacy of any "vote" being held by the idiots trying to make this
    change have absolutely ZERO credibility.
    Mark M, Oct 21, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Woodchuck Bill

    Tony Guest

    Agreed. This has been a bad idea from the start and has rapidly grown into
    an incredibly stupid pile of crap. There is no need to destroy the digital
    newsgroup by turning it into four overlapping and completely wasteful
    groups.

    --
    http://www.chapelhillnoir.com
    home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto
    The Improved Links Pages are at
    http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html
    A sample chapter from "Haight-Ashbury" is at
    http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/writ/hait/hatitl.html

    "Mark M" <> wrote in message
    news:O_Gdd.128140$a85.104037@fed1read04...
    >
    > "Woodchuck Bill" <> wrote in message
    > news:Xns9588EC96A8DF7bswr607h4@130.133.1.4...
    > > To all interested and uninterested parties:
    > >
    > > Voting has officially closed for the reorganization of

    rec.photo.digital,
    > > which was a proposal to create four new photo newsgroups..

    >
    > The legitimacy of any "vote" being held by the idiots trying to make this
    > change have absolutely ZERO credibility.
    >
    >
    >
    Tony, Oct 21, 2004
    #3
  4. Woodchuck Bill

    Guest

    Tony <> top-posted:
    > Agreed. This has been a bad idea from the start and has rapidly grown into
    > an incredibly stupid pile of crap. There is no need to destroy the digital
    > newsgroup by turning it into four overlapping and completely wasteful
    > groups.


    I take it you voted no, then.

    > "Mark M" <> wrote in message
    > news:O_Gdd.128140$a85.104037@fed1read04...
    >>
    >> "Woodchuck Bill" <> wrote in message
    >> news:Xns9588EC96A8DF7bswr607h4@130.133.1.4...
    >> > To all interested and uninterested parties:
    >> >
    >> > Voting has officially closed for the reorganization of
    >> > rec.photo.digital, which was a proposal to create four new photo
    >> > newsgroups..

    >>
    >> The legitimacy of any "vote" being held by the idiots trying to make this
    >> change have absolutely ZERO credibility.


    The vote is not being held by people trying to make the change.

    Andrew.
    , Oct 21, 2004
    #4
  5. Woodchuck Bill

    Dave Guest

    lid wrote:
    > Tony <> top-posted:
    >
    >>Agreed. This has been a bad idea from the start and has rapidly grown into
    >>an incredibly stupid pile of crap. There is no need to destroy the digital
    >>newsgroup by turning it into four overlapping and completely wasteful
    >>groups.

    >
    >
    > I take it you voted no, then.
    >
    >


    Naw, the Spaz just likes to bitch. No real action ever comes from it.
    Dave, Oct 21, 2004
    #5
  6. On 21 Oct 2004 03:14:47 GMT, Woodchuck Bill <>
    wrote:

    >To all interested and uninterested parties:
    >
    >Voting has officially closed for the reorganization of rec.photo.digital,
    >which was a proposal to create four new photo newsgroups..
    >
    >rec.photo.digital.point+shoot
    >rec.photo.digital.rangefinder
    >rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
    >rec.photo.digital.zlr
    >
    >The RESULT will soon be posted to this newsgroup, which will announce the
    >creation or failure of any or all of the proposed groups above. A complete
    >list of voters will also be included as part of the RESULT.
    >


    Why are you multiply posting? Cross-posting, within reason, is
    considered an appropriate use of the Usenet. Multiple posting is
    annoying.

    - - Bob McClenon
    Robert McClenon, Oct 21, 2004
    #6
  7. Robert McClenon <> wrote in
    news::

    > Why are you multiply posting? Cross-posting, within reason, is
    > considered an appropriate use of the Usenet. Multiple posting is
    > annoying.


    Because there are people who set their filters to block crossposted
    articles in these newsgroups, and they have a right to know what is going
    on.

    --
    Bill
    Woodchuck Bill, Oct 21, 2004
    #7
  8. Woodchuck Bill

    AustinBoston Guest

    "Tony" top-posted the following:
    > Agreed. This has been a bad idea from the start and has rapidly grown into
    > an incredibly stupid pile of crap. There is no need to destroy the digital
    > newsgroup by turning it into four overlapping and completely wasteful
    > groups.


    Having participated in newsgroups that split, I can tell you this is
    not a pile of crap, not would the groups result in the desctruction of
    rpd. Lots of people take one look in a group this busy and just go
    away, not willing to try to sort out what is going on. Breaking
    things up _will_ lead to _more_ participation, not less.

    The only way to destroy a newsgroup is to make it moderated, as the
    users of rec.bicycles.off-road found out when rec.bicycles was broken
    up and the off-road section was made moderated. Much better to have
    the worst troll in all of usenet than go moderated.

    Austin
    AustinBoston, Oct 21, 2004
    #8
  9. (AustinBoston) wrote in
    news::

    > Having participated in newsgroups that split, I can tell you this is
    > not a pile of crap, not would the groups result in the desctruction of
    > rpd. Lots of people take one look in a group this busy and just go
    > away, not willing to try to sort out what is going on. Breaking
    > things up _will_ lead to _more_ participation, not less.


    Actually, R.P.D would not be broken up should any of all of the new groups
    pass the vote. It would stay intact.

    --
    Bill
    Woodchuck Bill, Oct 21, 2004
    #9
  10. Woodchuck Bill

    Steve Young Guest

    "Tony" <> wrote
    > Agreed. This has been a bad idea from the start and has rapidly grown
    > into an incredibly stupid pile of crap. There is no need to destroy the
    > digital newsgroup by turning it into four overlapping and completely
    > wasteful groups.


    This might be the first time you and I have agreed ;)

    The numbers do NOT support 4 additional groups, IMHO
    After long deliberation, the switcheroo is what finally determined my
    votes. It'll be interesting to see if the vote taker is able to sift any
    validity from the results.

    Steve Young
    Steve Young, Oct 21, 2004
    #10
  11. Woodchuck Bill

    Steve Young Guest

    [added:rec.photo.equipment.35mm]

    "Woodchuck Bill" <> wrote

    > (AustinBoston) wrote in


    >> Having participated in newsgroups that split, I can tell you this is
    >> not a pile of crap, not would the groups result in the desctruction of
    >> rpd. Lots of people take one look in a group this busy and just go
    >> away, not willing to try to sort out what is going on. Breaking
    >> things up _will_ lead to _more_ participation, not less.


    > Actually, R.P.D would not be broken up should any of all of the new
    > groups pass the vote. It would stay intact.


    Readers come from somewhere. We would be asking them to possibly read 4 or
    5 groups, instead of 1 or 2. Though this would allow 35mm to die a
    peaceful death, as fewer readers are interested in strictly film.

    Steve Young
    Steve Young, Oct 21, 2004
    #11
  12. Woodchuck Bill

    me Guest

    "Steve Young" <bowtieATbrightdslDOTnet> wrote in message
    news:...
    > [added:rec.photo.equipment.35mm]
    >
    > "Woodchuck Bill" <> wrote
    >
    > > (AustinBoston) wrote in

    >
    > >> Having participated in newsgroups that split, I can tell you this is
    > >> not a pile of crap, not would the groups result in the desctruction of
    > >> rpd. Lots of people take one look in a group this busy and just go
    > >> away, not willing to try to sort out what is going on. Breaking
    > >> things up _will_ lead to _more_ participation, not less.

    >
    > > Actually, R.P.D would not be broken up should any of all of the new
    > > groups pass the vote. It would stay intact.

    >
    > Readers come from somewhere. We would be asking them to possibly read 4 or
    > 5 groups, instead of 1 or 2. Though this would allow 35mm to die a
    > peaceful death, as fewer readers are interested in strictly film.


    I'm interested in strictly film!

    > Steve Young
    >
    >
    me, Oct 21, 2004
    #12
  13. Woodchuck Bill

    Steve Young Guest

    "me" <anonymous@_.com> wrote

    > "Steve Young" <bowtieATbrightdslDOTnet> wrote
    >> [added:rec.photo.equipment.35mm]


    >> "Woodchuck Bill" <> wrote


    >> > (AustinBoston) wrote in


    >> >> Having participated in newsgroups that split, I can tell you this is
    >> >> not a pile of crap, not would the groups result in the desctruction
    >> >> of rpd. Lots of people take one look in a group this busy and just
    >> >> go away, not willing to try to sort out what is going on. Breaking
    >> >> things up _will_ lead to _more_ participation, not less.


    >> > Actually, R.P.D would not be broken up should any of all of the new
    >> > groups pass the vote. It would stay intact.


    >> Readers come from somewhere. We would be asking them to possibly read
    >> 4 or 5 groups, instead of 1 or 2. Though this would allow 35mm to die a
    >> peaceful death, as fewer readers are interested in strictly film.


    > I'm interested in strictly film!


    *Good* if it passes, maybe you can coax the group back to their
    charter? And everybody can be happy!? Right?
    Steve Young, Oct 21, 2004
    #13
  14. me wrote:
    > "Steve Young" <bowtieATbrightdslDOTnet> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >> [added:rec.photo.equipment.35mm]
    >>
    >> "Woodchuck Bill" <> wrote
    >>
    >>> (AustinBoston) wrote in

    >>
    >>>> Having participated in newsgroups that split, I can tell you this
    >>>> is not a pile of crap, not would the groups result in the
    >>>> desctruction of rpd. Lots of people take one look in a group this
    >>>> busy and just go away, not willing to try to sort out what is
    >>>> going on. Breaking things up _will_ lead to _more_ participation,
    >>>> not less.

    >>
    >>> Actually, R.P.D would not be broken up should any of all of the new
    >>> groups pass the vote. It would stay intact.

    >>
    >> Readers come from somewhere. We would be asking them to possibly
    >> read 4 or 5 groups, instead of 1 or 2. Though this would allow 35mm
    >> to die a peaceful death, as fewer readers are interested in strictly
    >> film.

    >
    > I'm interested in strictly film!


    Please do not be mislead - the proposal does /not/ address any 35mm users,
    and does not alter the 35mm groups in any way.

    David
    David J Taylor, Oct 21, 2004
    #14
  15. "Steve Young" <bowtieATbrightdslDOTnet> wrote in news:0eudnRpDEt4_J-rcRVn-
    :

    > It'll be interesting to see if the vote taker is able to sift any
    > validity from the results.
    >


    I have great faith and confidence in the ability of the votetaker to reject
    any of your forgeries.

    --
    Bill
    Woodchuck Bill, Oct 21, 2004
    #15
  16. On 21 Oct 2004 12:12:45 GMT, Woodchuck Bill <>
    wrote:

    >Robert McClenon <> wrote in
    >news::
    >
    >> Why are you multiply posting? Cross-posting, within reason, is
    >> considered an appropriate use of the Usenet. Multiple posting is
    >> annoying.

    >
    >Because there are people who set their filters to block crossposted
    >articles in these newsgroups, and they have a right to know what is going
    >on.


    In that case, they are acting cluelessly, and you and I can disagree
    as reasonable humans on whether they should be told in an annoying
    fashion by multiple posting.

    - - Bob McClenon
    Robert McClenon, Oct 22, 2004
    #16
  17. Robert McClenon <> wrote in
    news::

    > In that case, they are acting cluelessly, and you and I can disagree
    > as reasonable humans on whether they should be told in an annoying
    > fashion by multiple posting.
    >


    These newsgroups were under rampant attack by schools of trolls with
    crossposting as the key focus of their attack. In order to make the group
    readable, at one point, a large number of posters blocked crossposted
    articles. In addition, you get film shooters who block crossposts from
    rec.photo.digital, and vice-versa for digital shooters from R.P.E.35mm.
    Different groups have different needs and standards. Why don't you let the
    groupers decide what is approporiate. The only one to complain about my
    post was you. And calling them clueless is rude, and a bit ignorant of the
    problems that have come through rec.photo*. I posted these pointers as a
    courtesy to those who might have otherwise missed the crossposted-to-5-
    groups RESULT.

    --
    Bill
    Woodchuck Bill, Oct 22, 2004
    #17
  18. Woodchuck Bill

    Dave Guest

    Well they sure seemed to have missed the Stromboli clan. And I rather
    doubt the validity of votes from analprincessatfunky.co.uk,
    fartloveratwhocutthecheez.com, puppyloverpsychobitchatyahoo.com, and
    other of the like.

    So, how many other votes are forgeries? Is there any recourse? Or are
    we looking at yet another election stolen?


    Dave
    Dave, Oct 22, 2004
    #18
  19. Woodchuck Bill

    Frank ess Guest

    Dave wrote:
    > Well they sure seemed to have missed the Stromboli clan. And I rather
    > doubt the validity of votes from analprincessatfunky.co.uk,
    > fartloveratwhocutthecheez.com, puppyloverpsychobitchatyahoo.com, and
    > other of the like.
    >
    > So, how many other votes are forgeries? Is there any recourse? Or are
    > we looking at yet another election stolen?
    >
    >


    It seems to me that under the rules those are legitimate votes. Even if
    they aren't, excision of the anomalous-looking email names will have no
    effect on the outcome.

    I just can't imagine anyone going to all that trouble for changes of
    this scale.

    And I can't understand the usefulness of three of four of the "new"
    groups. Well, maybe a little, but this teapot has seen worse tempests,
    surely.


    --
    Frank ess
    Frank ess, Oct 22, 2004
    #19
  20. Woodchuck Bill

    Sander Vesik Guest

    In rec.photo.equipment.35mm Steve Young <bowtieATbrightdslDOTnet> wrote:
    > [added:rec.photo.equipment.35mm]
    >
    > "Woodchuck Bill" <> wrote
    >
    > > (AustinBoston) wrote in

    >
    > >> Having participated in newsgroups that split, I can tell you this is
    > >> not a pile of crap, not would the groups result in the desctruction of
    > >> rpd. Lots of people take one look in a group this busy and just go
    > >> away, not willing to try to sort out what is going on. Breaking
    > >> things up _will_ lead to _more_ participation, not less.

    >
    > > Actually, R.P.D would not be broken up should any of all of the new
    > > groups pass the vote. It would stay intact.

    >
    > Readers come from somewhere. We would be asking them to possibly read 4 or
    > 5 groups, instead of 1 or 2. Though this would allow 35mm to die a
    > peaceful death, as fewer readers are interested in strictly film.


    Go away stupid troll, you are not wanted here.

    >
    > Steve Young
    >
    >


    --
    Sander

    +++ Out of cheese error +++
    Sander Vesik, Oct 22, 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. Imya Rek
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    477
    Imya Rek
    Feb 16, 2004
  2. Thad

    4th RFD: rec.photo.digital reorganization

    Thad, Sep 8, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    75
    Views:
    1,342
    Bill Aten
    Oct 22, 2004
  3. Robert McClenon

    Vote *NO* on reorganization

    Robert McClenon, Sep 10, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    19
    Views:
    925
    Paul J Gans
    Sep 13, 2004
  4. Sean O'Dwyer

    PhotoFortnight: Voting Almost Closed

    Sean O'Dwyer, Jul 15, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    289
    Sean O'Dwyer
    Jul 15, 2005
  5. Giuen
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    865
    Giuen
    Sep 12, 2008
Loading...

Share This Page