rpc split [was [ADMIN][RFD] Reasons for rejection]

it doesn't really matter what Colin wrote here...but I am concerned that he is posting to three newsgroups (news.groups, rec.pets.cats, and alt.animals.felines) but *setting follow-ups* just to news.groups (in the interest of fairness, I added in the other two groups, just for this message

in Newsgroups: rec.pets.cats,alt.animals.felines

RR> Collin,

RR> Yes I was and still am a proponent of the original rpc. I am also RR> fighting hard to obtain compromise. Unfortunately people [the RR> proponents of the split] think it must be all there way.

[...remainder of his posting omitted...]

Agreed, but it is then sheer hypocrisy to simultaneously post public statements to the RFD discussion like ' This discussion should take place in news.groups only ' and also trimming Newgroups: distribution lines in message headers...when the person(s) doing this is engaging in private discussions which can prove quite influential on the outcome of the CFV ( Call For Votes ).

Of course you will get people like Dave Ratcliffe attempting justification by saying that the Guidelines say nothing about private discussion of RFDs/CFVs...thereby inferring that it is OK. In my view it is _not_ OK to use that omission as justification.

I'm well aware that private discussions of RFDs/CFVs occur and that they cannot be stopped...but please...don't let us have the apparent hypocrisy of people, usually, but not always, RFD proponents, banging the 'news.groups only' drum.

The 'news.groups only' statement appears in the RFD document...let it stay at that. If people want to crosspost to the 'affected newsgroup' _and/or_ engage in private discussion...so be it.

I am always very suspicious indeed of the motives of the 'news.groups only' tub-thumpers...and, methinks, with good reason when we see what happens in RFDs/CFVs when people comply with the 'news.groups only' guideline.

Please understand that I am not opposed to private email discussions of RFDs/CFvs but I am opposed to those people indulging in private discussion then also indulging in thumping the 'news.groups only' tub concurrently in the public debate.

I see we have probably now entered yet another inflammable diversion in this supremely diversionary RFD. ' The news.groups only' old chestnut. *8-)

It seems that having now decided to re-enter this RFD debate that you are concentrating on my postings. Should I feel honoured ?

BTW, I thought you had announced your retirement from this debate due to pressure of other activities. You surely haven't returned just to castigate me and fuel even more diversionary flamewars ?

Since you have now twice suggested you can mindread my intentions and motives perhaps you should offer yourself as a Usenet clairvoyant ?

When responding to messages I normally leave all existing newsgroups in the Newsgroups: line, unlike those who perhaps see fit to use discretion/arrogance/whatever ( enter your own explanation ) and trim Newsgroups: distribution lines to suit their purpose...and yes, I have on some occasions trimmed/expanded Newsgroups: lines too but usually I leave them intact.

Note: Subject for new diversion: Editing Newsgroup distribution lines.

I had actually intended not to respond to your first posting but after your second posting I will now do so...

[...much omitted...]

^^^^^^^^^ And exactly what criticisms have you personally levelled against any of the other ' dozens of issues' you say have been raised in relation to this reorg ? e.g. robo-moderation for just one example.

All you appear to have done here is single out one person and one issue and thereby have provided the opportunity for me to say one more time...your reorg RFD calls for the rmgrouping/renaming of rec.pets.cats...it need not have done so !

[...snip...]

Thank you so much for telling us all what Colin could and could not care about. Would you like me to reciprocate ?

One more time <sigh> the *.misc is incidental, rmgrouping/renaming is the issue.

So much so that you took off and left us to thrash it out and plough through all the flames, trolls, diversions and some good debate ?

Sorry, but you cannot claim pats on the back...because you haven't taken part in ALL of the debate...you've been on walkabouts !

Is it 'reorganisation' you most care about or the existing newsgroup 'rec.pets.cats' ? Since you have subscribed to an rmgroup/renaming of 'rec.pets.cats' it would seem that reorganisation predominates.

What was so wonderful about your 1st RFD anyway ?

There now...you've stirred me up again ! Happy ? *8-)

Oh, most definitely...

What I announced, is that I expected to have much less time to participate...life goes on and this whole process has lasted longer than I originally thought it would. I have also been dealing with a death of a friend, if you must know. Kudos, incidently, to those who have been able to stay active throughout!! I would have liked to have had more time to participate. I have been here all along, reading postings. For the most part, the arguments have either not been new or they have been very adequately addressed by my rpc colleagues or the news.groupies. But when something new stands out (such as your newsgroup line manipulation), I do feel compelled to point it out...in the interest of fairness.

Not mindreading, merely seeking clarification!! Wish I could mindread though.

But what ends up being sneaky (even if that's not your intention) is to not indicate that you're changing the follow-ups. It has the result of making people who see the post in the non-follow-up group think there have been NO responses when there have been. Are you telling me that you don't realize this?

I have no strong opinion on the issue of robo-moderation; if I had one, I would have stated it. I'm a flexible sort of gal, in a lot of regards. I'm willing to go with the majority on that one and respect the proponent decision after seeing that not many people wrote in to advocate for it.

We know that, you've said it quite a few times. All you're doing now is adding more noise. Yes, I know its your personal crusade, we all know that. Single-issue politicing. Its a personal pet peeve. Makes the world seem simple, when in reality, its pretty complex.

See my original comment immediately below.

This discerning mind knows that its the same thing...and I rest my case.

Firstly, I always ignore flames and trolls, and usually diversions, as well. Secondly, I was very active for the first half and more behind the scenes for the second half

: > catch up despite being away at the beginning.

I think the one thing I've appreciated about Colin the most throughout the whole debate was his parrot joke. I don't hear many jokes I can tell my younger siblings these days!

: >ENTP, Libra, Country Music and Opera Lover (but not together!), ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ (from an opera lover) Lisa! How COULD you??!! ;>'

Cheers,

yeah, me too, hoping we soon snip to nothing

OK, I'll accept that its misleading instead of sneaky.

Well, I thought the rules of news.groups are to have the discussions take place in news.groups so I don't see the directive as being dictatorial...more of just a reminder of what the rules are. But to answer your question, my preference is to see the more accurate indication of the need to move (and actual moving of) the discussion back to newsgroups.

Wow, Colin, I've pointed out something that you didn't know??? Well color me shocked!!

True, its a dilemma. And people who add and substract in groups without indicating same serve to create the dilemma <heavy sigh>. I'd rather see this whole discussion in just one group.



Actually, I regularly follow both n.g. and r.p.c. I don't usually follow a.a.f. Just so you know.

[...lots of very sneaky snipping follows...]

Your mind may have discerned, but it has not recognised or understood. Perhaps you should rest your mind and carefully reconsider your case ?

[...snip...]

I seldom if ever do mention that I have changed follow-ups. How can it be sneaky if there is no intent to be sneaky ?

Is that somehow worse than those who choose to write statements which sound as though they are telling people how to behave, like...

' Follow-ups set to news.groups where they belong. '

It is all a matter of perception...not to indicate is sneaky...indicating is dictatorial...which is preferable ?

It had never crossed my mind...methinks you are even more suspicious of motives and RFD/CFV strategies than I am. *8-)

[...snip...]

* > Lost me here... ^^^^^^^^^^^^

Fanfare. Trumpets. National Anthem !

Looks from your earlier admission ( above * ) that you failed. ROTFL.

[...snip...]

Lisa, who seems to have a dilemma regarding whether to maintain her ' This discussion must appear in news.groups only where it belongs.' policy...or include all the newsgroups in the original posting she saw.

And...one more time...

This particular thread started life either in rec.pets.cats or alt.animals.feline...news.groups ( I think ) was not included in the original distribution, I may well have been sneaky and added news.groups so that Lisa might see it...you did...and here we are !

I'm not planning to email you.

Thanks for appending your Curriculum Vitae. I'm impressed. 8-)

That's a jkoe, rght?