|
|
|
Re: Responsibility for the health of Usenet (was Re: Questions for Chibal)
Mon, 2 Nov 2009 00:59 +0000 (GMT Standard Time)
In article <8p4se51jqke7oqv5slrgtobhjcmeh698cp@4ax.com>,
dg@dickgaughan.co.uk (Dick Gaughan) wrote:
> [1] chastised - insulted, flamed, branded a clueless fuckwit etc
Oi! I resemble that remark.
--
Paul Cummins - Always a NetHead
Wasting Bandwidth since 1981
...
|
Re: Responsibility for the health of Usenet (was Re: Questions for Chibal)
Mon, 02 Nov 2009 00:38:41 +0000
In <ekvre597qf0uh8ve7ehm1cqitdlbg5om9k@4ax.com> on Sun, 01 Nov
2009 21:34:09 +0000, Mike Fleming <{mike}@tauzero.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <odfpe5tu5pvvc8jhnql1u1chlun8q1sc39@4ax.com>, Dick Gaughan
><dg@dickgaughan.co.uk> writes:
>
>> Nah, with all respect to your good self and the noble departed,
>> that was ...
|
Re: Low Volume Groups
Sun, 1 Nov 2009 23:46 +0000 (GMT Standard Time)
In article <Xns9CB6D9E5E15A4grahamdrabblelineone@drabble.me.uk>,
usenet05@drabble.me.uk (Graham Drabble) wrote:
> *From:* Graham Drabble <usenet05@drabble.me.uk>
> *Date:* Sun, 01 Nov 2009 21:25:12 +0100
>
> On 13 Sep 2009 Graham Drabble <usenet05@drabble.me.uk> wrote in
> news:Xns9C85AB3F2D322grahamdrabbleli ...
|
Re: Responsibility for the health of Usenet (was Re: Questions for Chibal)
Sun, 1 Nov 2009 23:20:05 +0000
In message <arbre51g7ikooligvtte1igomf8evi0h92@4ax.com>, Cherry
Chapstick <azure@invalid.really.really> wrote:
>"Where 90 days have elapsed since the publication of the first RFD,
>the committee may direct that no further RFDs shall be published, but
>that the proposal shall either proceed to a vote within 40 day ...
|
Re: Responsibility for the health of Usenet (was Re: Questions for Chibal)
Sun, 1 Nov 2009 23:08:35 +0000
In message <bpmre55i4rlu6s6go87n6p24r91ge9akot@4ax.com>, Cherry
Chapstick <azure@invalid.really.really> wrote:
>I am still interested in what can be done to tighten up the
>guidelines, and I do think there is a case for tidying up the uk.*
>hierarchy, having come across both those issues as a result of coming
>h ...
|
Re: Responsibility for the health of Usenet (was Re: Questions for Chibal)
Sun, 1 Nov 2009 23:13:49 +0000
In message <bc5re5dnqgqobj8pe8smjfl0ibd459e9d0@4ax.com>, Cherry
Chapstick <azure@invalid.really.really> wrote:
>>>Is the committe not already telling users what they ought to do with
>>>reference to group creation?
>It is clear that the committee can, for example, refuse or allow
>objections to fast track RFDs ...
|
Re: Responsibility for the health of Usenet (was Re: Questions for Chibal)
Sun, 1 Nov 2009 23:06:36 +0000
In message <ft1re5t75vinm74plf1ieq45vk6ppf2e5m@4ax.com>, Cherry
Chapstick <azure@invalid.really.really> wrote:
>Secondly, there are several clauses that indicate that decisions are
>made on the basis of committee opinion e.g.
>
>'In the event of 6 or more objections, or any objection which seems to
>the Commit ...
|
Re: Responsibility for the health of Usenet (was Re: Questions for Chibal)
Sun, 1 Nov 2009 19:45:43 +0000
At 19:16:33 on Sun, 1 Nov 2009, Cherry Chapstick
<azure@invalid.really.really> wrote in
<bpmre55i4rlu6s6go87n6p24r91ge9akot@4ax.com>:
>I am now also suspecting that this suspicion is common amongst people
>who have responded to me in these discussions, which might explain some
>of the extremely unproductive ...
|
Lament ...
Sun, 01 Nov 2009 19:45:06 +0000
I wish it was Apr 1st, because there are so many RFD's I'd like to propose
right now.
Can the committee please engage their power and make it so, thanks.
(Also, I hate Christmas[1] so skipping that would be cool, although I quite
like Guy Fawkes Night so maybe you could have that moved to say, Apr 2nd?)
[1] ...
|
Re: Responsibility for the health of Usenet (was Re: Questions for Chibal)
Sun, 01 Nov 2009 18:54:03 +0000
On Sun, 1 Nov 2009 10:10:59 +0000, John Hall
<nospam_nov03@jhall.co.uk> wrote:
>Those of us who watched the TV series "The IT Crowd" know that that is
>quite wrong, and that in fact all the information is held within a
>single box.
Please don't drop that box, at least until after the election.
...
|
|
|