Mark Goodge  writes:

> On 03 Nov 2009 11:21:20 +0000 (GMT), Ian Jackson put finger to
> keyboard and typed:
>>
>>This kind of thing is one reason why it's unacceptable that you insist
>>on not publishing the moderators' official contact addresses as
>>defined by the moderators.
>
> You still don't get it, do you? The official contact address is the
> one associated with the creation of the group within uk.*. If you
> don't want the official address to be handled by usenet.org.uk, then
> create the group in a different hierarchy.

Then, arguably, you should submit an RFD suggesting that this rule be
added to the guidelines.  'Cos it aten't there at the moment.

(S)

On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 19:35:01 +0000, .m  wrote:

>
>I personally feel that documenting for fuckwittery is contrary to the
>laws of Darwin.

Your fuckwittery might be everyone else's common sense.

On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 19:35:01 +0000, .m  wrote:

>>According to what I have been told, time and time again, the committee
>>is only neutral and is only applying the guidelines.  
>
>If you or anyone else wants to change something, you are free to do
>so.  You'll then see if everyone else agrees with you.

With regard to the business of the contact email address, Jackson
appears not to have contradicted the guidelines at all.

I suggest it is up to you to RFD for a change that would force
conformity.

On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 20:04:25 +0000, Cherry Chapstick
<azure@invalid.really.really> wrote:

>On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 19:35:01 +0000, .m  wrote:
>
>>
>>I personally feel that documenting for fuckwittery is contrary to the
>>laws of Darwin.
>
>Your fuckwittery might be everyone else's common sense.

Would you like to borrow my chainsaw?

On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 20:17:25 +0000, Cherry Chapstick
<azure@invalid.really.really> wrote:

>But I don't want the change.

I should have said "I don't want the change, necessarily."  Mark
Goodge's level and measured responses, absent of insult are
informative and educational.  I look forward to an RFD where the
matter can be decided on issues rather than on who has made the
proposition

On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 20:21:35 +0000, .m  wrote:

>>The committee can't raise RFD's.
>
>Well, actually, to save some going through the roolz again, there's
>nothing stopping the Committee collectively raising an RFD, apart from
>a few undocumented reasons;

A committee member can raise an RFD so long as he absents himself from
involvement in consideration of the issues involved when it comes to
controversy, or so I was told.

If you look at the guidelines
(http://www.usenet.org.uk/guidelines.html#guidelines) there is no
actual such requirement. Again.  So again, we are dependent on
committe members of goodwill and good character and no axe to grind. 

Which I would hope is the majority rather than the minority of the
members on the committee.