RFD: Charter revision - uk.current-events.terrorism

[Paul Smith]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)

This is a formal Request For Discussion (RFD) for the following changes
in the uk.* Usenet hierarchy:

amend the charter of unmoderated newsgroup uk.current-events.terrorism

Administrative note:

Apologies for the delay in posting this RFD. Control's email system has
developed strange faults, and Deputy Control has taken over while this is
sorted out.

Newsgroup line:
uk.current-events.terrorism Discussion of recent terrorist events


*** ALL DISCUSSION MUST TAKE PLACE IN UK.NET.NEWS.CONFIG ***
*** CROSSPOSTED TO UK.CURRENT-EVENTS.TERRORISM ***

This is not a Call for Votes (CFV); you cannot vote at this time.
Further procedural details are given below.

RATIONALE: uk.current-events.terrorism

The present charter and newsgroups line for the group indicates
that it is for discussion about international terrorism and
specifically the US Spetember 11th attacks. Those attacks can
hardly be thought of as current anymore, even though the
aftermath does still warrant discussion in the group. Other more
recent international attacks have occured outside the USA and
there have now been attacks inside the UK which have been carried
out by UK citizens (this is national, rather than international,
terrorism).

The charter and newsgroup line need to be updated to allow for
this.

REVISED CHARTER: uk.current-events.terrorism

This group is for discussion of terrorism from a UK
persepective. Postings which provide links to news items about
the "war on terrorism" are encouraged, especially those news
items concerning UK involvement and those helpinging to
elucidate UK perspectives. Discussion of these news events is
also on-topic - particularly that which helps encourage
understanding of disparate view points. Discussion of policy and
background to the events is also on topic, but potential posters
are encouraged to carefully consider whether they have anything
to say which hasn't been stated many times before.

Posters are reminded that feelings run strong about these issues
and are encouraged to discuss matters in a civil manner.

Posters are reminded that the group uk.current-events.n-ireland
exists and that discussion which is narrowly focused on Northern
Ireland may be better suited there.

Advertising

Advertising is forbidden.

Binaries & Formatting

Encoded binaries (e.g. pictures, compressed files, etc.) are
forbidden although cryptographic signatures (e.g. PGP) may be
used where authentication is important.

END CHARTER

PRESENT CHARTER: uk.current-events.terrorism

uk.current-events.terrorism 11 September 2001 attack on US and follow up

This group is for discussion of international terrorism and efforts to
combat it. Postings which provide links to news items about the so-called
war on terrorism are particularly encouraged. News items concerning UK
involvement or helping to elucidate UK perspectives are also specifically
encouraged.

Discussion of these news events is also on-topic, particular that which
helps encourage understanding of disparate view points. Discussion of
policy and background to the events is also on topic, but potential
posters are encouraged to carefully consider whether they have anything to
say which hasn't been stated many times before.

Posters are reminded that feelings run strong about these issues and are
encouraged to discuss matters in a civil manner.

Posters are reminded that the group uk.current-events.n-ireland exists and
that discussion which is narrowly focused on Northern Ireland may be
better suited there.

Advertising

Advertising is forbidden.

Binaries & Formatting

Encoded binaries (e.g. pictures, compressed files, etc.) are forbidden.
Such material belongs on a web or FTP site to which a pointer may be
posted. Cryptographic signatures (e.g. PGP) may be used where
authentication is important and should be as short as possible.

Posts must be readable as plain text. HTML, RTF and similarly formatted
messages are prohibited. To see how to make some common newsreaders comply
with this, read <http://www.usenet.org.uk/ukpost.html>.

END PRESENT CHARTER

PROCEDURE:

This is a request for discussion, not a call for votes. In this phase of
the process, any potential problems with the proposal should be raised
and resolved. The discussion period will continue for a minimum of 10
days, starting from when this RFD is posted to uk.net.news.announce
(i.e. until September 19th) after which a Call For Votes (CFV) may be
posted by a neutral vote taker if the discussion warrants it.
Alternatively, the proposal may proceed by the fast-track method. Please
do not attempt to vote until this happens.

This RFD attempts to comply fully with the "Guidelines for Group Creation
within the UK Hierarchy" as published regularly in uk.net.news.announce
and is available from http://www.usenet.org.uk/guidelines.html (the UK
Usenet website). Please refer to this document if you have any questions
about the process.

DISTRIBUTION:

This RFD has been posted to the following newsgroups:
uk.net.news.announce
uk.net.news.config
uk.current-events.terrorism

Proponent:
Paul Smith <pjcsmith (at) iname.com>

[Wm...]

Thu, 8 Sep 2005 14:04:47

uk.current-events.terrorism Discussion of recent terrorist events

I am glad someone else has picked this up.

RATIONALE: uk.current-events.terrorism
The present charter and newsgroups line for the group indicates
that it is for discussion about international terrorism and
specifically the US Spetember 11th attacks. Those attacks can

September

hardly be thought of as current anymore, even though the
aftermath does still warrant discussion in the group. Other more
recent international attacks have occured outside the USA and

occurred

there have now been attacks inside the UK which have been carried
out by UK citizens (this is national, rather than international,
terrorism).
The charter and newsgroup line need to be updated to allow for
this.

Spelling / grammer mistakes above not NB, those in the charter will need
to be corrected at some point if it becomes live.

REVISED CHARTER: uk.current-events.terrorism
This group is for discussion of terrorism from a UK
persepective.

perspective

Postings which provide links to news items about
the "war on terrorism" are encouraged, especially those news
items concerning UK involvement and those helpinging to

helping

elucidate UK perspectives.

The proposed charter mentions links but not the wholesale copy and paste
of news items. I think links are good. I am less certain about copy
and paste. The proposed charter makes no distinction and I would prefer
it if it did. I also wonder if the charter should contain something
along the lines of
===
Postings that link to news articles should include [LINK] in the
Subject: line and those that quote an entire news article without
comment should include [RESISTANCE IS FUTILE I WILL POST WHAT I LIKE]
[1]
===
[1] or a more sensible set of words indicating that the posting is an
entire news item from elsewhere :)

Discussion of these news events is
also on-topic - particularly that which helps encourage

"those which" not "that which helps"

understanding of disparate view points. Discussion of policy and
background to the events is also on topic, but potential posters
are encouraged to carefully consider whether they have anything
to say which hasn't been stated many times before.

[John Bean]

On Thu, 8 Sep 2005 18:04:35 +0100, "Wm..."

Post by Wm...
Spelling / grammer mistakes above not NB, those in the charter will need
to be corrected at some point if it becomes live.

Grammer? Hell of a proofreader you are.

[Wm...]

Post by John Bean
On Thu, 8 Sep 2005 18:04:35 +0100, "Wm..."

Post by Wm...
Spelling / grammer mistakes above not NB, those in the charter will need
to be corrected at some point if it becomes live.

Grammer? Hell of a proofreader you are.

Tradition, when correcting others you should make a mistake.

[John Bean]

On Thu, 8 Sep 2005 18:48:35 +0100, "Wm..."

Post by Wm...

Post by John Bean
On Thu, 8 Sep 2005 18:04:35 +0100, "Wm..."

Post by Wm...
Spelling / grammer mistakes above not NB, those in the charter will need
to be corrected at some point if it becomes live.

Grammer? Hell of a proofreader you are.

Tradition, when correcting others you should make a mistake.

I stand kerected.

[Wm...]

Post by John Bean
On Thu, 8 Sep 2005 18:48:35 +0100, "Wm..."

Post by Wm...

Post by John Bean
On Thu, 8 Sep 2005 18:04:35 +0100, "Wm..."

Post by Wm...
Spelling / grammer mistakes above not NB, those in the charter will need
to be corrected at some point if it becomes live.

Grammer? Hell of a proofreader you are.

Tradition, when correcting others you should make a mistake.

I stand kerected.

NP, I'm not sure where or when it started but it is ordinary when
picking at people's words.

I suppose it might have started as a foil, i.e. someone was crap at
language but thought they were good at it. The origin of the "make a
mistake when correcting" is, I think, obscure and lost in time (about a
decade :) )

[Molly Mockford]

At 20:48:38 on Thu, 8 Sep 2005, Wm...

Post by Wm...

Post by John Bean
On Thu, 8 Sep 2005 18:48:35 +0100, "Wm..."

Post by Wm...
Tradition, when correcting others you should make a mistake.

I stand kerected.

NP, I'm not sure where or when it started but it is ordinary when
picking at people's words.

It's rule 39a of Usenet. I would have thought that you would have knon
that.

[The Happy Hippy]

"Wm..." <***@blackhole.do-not-spam.me.uk> wrote ...

[snips]

Post by Wm...
The proposed charter mentions links but not the wholesale copy and paste
of news items. I think links are good. I am less certain about copy
and paste. The proposed charter makes no distinction and I would prefer
it if it did. I also wonder if the charter should contain something
along the lines of
===
Postings that link to news articles should include [LINK] in the
Subject: line and those that quote an entire news article without
comment should include [RESISTANCE IS FUTILE I WILL POST WHAT I LIKE]
[1]
===
[1] or a more sensible set of words indicating that the posting is an
entire news item from elsewhere :)

Why are you so concerned at trying to impose what you think the group needs
on a group which you have had no interest in, other than to complain about
it and your suggesting that it should be closed down ?

On a practical level, many posts will include a brief snippet of some news
or article pasted from elsewhere ( often just to prove that the poster isn't
making up claims and as background information ), and thus your proposed
[LINK] would effectively become mandatory for many posts. I very much doubt
that those posting to the group will bother with the convention you propose
which will make it ineffective and pointless.

I suppose a failure to comply would give you grounds to disrupt the group
with your pitiful complaints about the way it conducts itself, and allow you
to "have fun with the charter" as you put it when you made your own
suggestions for change and removal of the group. I am not convinced that you
are making your suggestion for any reason other than to inconvenience the
people who do use the group or to provide yourself with the leverage needed
to cause disruption to the group.

[Wm...]

Post by The Happy Hippy
[snips]

Post by Wm...
The proposed charter mentions links but not the wholesale copy and paste
of news items. I think links are good. I am less certain about copy
and paste. The proposed charter makes no distinction and I would prefer
it if it did. I also wonder if the charter should contain something
along the lines of
===
Postings that link to news articles should include [LINK] in the
Subject: line and those that quote an entire news article without
comment should include [RESISTANCE IS FUTILE I WILL POST WHAT I LIKE]
[1]
===
[1] or a more sensible set of words indicating that the posting is an
entire news item from elsewhere :)

Why are you so concerned at trying to impose what you think the group needs
on a group which you have had no interest in, other than to complain about
it and your suggesting that it should be closed down ?

That question is very complicated.

It is no wonder people in the group get their ends mixed up.

I can say closing the group down is not being proposed, do keep up.

Post by The Happy Hippy
On a practical level, many posts will include a brief snippet of some news
or article pasted from elsewhere ( often just to prove that the poster isn't
making up claims and as background information ), and thus your proposed
[LINK] would effectively become mandatory for many posts.

Nope. Things like my suggested [LINK] are not mandatory. It is about
good manners. I am suggesting the charter should reflect what people
want the group to be.

If you think the group should be "POST ALL YOUR FUCKING WILDLY UNRELATED
VAGUELY RELATED STUFF HERE" then say so.

Post by The Happy Hippy
I very much doubt
that those posting to the group will bother with the convention you propose
which will make it ineffective and pointless.

Yes, I am aware of that.

Post by The Happy Hippy
I suppose a failure to comply would give you grounds to disrupt the group
with your pitiful complaints about the way it conducts itself, and allow you
to "have fun with the charter" as you put it when you made your own
suggestions for change and removal of the group. I am not convinced that you
are making your suggestion for any reason other than to inconvenience the
people who do use the group or to provide yourself with the leverage needed
to cause disruption to the group.

You are more imaginative than me. I wanted a newsgroup for people in
the uk to discuss current events regarding terrorism. Obviously this is
a concept you can't conceive.

[The Happy Hippy]

"Wm..." <***@blackhole.do-not-spam.me.uk> wrote ...

[snip]

Post by Wm...
I wanted a newsgroup for people in
the uk to discuss current events regarding terrorism. Obviously this is
a concept you can't conceive.

There is nothing which stops anyone from posting in uk.c-e.t. If anyone in
the UK wants to discuss current events regarding terrorism then all they
have to do is type their message and post it.

That seems to be the concept you can't conceive.

[Wm...]

Post by The Happy Hippy
[snip]

Hmmmn, selective snipping, eh?

Post by The Happy Hippy

Post by Wm...
I wanted a newsgroup for people in
the uk to discuss current events regarding terrorism. Obviously this is
a concept you can't conceive.

There is nothing which stops anyone from posting in uk.c-e.t.

True. I doubt very many people who approach it stay for long. Is that
how you like it?

Post by The Happy Hippy
If anyone in
the UK wants to discuss current events regarding terrorism then all they
have to do is type their message and post it.

True. Having posted they will probably read the group for a few days
and realise they have wasted their time and opinion.

Post by The Happy Hippy
That seems to be the concept you can't conceive.

Not true. My conception is fine. What you don't seem to be able to
grasp is that the group is a mess and that a charter change is overdue.
You may like it just as it is. That doesn't mean other people like it
as it is.

[The Happy Hippy]

Post by Wm...

Post by The Happy Hippy
[snip]

Hmmmn, selective snipping, eh?

Snipped to the point I was adressing, removing all that which wasn't
relevant to the point, and identified as removed.

I was going to address the further points and retorts you make, but as I've
wasted this time answering your snide accusation, I've run out of time for
composing this post.

[snip]

[Wm...]

Post by The Happy Hippy

Post by Wm...

Post by The Happy Hippy
[snip]

Hmmmn, selective snipping, eh?

Snipped to the point I was adressing, removing all that which wasn't
relevant to the point, and identified as removed.
I was going to address the further points and retorts you make, but as I've
wasted this time answering your snide accusation, I've run out of time for
composing this post.

Wm 1; Happy Hippy 0

[Wm...]

Post by The Happy Hippy

Post by Wm...

Post by The Happy Hippy
[snip]

Hmmmn, selective snipping, eh?

Snipped to the point I was adressing, removing all that which wasn't
relevant to the point, and identified as removed.
I was going to address the further points and retorts you make, but as I've
wasted this time answering your snide accusation, I've run out of time for
composing this post.

Uh huh

Much better to spend your time finding news articles that support your
point of view and post them to uk.current-events.terrorism.

Just like everyone else.

I do suppose you think you are thinking.

[The Happy Hippy]

Post by Wm...

Post by The Happy Hippy

Post by Wm...

Post by The Happy Hippy
[snip]

Hmmmn, selective snipping, eh?

Snipped to the point I was adressing, removing all that which wasn't
relevant to the point, and identified as removed.
I was going to address the further points and retorts you make, but as I've
wasted this time answering your snide accusation, I've run out of time for
composing this post.

Uh huh

Taking a second-bite of the cherry are you ? Didn't you think your original
'score-line response' was witty enough ? Thought of a more cutting retort ?
Feeling the need to provoke a resonse ?

Post by Wm...
Much better to spend your time finding news articles that support your
point of view and post them to uk.current-events.terrorism.
Just like everyone else.

*Everyone else* ???

You have a completely distorted view of what goes on on uk.c-e.t which bears
no relationship with reality. You've gone completely off your trolley
haven't you ?

Post by Wm...
I do suppose you think you are thinking.

Et tu.

[Peter Duck]

... I wanted a newsgroup for people in the uk to discuss
current events regarding terrorism. ...

That's some progress beyond your previous assertions that only <current
terrorism within the UK> is on-topic in the existing NG (and only
current tsunamis within the UK in uk.c-e.tsunami?), but you've clearly a
further mental hurdle to cross.

You'd probably need to create a mailing-list or web-forum (both of very
limited appeal): Usenet is essentially international, and I'd rate your
chance of getting an NG (unprecedently?) moderated on <'Britishness' of
poster> as 'slim to non-existent' ...

[Wm...]

Post by Peter Duck

... I wanted a newsgroup for people in the uk to discuss
current events regarding terrorism. ...

That's some progress beyond your previous assertions that only <current
terrorism within the UK> is on-topic in the existing NG (and only
current tsunamis within the UK in uk.c-e.tsunami?), but you've clearly a
further mental hurdle to cross.

Eh?

Post by Peter Duck
You'd probably need to create a mailing-list or web-forum (both of very
limited appeal): Usenet is essentially international, and I'd rate your
chance of getting an NG (unprecedently?) moderated on <'Britishness' of
poster> as 'slim to non-existent' ...

I find it amusing that you think I am the proponent.

[Dave J.]

Post by Peter Duck
You'd probably need to create a mailing-list or web-forum (both of very
limited appeal): Usenet is essentially international, and I'd rate your
chance of getting an NG (unprecedently?) moderated on <'Britishness' of
poster> as 'slim to non-existent' ...

Thankfully. We're insular enough as it is.

Dave J

[The Happy Hippy]

"Paul Smith" <***@iname.com.invalid> wrote ...

[snips]

Post by Paul Smith
REVISED CHARTER: uk.current-events.terrorism
This group is for discussion of terrorism from a UK
persepective.

This won't work IMHO. To debate and discuss only from a "UK perspective" is
to exclude all other perspectives which are vital to any discussion on
terrorism. Anything which attempted to explain causes or the rationale
behind terrorist acts, which is important to any debate, from a non-UK
perspective ( ie from a foreign terrorist's perspective ) would
automatically be considered as off-topic. It would also seem to preclude any
non-UK resident person from providing any input into discussions which they
wish to make which come from their own perspective.

What exactly is a "UK perspective" anyway ?

Post by Paul Smith
Postings which provide links to news items about
the "war on terrorism" are encouraged, especially those news
items concerning UK involvement and those helpinging to
elucidate UK perspectives.

Again, that seems to indicate a closing down of any other non-UK
perspectives.

[Wm...]

Post by The Happy Hippy
[snips]

Post by Paul Smith
REVISED CHARTER: uk.current-events.terrorism
This group is for discussion of terrorism from a UK
persepective.

This won't work IMHO. To debate and discuss only from a "UK perspective" is
to exclude all other perspectives which are vital to any discussion on
terrorism.

Why? The group is uk.current-events.terrorism

Why shouldn't it be primarily uk orientated?

Post by The Happy Hippy
Anything which attempted to explain causes or the rationale
behind terrorist acts, which is important to any debate, from a non-UK
perspective ( ie from a foreign terrorist's perspective ) would
automatically be considered as off-topic. It would also seem to preclude any
non-UK resident person from providing any input into discussions which they
wish to make which come from their own perspective.

Yes, think about it

Post by The Happy Hippy
What exactly is a "UK perspective" anyway ?

I'd guess people that live or have lived in the UK for starters.

Post by The Happy Hippy

Post by Paul Smith
Postings which provide links to news items about
the "war on terrorism" are encouraged, especially those news
items concerning UK involvement and those helpinging to
elucidate UK perspectives.

Again, that seems to indicate a closing down of any other non-UK
perspectives.

Yes, you have other groups to play in.

[The Happy Hippy]

Post by Wm...

Post by The Happy Hippy
[snips]

Post by Paul Smith
REVISED CHARTER: uk.current-events.terrorism
This group is for discussion of terrorism from a UK
persepective.

This won't work IMHO. To debate and discuss only from a "UK perspective" is
to exclude all other perspectives which are vital to any discussion on
terrorism.

Why? The group is uk.current-events.terrorism
Why shouldn't it be primarily uk orientated?

What do you mean by "UK oriented" ? Is that the same as having a "UK
perspective" or is it different ?

Post by Wm...

Post by The Happy Hippy
Anything which attempted to explain causes or the rationale
behind terrorist acts, which is important to any debate, from a non-UK
perspective ( ie from a foreign terrorist's perspective ) would
automatically be considered as off-topic. It would also seem to preclude any
non-UK resident person from providing any input into discussions which they
wish to make which come from their own perspective.

Yes, think about it

Do you want to exclude all non-UK residents from participating in the
discussions on uk.c-e.t ?

What is wrong with a poster providing in the course of debate, "this is how
we do it in America / Germany / Russia / wherever" ? Would that be
considered in compliance with the charter or not ?

Post by Wm...

Post by The Happy Hippy
What exactly is a "UK perspective" anyway ?

I'd guess people that live or have lived in the UK for starters.

You "guess" ? Unless the term can actually be defined, then it is
meaningless in the charter, no one would ever know if a post was in
compliance with the charter or not.

We've already experienced your disruption to the group, doing little but
asking how posts are on-topic, and the last thing it needs are people
asking, "How does this provide a UK perspective ?" when the term and its
meaning cannot even be clearly defined. The fact that you couldn't give a
comprehensive and definitive answer shows how unclear the meaning of the
phrase is.

Post by Wm...

Post by The Happy Hippy

Post by Paul Smith
Postings which provide links to news items about
the "war on terrorism" are encouraged, especially those news
items concerning UK involvement and those helpinging to
elucidate UK perspectives.

Again, that seems to indicate a closing down of any other non-UK
perspectives.

Yes, you have other groups to play in.

Seems to me that you prefer to stifle debate rather than encourage it.

[Shane Matthews]

On Fri, 09 Sep 2005 02:59:25 GMT, "The Happy Hippy"

Post by The Happy Hippy
Seems to me that you prefer to stifle debate rather than encourage it.

I find it interesting that we have one person who turned up in this
goup, decided he didn't like what he saw and went on a one man crusade
to try and change it to his liking. Then we have someone whose first
Google archived post (under the e-mail he posted with) is a charter
revision post for uk.c-e.t.
To my mind, this comes down to the old question of does the group
"belong" to the community that inhabits it or does it run strictly to
the letter of the charter. In my mind, as an infrequent poster and
long time reader, the group works pretty well. It gets across the
British perspective on the "war on terror" and the actions of the
current U.S. administration pretty well and certainly better than any
of the U.S. based groups. As for the more vociferous, conservative
U.S. posters here, they provide a contrast to the more thoughtful
posts of the European based subscribers and there's always the kill
file.
What do the other regular posters think? Also, if there are any
lurkers here who don't post because of the current content of the
group, now is your chance to be heard.

[Robin T Cox]

Post by Shane Matthews
On Fri, 09 Sep 2005 02:59:25 GMT, "The Happy Hippy"

Post by The Happy Hippy
Seems to me that you prefer to stifle debate rather than encourage it.

I find it interesting that we have one person who turned up in this
goup, decided he didn't like what he saw and went on a one man crusade
to try and change it to his liking. Then we have someone whose first
Google archived post (under the e-mail he posted with) is a charter
revision post for uk.c-e.t.
To my mind, this comes down to the old question of does the group
"belong" to the community that inhabits it or does it run strictly to
the letter of the charter. In my mind, as an infrequent poster and
long time reader, the group works pretty well. It gets across the
British perspective on the "war on terror" and the actions of the
current U.S. administration pretty well and certainly better than any
of the U.S. based groups. As for the more vociferous, conservative
U.S. posters here, they provide a contrast to the more thoughtful
posts of the European based subscribers and there's always the kill
file.
What do the other regular posters think? Also, if there are any
lurkers here who don't post because of the current content of the
group, now is your chance to be heard.

I'm in favour of the charter revision, in that it brings the purpose of
the group up to date. In doing so it also reflects the fact that from a UK
perspective 9/11 does not have the unique resonance it has from a US
perspective: not only was 9/11 not the first act of international
terrorism, but the July 2005 London bombings remind us that we have had a
long experience of dealing with terrorism over the years. This experience,
and long experience as an imperial and business power in dealing with
people of many different backgrounds over a long history, often means that
a UK perspective upon this problem offers a different approach to that of
the US.

However speaking as someone who was born and educated in the UK, and who
has spent his career in the UK over 40 years, I am as unable as anyone
else to define what a 'UK perspective' might strictly mean. It's like
trying to define 'Britishness' - and everyone knows how difficult we
find this. In any event, it is the British way to define such a
perspective in an inclusive, rather than an exclusive, way. So I for one
welcome the opportunity this group offers to share and contrast my own
perspective with those of others, from wherever they may come.

I agree that the group works pretty well, but I am in favour of making the
UK, rather than the US, the focus of our concern to a much greater extent.
After all, the US is a foreign country despite our strong links, and as
the American poet Robert Frost wrote: 'Good fences make good neighbours.'

Whether the focus of the group can be changed to more of a UK one depends
ultimately, however, on the willingness of us reserved Brits to take more
of an active part.

[Wm...]

Thu, 8 Sep 2005 21:50:46

Post by Shane Matthews
On Fri, 09 Sep 2005 02:59:25 GMT, "The Happy Hippy"

Post by The Happy Hippy
Seems to me that you prefer to stifle debate rather than encourage it.

I find it interesting that we have one person who turned up in this
goup, decided he didn't like what he saw and went on a one man crusade
to try and change it to his liking.

I think you probably mean me.

Post by Shane Matthews
Then we have someone whose first
Google archived post (under the e-mail he posted with) is a charter
revision post for uk.c-e.t.

The proponent of this RFD is not me. I think "Paul Smith" may be a
pseudonym but I don't think his words should be discounted because of
that.

Post by Shane Matthews
To my mind, this comes down to the old question of does the group
"belong" to the community that inhabits it or does it run strictly to
the letter of the charter.

Yes. I'd add the fact that the group currently is obtuse to people
approaching it for the first time. So we get what we have: a handful of
people posting "my news article suggesting my point of view is better
than your article pointing out your point of view"

In essence, penis waving at its worst :(

Post by Shane Matthews
In my mind, as an infrequent poster and
long time reader, the group works pretty well. It gets across the
British perspective on the "war on terror"

How so? Most I see is US people barking at each other

Post by Shane Matthews
and the actions of the
current U.S. administration pretty well and certainly better than any
of the U.S. based groups.

So fix the fucking US groups instead of polluting the uk.* groups.

Post by Shane Matthews
As for the more vociferous, conservative
U.S. posters here, they provide a contrast to the more thoughtful
posts of the European based subscribers and there's always the kill
file.

Heh :) so you have to play in uk.* because you can't get a word in
elsewhere? Seems to fit most posters to the group.

Post by Shane Matthews
What do the other regular posters think? Also, if there are any
lurkers here who don't post because of the current content of the
group, now is your chance to be heard.

Good words, let us hear them.

[Shane Matthews]

On Fri, 9 Sep 2005 12:33:28 +0100, "Wm..."
<***@blackhole.do-not-spam.me.uk> wrote:

uk.* groups.

Post by Wm...

Post by Shane Matthews
As for the more vociferous, conservative
U.S. posters here, they provide a contrast to the more thoughtful
posts of the European based subscribers and there's always the kill
file.

Heh :) so you have to play in uk.* because you can't get a word in
elsewhere? Seems to fit most posters to the group.

I don't "play" in uk.* for that reason at all.

[p***@iname.com]

Post by Wm...

Post by Shane Matthews
I find it interesting that we have one person who turned up in this
goup, decided he didn't like what he saw and went on a one man crusade
to try and change it to his liking.

I think you probably mean me.

Post by Shane Matthews
Then we have someone whose first
Google archived post (under the e-mail he posted with) is a charter
revision post for uk.c-e.t.

That would be me.

Look elsewhere, not on Google.
http://www.ukvoting.org.uk/results.php for example, may give
you an indication that I have been here for a long time.

--
Paul

[Peter Duck]

... In my mind, as an infrequent poster and
long time reader, the group works pretty well. It gets across the
British perspective on the "war on terror" and the actions of the
current U.S. administration pretty well and certainly better than any
of the U.S. based groups. As for the more vociferous, conservative
U.S. posters here, they provide a contrast to the more thoughtful
posts of the European based subscribers and there's always the kill
file.
What do the other regular posters think? ...

I agree, but, more to the point, no amount of charter-revision could
have any significant effect on what's posted (and, alas, cross-posted)
to the NG.

Any attempt, in particular, to 'forbid', or even discourage, posts from
those without British <residence or birth> would merely make us
collectively look *very* foolish: Usenet is inherently
international/world-wide - only totalitarian governments have any power
to limit this, and only for those within their own borders.

As regards any lesser changes, I'm almost completely indifferent.

The creation/removal of *.uk NGs, and their naming/positioning within
the hierarchy, are 'real'/necessary functions, and convention requires
that they have charters.
However, obsessive nit-picking about their wording is IMO a latter-day
equivalent of mediaeval disputations about the number of angels that
could dance on the head of a pin - at best, an 'intellectual exercise'
of no practical consequence.

Rather few users even trouble to read, let alone remember, them, and
even fewer seem much constrained by them.
That they can be invoked in the exertion of peer-pressure on ill-behaved
posters is something of a 'two-edged sword', often triggering
'net-nanny' flame-wars that are more of a PITA than the original
'offences'.

In short, it would take much to dissuade me from voting against any
revision ...

[Wm...]

Post by Peter Duck
In short, it would take much to dissuade me from voting against any
revision ...

So you agree revision is necessary?

[Wm...]

Post by The Happy Hippy

Post by Wm...

Post by The Happy Hippy
[snips]

Post by Paul Smith
REVISED CHARTER: uk.current-events.terrorism
This group is for discussion of terrorism from a UK
persepective.

This won't work IMHO. To debate and discuss only from a "UK perspective"

is

Post by Wm...

Post by The Happy Hippy
to exclude all other perspectives which are vital to any discussion on
terrorism.

Why? The group is uk.current-events.terrorism
Why shouldn't it be primarily uk orientated?

What do you mean by "UK oriented" ? Is that the same as having a "UK
perspective" or is it different ?

Don't see why you are asking. Isn't uk.* obvious?

Post by The Happy Hippy

Post by Wm...

Post by The Happy Hippy
Anything which attempted to explain causes or the rationale
behind terrorist acts, which is important to any debate, from a non-UK
perspective ( ie from a foreign terrorist's perspective ) would
automatically be considered as off-topic. It would also seem to preclude

any

Post by Wm...

Post by The Happy Hippy
non-UK resident person from providing any input into discussions which

they

Post by Wm...

Post by The Happy Hippy
wish to make which come from their own perspective.

Yes, think about it

Do you want to exclude all non-UK residents from participating in the
discussions on uk.c-e.t ?

No

Post by The Happy Hippy
What is wrong with a poster providing in the course of debate, "this is how
we do it in America / Germany / Russia / wherever" ?

Nothing

Post by The Happy Hippy
Would that be
considered in compliance with the charter or not ?

Yes

Post by The Happy Hippy

Post by Wm...

Post by The Happy Hippy
What exactly is a "UK perspective" anyway ?

I'd guess people that live or have lived in the UK for starters.

You "guess" ? Unless the term can actually be defined, then it is
meaningless in the charter, no one would ever know if a post was in
compliance with the charter or not.

You are defending your position in an amusing way. I laughed.

Post by The Happy Hippy
We've already experienced your disruption to the group, doing little but
asking how posts are on-topic, and the last thing it needs are people
asking, "How does this provide a UK perspective ?" when the term and its
meaning cannot even be clearly defined.

Isn't that what this RFD is about? I think my moans were valid in the
face of a handful of people posting crap fetched from other places and
then getting crap from another place in refutation and then crap from
somewhere else to say my crap is better than your crap. Which is what
the group amounts to at present.

If you like it that way I will do my best to change it.

Post by The Happy Hippy
The fact that you couldn't give a
comprehensive and definitive answer shows how unclear the meaning of the
phrase is.

I can actually. If you want to argue about merkin politics choose
another group.

Post by The Happy Hippy

Post by Wm...

Post by The Happy Hippy

Post by Paul Smith
Postings which provide links to news items about
the "war on terrorism" are encouraged, especially those news
items concerning UK involvement and those helpinging to
elucidate UK perspectives.

Again, that seems to indicate a closing down of any other non-UK
perspectives.

Yes, you have other groups to play in.

Seems to me that you prefer to stifle debate rather than encourage it.

There are a number of alt.* groups for you to play in with your friends,
I think you should leave the group to people that actually care about
it.

[The Happy Hippy]

"Wm..." <***@blackhole.do-not-spam.me.uk> wrote

[snips]

Post by Wm...

Post by The Happy Hippy

Post by The Happy Hippy
What exactly is a "UK perspective" anyway ?

The fact that you couldn't give a
comprehensive and definitive answer shows how unclear the meaning of the
phrase is.

I can actually. If you want to argue about merkin politics choose
another group.

I have no idea what you mean by "merkin politics", and I am not seeking an
argument. I asked what a "UK perspective" is, you didn't provide any clear
answer, claim that you can, but won't produce it. If you can give a clear
definition of "UK perspective" I'd like to hear it, otherwise I'll assume
you can't.

As it is a rather pertinent maytter regarding a potential charer chgange, it
is best that the debate and discussion on the issues are carried here, not
somewhere else.

Post by Wm...
There are a number of alt.* groups for you to play in with your friends,
I think you should leave the group to people that actually care about
it.

I think you should let people decide for themselves where they want to post.

I also think you should leave it to others to judge who is "playing" and
whether or not they care about the group. You care so much for the group
that you were toying with the idea of having it removed. You care so much
about the group that you put up a pre-RFD on changing its charter without
even informing the group that you'd done that. You care so much about the
group that you have rarely posted there ( and only then to complain about
it ), and you were the one who declared that changing the charter would
allow you to "have fun with the charter"; it seems you are more interested
in crying "off-topic" and challenging postings than engaging in the debate
and discussion which does take place in the group.

I don't believe you have the interest of the group at heart; you are only
interested in what you want, and that is in trying to make the group what
you alone want it to be, and as you have already demonstrated, if you can't
get your way you would be more than happy to see it destroyed and removed.
You act like a child who, if they can't play with a toy, will break it so no
one else can.

If you see it so clearly that there are those in uk.c-e.t who care about the
group and those who don't, perhaps you'd like to enlighten the readers of
uk.c-e.t as to who you believe cares and doesn't care ? If you want to
accuse people posting to uk.c-e.t of not caring about the group, then be a
man about it and name names. Let those who you complain of know who they are
so they can defend themselves against your accusation - and don't hide
behind any "they know who they are" enigmatic codswallop.

I would have thought that the comments you received from the group regarding
your suggested proposals earlier would have shown you just how much passion
those posting in the group do have for it, how much they do care for it.

[Wm...]

Post by The Happy Hippy
[snips]

Post by Wm...

Post by The Happy Hippy

Post by The Happy Hippy
What exactly is a "UK perspective" anyway ?

The fact that you couldn't give a
comprehensive and definitive answer shows how unclear the meaning of the
phrase is.

I can actually. If you want to argue about merkin politics choose
another group.

I have no idea what you mean by "merkin politics",

You are a dumb shit then.

Post by The Happy Hippy
and I am not seeking an
argument.

Oh, ok.

Post by The Happy Hippy
I asked what a "UK perspective" is, you didn't provide any clear
answer, claim that you can, but won't produce it.

I am not the person promoting this RFD. Perhaps you should ask the
proponent?

As an aside UK perspective seems ordinary and clear to me. Obviously you
don't want to understand what it is or might be.

Post by The Happy Hippy
If you can give a clear
definition of "UK perspective" I'd like to hear it, otherwise I'll assume
you can't.

I don't think the onus is as you place it. I think you should defend
your silly point of view before asking others to define theirs.

Post by The Happy Hippy
As it is a rather pertinent maytter regarding a potential charer chgange, it
is best that the debate and discussion on the issues are carried here, not
somewhere else.

Eh? Who said the discussion should be somewhere else?

maytter
chgange

Decide for yourself :)

Post by The Happy Hippy

Post by Wm...
There are a number of alt.* groups for you to play in with your friends,
I think you should leave the group to people that actually care about
it.

I think you should let people decide for themselves where they want to post.
I also think you should leave it to others to judge who is "playing" and
whether or not they care about the group. You care so much for the group
that you were toying with the idea of having it removed. You care so much
about the group that you put up a pre-RFD on changing its charter without
even informing the group that you'd done that.

Ummm, I think a pre-RFD is about as much warning as you could ordinarily
expect.

Unless you think a pre-pre-RFD would have been less referential (someone
will get the joke)

Post by The Happy Hippy
You care so much about the
group that you have rarely posted there ( and only then to complain about
it ), and you were the one who declared that changing the charter would
allow you to "have fun with the charter"; it seems you are more interested
in crying "off-topic" and challenging postings than engaging in the debate
and discussion which does take place in the group.

Give us an example of a thread where people are actually discussing
things.

Post by The Happy Hippy
I don't believe you have the interest of the group at heart; you are only
interested in what you want, and that is in trying to make the group what
you alone want it to be, and as you have already demonstrated, if you can't
get your way you would be more than happy to see it destroyed and removed.
You act like a child who, if they can't play with a toy, will break it so no
one else can.

Possibly. The responsibility is on you (plural) to show that it works.

Post by The Happy Hippy
If you see it so clearly that there are those in uk.c-e.t who care about the
group and those who don't, perhaps you'd like to enlighten the readers of
uk.c-e.t as to who you believe cares and doesn't care ? If you want to
accuse people posting to uk.c-e.t of not caring about the group, then be a
man about it and name names. Let those who you complain of know who they are
so they can defend themselves against your accusation - and don't hide
behind any "they know who they are" enigmatic codswallop.

Anyone can pull the postings from the group and see who posts what.

Post by The Happy Hippy
I would have thought that the comments you received from the group regarding
your suggested proposals earlier would have shown you just how much passion
those posting in the group do have for it, how much they do care for it.

One. I am not the proponent of this RFD.

Two. Passion? Yes, I do understand the mutual masturbation you engage
in, sort of.

[Dave J.]

Post by Wm...

Post by The Happy Hippy
You act like a child who, if they can't play with a toy, will break it so no
one else can.

Possibly. The responsibility is on you (plural) to show that it works.

No, the responsibility is more on anyone who wants to make a change to
show that the current situation *isn't* working.

Work is defined by here as 'Providing a place for people with a common
interest to discuss that common interest'

In the case of conflicting common interests (one set obscuring another by
heavy traffic) the tradition is to provide an *alternate* group so that
both elements are catered for, not to attempt to wipe one of them out. The
reason is quite simple, you can't.

In the discussion over charter change I think I've said before that while
it's certainly good houskeeping to change charters to reflect the actual
uses to which groups are put, I see it as craziness itself to change a
charter with the intent of influencing that use.

Dave J.

[The Happy Hippy]

Post by Wm...

Post by The Happy Hippy
[snips]

Post by Wm...

Post by The Happy Hippy

Post by The Happy Hippy
What exactly is a "UK perspective" anyway ?

The fact that you couldn't give a
comprehensive and definitive answer shows how unclear the meaning of the
phrase is.

I can actually. If you want to argue about merkin politics choose
another group.

I have no idea what you mean by "merkin politics",

You are a dumb shit then.

My, such invective at someone who happens not to understand a particular
term and has the honesty to admit it.

And you are the one who is complaining about posters on uk.c-e.t

[snip]

[Wm...]

Post by The Happy Hippy
And you are the one who is complaining about posters on uk.c-e.t

I'm not complaining in uk.c-e.t apart from this thread. Perhaps you are
confusing me with someone else?

[The Happy Hippy]

Post by Wm...

Post by The Happy Hippy
And you are the one who is complaining about posters on uk.c-e.t

I'm not complaining in uk.c-e.t apart from this thread.

So I am correct then.

Post by Wm...
Perhaps you are confusing me with someone else?

No.

Interestingly though that you don't indicate your snipping, while
complaining about mine.

[Wm...]

Post by The Happy Hippy

Post by Wm...

Post by The Happy Hippy
And you are the one who is complaining about posters on uk.c-e.t

I'm not complaining in uk.c-e.t apart from this thread.

So I am correct then.

No. I think you are wrong. John Hall mentioned a person trolling.

Post by The Happy Hippy

Post by Wm...
Perhaps you are confusing me with someone else?

No.

You must be, I know for a fact that I am not posting to
uk.current-events.terrorism on a regular basis. Read it? Yes I do.
Post to the group? Very rarely. Mainly pointing out that people should
include unnc if they want their thoughts to be seen.

Post by The Happy Hippy
Interestingly though that you don't indicate your snipping, while
complaining about mine.

I am able to say I am not trolling in uk.current-events.terrorism

Have a free [snip]

I have lots more of them :)

[The Happy Hippy]

Post by Wm...

Post by The Happy Hippy

Post by Wm...

Post by The Happy Hippy
And you are the one who is complaining about posters on uk.c-e.t

I'm not complaining in uk.c-e.t apart from this thread.

So I am correct then.

No. I think you are wrong.

You said, " I'm not complaining in uk.c-e.t apart from this thread", so you
admit you are complaining in this thread, and your posts only have to be
checked to see that you are.

You can't have it both ways, admitting that you are complaining and then
saying you aren't.

Post by Wm...
John Hall mentioned a person trolling.

So ? That's entirely irrelevant to my point.

Post by Wm...

Post by The Happy Hippy

Post by Wm...
Perhaps you are confusing me with someone else?

No.

You must be, I know for a fact that I am not posting to
uk.current-events.terrorism on a regular basis.

Again, entirely irrelvant. What you have posted is what I am talking about,
not how frequently you post.

Post by Wm...
Read it? Yes I do.
Post to the group? Very rarely. Mainly pointing out that people should
include unnc if they want their thoughts to be seen.

What do you mean "mainly" ? You've made one post that I can see which says
that.

[Wm...]

Post by The Happy Hippy

Post by Wm...

Post by The Happy Hippy

Post by Wm...

Post by The Happy Hippy
And you are the one who is complaining about posters on uk.c-e.t

I'm not complaining in uk.c-e.t apart from this thread.

So I am correct then.

No. I think you are wrong.

You said, " I'm not complaining in uk.c-e.t apart from this thread", so you
admit you are complaining in this thread, and your posts only have to be
checked to see that you are.

Ummm, I don't think you get any points for stating the obvious. Heck,
what I said is included just above.

Post by The Happy Hippy
You can't have it both ways, admitting that you are complaining and then
saying you aren't.

Huh?

Post by The Happy Hippy

Post by Wm...
John Hall mentioned a person trolling.

So ? That's entirely irrelevant to my point.

Which is?

Post by The Happy Hippy

Post by Wm...

Post by The Happy Hippy

Post by Wm...
Perhaps you are confusing me with someone else?

No.

You must be, I know for a fact that I am not posting to
uk.current-events.terrorism on a regular basis.

Again, entirely irrelvant. What you have posted is what I am talking about,
not how frequently you post.

You find it uncomfortable that more than one person doesn't like the
group the way it is?

Post by The Happy Hippy

Post by Wm...
Read it? Yes I do.
Post to the group? Very rarely. Mainly pointing out that people should
include unnc if they want their thoughts to be seen.

What do you mean "mainly" ? You've made one post that I can see which says
that.

What you see may not be everything.

[Rex M F Smith]

Post by The Happy Hippy

Post by Wm...
There are a number of alt.* groups for you to play in with your friends,
I think you should leave the group to people that actually care about
it.

I think you should let people decide for themselves where they want to post.

uk* group charters are precisely the *reverse* of this ... the charter
determines where someone's post is *on* topic and it should not be
posted where it is *off* topic ...

[TWP]

Post by The Happy Hippy

Post by Wm...

Post by The Happy Hippy
[snips]

Post by Paul Smith
REVISED CHARTER: uk.current-events.terrorism
This group is for discussion of terrorism from a UK
persepective.

This won't work IMHO. To debate and discuss only from a "UK

perspective"

Post by The Happy Hippy
is

Post by Wm...

Post by The Happy Hippy
to exclude all other perspectives which are vital to any discussion on
terrorism.

Why? The group is uk.current-events.terrorism
Why shouldn't it be primarily uk orientated?

What do you mean by "UK oriented" ? Is that the same as having a "UK
perspective" or is it different ?

Post by Wm...

Post by The Happy Hippy
Anything which attempted to explain causes or the rationale
behind terrorist acts, which is important to any debate, from a non-UK
perspective ( ie from a foreign terrorist's perspective ) would
automatically be considered as off-topic. It would also seem to

preclude

Post by The Happy Hippy
any

Post by Wm...

Post by The Happy Hippy
non-UK resident person from providing any input into discussions which

they

Post by Wm...

Post by The Happy Hippy
wish to make which come from their own perspective.

Yes, think about it

Do you want to exclude all non-UK residents from participating in the
discussions on uk.c-e.t ?
What is wrong with a poster providing in the course of debate, "this is how
we do it in America / Germany / Russia / wherever" ? Would that be
considered in compliance with the charter or not ?

Post by Wm...

Post by The Happy Hippy
What exactly is a "UK perspective" anyway ?

I'd guess people that live or have lived in the UK for starters.

You "guess" ? Unless the term can actually be defined, then it is
meaningless in the charter, no one would ever know if a post was in
compliance with the charter or not.
We've already experienced your disruption to the group, doing little but
asking how posts are on-topic, and the last thing it needs are people
asking, "How does this provide a UK perspective ?" when the term and its
meaning cannot even be clearly defined. The fact that you couldn't give a
comprehensive and definitive answer shows how unclear the meaning of the
phrase is.

Post by Wm...

Post by The Happy Hippy

Post by Paul Smith
Postings which provide links to news items about
the "war on terrorism" are encouraged, especially those news
items concerning UK involvement and those helpinging to
elucidate UK perspectives.

Again, that seems to indicate a closing down of any other non-UK
perspectives.

Yes, you have other groups to play in.

Seems to me that you prefer to stifle debate rather than encourage it.

What exactly is the retribution for posting in non-compliance with the
charter? I think the worse that could happen is that you'd be ignored....
the group is un-moderated, although perhaps binary posts could be
automatically deleted by news server administrators.

If anything makes the group a mess it's the large amount of flood-posting
and trolling, not people posting links or cutting and pasting stories. One
concern I would have on cutting and pasting though is potential copyright
problems. No-one seems worried about it at the moment, but times can
change. Hopefully we have some kind of "fair use" protection.

TWP

[Mr.G]

Post by The Happy Hippy

Post by The Happy Hippy

Post by Wm...

Post by The Happy Hippy
[snips]

Post by Paul Smith
REVISED CHARTER: uk.current-events.terrorism
This group is for discussion of terrorism from a UK
persepective.

This won't work IMHO. To debate and discuss only from a "UK

perspective"

Post by The Happy Hippy
is

Post by Wm...

Post by The Happy Hippy
to exclude all other perspectives which are vital to any discussion on
terrorism.

Why? The group is uk.current-events.terrorism
Why shouldn't it be primarily uk orientated?

What do you mean by "UK oriented" ? Is that the same as having a "UK
perspective" or is it different ?

Post by Wm...

Post by The Happy Hippy
Anything which attempted to explain causes or the rationale
behind terrorist acts, which is important to any debate, from a non-UK
perspective ( ie from a foreign terrorist's perspective ) would
automatically be considered as off-topic. It would also seem to

preclude

Post by The Happy Hippy
any

Post by Wm...

Post by The Happy Hippy
non-UK resident person from providing any input into discussions which

they

Post by Wm...

Post by The Happy Hippy
wish to make which come from their own perspective.

Yes, think about it

Do you want to exclude all non-UK residents from participating in the
discussions on uk.c-e.t ?
What is wrong with a poster providing in the course of debate, "this is

how

Post by The Happy Hippy
we do it in America / Germany / Russia / wherever" ? Would that be
considered in compliance with the charter or not ?

Post by Wm...

Post by The Happy Hippy
What exactly is a "UK perspective" anyway ?

I'd guess people that live or have lived in the UK for starters.

You "guess" ? Unless the term can actually be defined, then it is
meaningless in the charter, no one would ever know if a post was in
compliance with the charter or not.
We've already experienced your disruption to the group, doing little but
asking how posts are on-topic, and the last thing it needs are people
asking, "How does this provide a UK perspective ?" when the term and its
meaning cannot even be clearly defined. The fact that you couldn't give a
comprehensive and definitive answer shows how unclear the meaning of the
phrase is.

Post by Wm...

Post by The Happy Hippy

Post by Paul Smith
Postings which provide links to news items about
the "war on terrorism" are encouraged, especially those news
items concerning UK involvement and those helpinging to
elucidate UK perspectives.

Again, that seems to indicate a closing down of any other non-UK
perspectives.

Yes, you have other groups to play in.

Seems to me that you prefer to stifle debate rather than encourage it.

What exactly is the retribution for posting in non-compliance with the
charter? I think the worse that could happen is that you'd be ignored....
the group is un-moderated, although perhaps binary posts could be
automatically deleted by news server administrators.
If anything makes the group a mess it's the large amount of flood-posting
and trolling, not people posting links or cutting and pasting stories.
One
concern I would have on cutting and pasting though is potential copyright
problems. No-one seems worried about it at the moment, but times can
change. Hopefully we have some kind of "fair use" protection.
TWP

Copyright isn't a problem as long the credits are there and no
one is making money or getting famous in the name of or on
the work of another.

Mr.G

[Rex M F Smith]

Post by Wm...

Post by The Happy Hippy
What exactly is a "UK perspective" anyway ?

I'd guess people that live or have lived in the UK for starters.

Or, perhaps, discussion of where the UK citizen / government's reaction
is quite different to that abroad ... lack of carpet bombing comes
immediately to mind ...

[Peter Smyth]

Post by Paul Smith
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
This is a formal Request For Discussion (RFD) for the following changes
amend the charter of unmoderated newsgroup uk.current-events.terrorism

I will vote against this as it seems to be pointless tinkering and as far as
I can see the proponent has never even posted to the group.

Peter Smyth

[Wm...]

Post by Peter Smyth

Post by Paul Smith
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
This is a formal Request For Discussion (RFD) for the following changes
amend the charter of unmoderated newsgroup uk.current-events.terrorism

I will vote against this as it seems to be pointless tinkering

Wrong.

Post by Peter Smyth
and as far as
I can see the proponent has never even posted to the group.

Just so you know, the proponent doesn't have to exist in your terms.
People may post under different names in different news groups. You do
not know. Period.

[Shane Matthews]

On Fri, 9 Sep 2005 13:08:09 +0100, "Wm..."

Post by Wm...
Just so you know, the proponent doesn't have to exist in your terms.
People may post under different names in different news groups. You do
not know. Period.

Well, the so-called proponent popped out of nowhere, posted his RFD
and then disappeared in a puff of smoke. Immediately you turn up
spouting the same old clap trap as before, carrying on some vendetta
against a group you have never participated in before. In my book, if
it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck and wlaks like a duck, then
it is a duck.

[Wm...]

Fri, 9 Sep 2005 11:55:44

Post by Shane Matthews
On Fri, 9 Sep 2005 13:08:09 +0100, "Wm..."

Post by Wm...
Just so you know, the proponent doesn't have to exist in your terms.
People may post under different names in different news groups. You do
not know. Period.

Well, the so-called proponent popped out of nowhere, posted his RFD
and then disappeared in a puff of smoke. Immediately you turn up
spouting the same old clap trap as before, carrying on some vendetta
against a group you have never participated in before. In my book, if
it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck and wlaks like a duck, then
it is a duck.

I am not the proponent of this RFD. I know nothing about the proponent
apart from what all of us can see. Perhaps you are uncomfortable with
the fact that more than one person doesn't like
uk.current-events.terrorism as it is and prefer the idea of one person
being at odds with "you"?

[MK]

Post by Shane Matthews
On Fri, 9 Sep 2005 13:08:09 +0100, "Wm..."

Post by Wm...
Just so you know, the proponent doesn't have to exist in your terms.
People may post under different names in different news groups. You do
not know. Period.

Well, the so-called proponent popped out of nowhere, posted his RFD
and then disappeared in a puff of smoke. Immediately you turn up
spouting the same old clap trap as before, carrying on some vendetta
against a group you have never participated in before. In my book, if
it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck and wlaks like a duck, then
it is a duck.

In an unmoderated group there is nothing that can be done about:

1. People posting articles with only the slightest link to the UK.

2. People posting under different names: Dynamic IPs in Europe and easy
access to multiple email addresses together with the Identity Switch
function on several popular applications makes name hopping simple and
almost impossible to detect.

Little point in worrying about either - the strongest weapon is not to
respond to off-topic posts and to ignore posters who look like trolls.

Mike

[Peter Duck]

... In my book, if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck and
wlaks like a duck, then it is a duck.

I resent that!
Peter Duck :-)

Nah ... It was 'water off a duck's back'.

Only inability, as far as I'm aware, to 'wlak' might have troubled me.

[John F Hall]

Post by Paul Smith
REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
This is a formal Request For Discussion (RFD) for the following changes
amend the charter of unmoderated newsgroup uk.current-events.terrorism

Regrettably uk.current-events.terrorism has suffered from a troll for
the last month who has disrupted discussions with continual complaints
about the group and its posting being "wrong", and wanting first to
remove the group and then to interfere with its charter. He received
no support from the regular posters for his views. In fact most of the
responses were quite hostile, asking why he had chosen suddenly to
disrupt an established, functioning newsgroup. We are now suffering
this all over again as a result of this RFD posting.

Contrary to the misrepresentations that appear to have been posted in
uk.net.news.config, the group has a large and fairly stable membership,
many of whom go back to the original uk.current-events.us-bombing
newsgroup (myself included, my first post was 16 Sept 2001).

There are two things that might perhaps be regretted. The name change
attracted some posters who searched for "terrorist" newsgroups and
posted with disregard for the charter - I think most, if not all, of the
previous members now regret the name change. Secondly following the
London bombs in July we seem to be suffering from some conspiracy nuts
who are recognisable by their wild crossposts. Hopefully those will die
away again before too long.

However it's perfectly clear that no change to the charter would have
any effect on either of those, nor prevent anything similar in the
future.

The only action needed for this RFD is to fast-track its dismissal and
to let the group return to its normal functioning without further
disruption.

[Percy Picacity]

***@avondale.demon.co.uk (John F Hall) wrote in news:dfsnla$j8a$***@green.home:
snip

Post by John F Hall
The only action needed for this RFD is to fast-track its dismissal
and to let the group return to its normal functioning without
further disruption.

Apparently me-to posts are desirable in response to RFDs - so here is
one.

[Arthur Figgis]

Post by Percy Picacity
snip

Post by John F Hall
The only action needed for this RFD is to fast-track its dismissal
and to let the group return to its normal functioning without
further disruption.

Apparently me-to posts are desirable in response to RFDs - so here is
one.

If that's so, here's another.

[Peter Duncanson]

On Fri, 09 Sep 2005 22:57:52 +0100, Arthur Figgis

Post by Arthur Figgis

Post by Percy Picacity
snip

Post by John F Hall
The only action needed for this RFD is to fast-track its dismissal
and to let the group return to its normal functioning without
further disruption.

Apparently me-to posts are desirable in response to RFDs - so here is
one.

If that's so, here's another.

And another.

[Ali Hopkins]

Post by Percy Picacity
snip

Post by John F Hall
The only action needed for this RFD is to fast-track its dismissal
and to let the group return to its normal functioning without
further disruption.

Apparently me-to posts are desirable in response to RFDs - so here is
one.

To coin a phrase, AOL.

Ali

[Wm...]

Post by Ali Hopkins

Post by Percy Picacity
snip

Post by John F Hall
The only action needed for this RFD is to fast-track its dismissal
and to let the group return to its normal functioning without
further disruption.

Apparently me-to posts are desirable in response to RFDs - so here is
one.

To coin a phrase, AOL.

Percy and Ali think the current charter and ng line are good?

Stunning. May I gently suggest both of you read it again.

[Owen Rees]

On Fri, 9 Sep 2005 23:51:08 +0100, "Wm..."

Post by Wm...
Percy and Ali think the current charter and ng line are good?

Opposing this particular RFD does not necessarily imply a belief that
the current charter and ng line are good.

Post by Wm...
Stunning. May I gently suggest both of you read it again.

May I suggest that you read the post by John F Hall to which Percy
responded. It made a lot of sense to me.

[Wm...]

Post by Owen Rees
On Fri, 9 Sep 2005 23:51:08 +0100, "Wm..."

Post by Wm...
Percy and Ali think the current charter and ng line are good?

Opposing this particular RFD does not necessarily imply a belief that
the current charter and ng line are good.

OK, explain to me what you think is meant. Pretend I am an average
uk.current-events.terrorism reader.

Post by Owen Rees

Post by Wm...
Stunning. May I gently suggest both of you read it again.

May I suggest that you read the post by John F Hall to which Percy
responded. It made a lot of sense to me.

We don't know who the bad person is yet.

I am sure the charter should be changed. That you think it should not
be changed is odd.

[Mr.G]

Post by Wm...

Post by Owen Rees
On Fri, 9 Sep 2005 23:51:08 +0100, "Wm..."

Post by Wm...
Percy and Ali think the current charter and ng line are good?

Opposing this particular RFD does not necessarily imply a belief that
the current charter and ng line are good.

OK, explain to me what you think is meant. Pretend I am an average
uk.current-events.terrorism reader.

Post by Owen Rees

Post by Wm...
Stunning. May I gently suggest both of you read it again.

May I suggest that you read the post by John F Hall to which Percy
responded. It made a lot of sense to me.

We don't know who the bad person is yet.
I am sure the charter should be changed. That you think it should not be
changed is odd.
--
Wm ...
Reply-To: address valid for at least 7 days from date of posting

The only thing odd is that you won't shut up and go away.
Nothing you have said has been taken up in this group.
Your an idiot of some kind, and your constant disagreement
with what people want to vote is sure measure of your mental
state. You seem to be very lonely and are looking for some
kind of attention. I suggest you drop the money for a head
shrink, like every other Looney toon has too and bugger off.
You sound mad as a hatter as it is. Save some face, be a good
bean and go diddle someone else's news group for a few years.
There is no way in all of Hades for you to tell if I have ever lived
in the UK or am married to someone who is British etc. etc.
Now piss off mate, as they say down under =)

Mr.G

[unknown]

Post by Ali Hopkins

Post by Percy Picacity
snip

Post by John F Hall
The only action needed for this RFD is to fast-track its dismissal
and to let the group return to its normal functioning without
further disruption.

Apparently me-to posts are desirable in response to RFDs - so here is
one.

To coin a phrase, AOL.

Another 3p in the fountain: MTAAW.

AFAICS, Wm's pre-RFD thread garnered little or no support and this
Proponent's picking up of the idea at RFD stage isn't building upon
previous support for any charter change. Adding in that the Proponent
doesn't appear to have seen that the RFD has been posted and generated
a thread (Message-ID: <***@anonymous.poster> and
Message-ID: <***@anonymous.poster>). Missing a
single post I can understand, missing a whole thread is rather less
believable.

Admittedly, the newsgroup line could be usefully tweaked but I can't see
the need for a charter change as a lot of the postings are currently in
line with the current charter, once you remove the few trolls and the
widely-xposted-as-I-can type posts ~ neither of which a charter change
is going to remove.

[p***@iname.com]

Post by unknown

Post by Ali Hopkins

Post by Percy Picacity
snip

Post by John F Hall
The only action needed for this RFD is to fast-track its dismissal
and to let the group return to its normal functioning without
further disruption.

Apparently me-to posts are desirable in response to RFDs - so here is
one.

To coin a phrase, AOL.

Another 3p in the fountain: MTAAW.
AFAICS, Wm's pre-RFD thread garnered little or no support and this
Proponent's picking up of the idea at RFD stage isn't building upon
previous support for any charter change. Adding in that the Proponent
doesn't appear to have seen that the RFD has been posted and generated
single post I can understand, missing a whole thread is rather less
believable.
Admittedly, the newsgroup line could be usefully tweaked but I can't see
the need for a charter change as a lot of the postings are currently in
line with the current charter, once you remove the few trolls and the
widely-xposted-as-I-can type posts ~ neither of which a charter change
is going to remove.

Missing the thread - well, it had only just been posted when I
posted. The nature of my particular mail2news gateway (which
sometimes incurs significant delay and adds the time IT posts to
the news post) makes it look like I had missed it for 2 entire
days, which is far from the case.

I read the initial thread with interest. Although Wm suggested
radical changes, even perhaps removing the group, I have made
very minimal changes to the charter to ensure that other
terrorist attacks, not only "9/11" and it's follow-up, are
included - such as the London bombings. I have also suggested a
change to the newsgroups line. This shouldn't cause any
problems for posters already using the group.

I have already sent a second RFD to control removing the "UK
perspective" which, strangely IMHO for a UK group, was not
wanted.

--
Paul

[Wm...]

Post by p***@iname.com
I read the initial thread with interest. Although Wm suggested
radical changes, even perhaps removing the group,

True. I was testing the water.

Post by p***@iname.com
I have made
very minimal changes to the charter to ensure that other
terrorist attacks, not only "9/11" and it's follow-up, are
included - such as the London bombings. I have also suggested a
change to the newsgroups line. This shouldn't cause any
problems for posters already using the group.

Seems sensible to me, it also appears that some people don't want
anything changed at all.

Post by p***@iname.com
I have already sent a second RFD to control removing the "UK
perspective" which, strangely IMHO for a UK group, was not
wanted.

I think you've just been beaten down :(

It seems obvious to me that a uk.* group should have a UK perspective.

[unknown]

In message <***@anonymous.poster>, at 14:43:30 on Sat,
10 Sep 2005, ***@iname.com wibbled

x-post re-instated as the RFD asks for posts to be cross-posted between
the two groups. Hence no snipping.

Post by p***@iname.com

Post by unknown

Post by Ali Hopkins

Post by Percy Picacity
snip

Post by John F Hall
The only action needed for this RFD is to fast-track its dismissal
and to let the group return to its normal functioning without
further disruption.

Apparently me-to posts are desirable in response to RFDs - so here is
one.

To coin a phrase, AOL.

Another 3p in the fountain: MTAAW.
AFAICS, Wm's pre-RFD thread garnered little or no support and this
Proponent's picking up of the idea at RFD stage isn't building upon
previous support for any charter change. Adding in that the Proponent
doesn't appear to have seen that the RFD has been posted and generated
single post I can understand, missing a whole thread is rather less
believable.
Admittedly, the newsgroup line could be usefully tweaked but I can't see
the need for a charter change as a lot of the postings are currently in
line with the current charter, once you remove the few trolls and the
widely-xposted-as-I-can type posts ~ neither of which a charter change
is going to remove.

Missing the thread - well, it had only just been posted when I
posted. The nature of my particular mail2news gateway (which
sometimes incurs significant delay and adds the time IT posts to
the news post) makes it look like I had missed it for 2 entire
days, which is far from the case.

May I suggest a different approach to posting to Usenet then. eg
readfreenews doesn't pass on identifying details if you want to
remain anonymous in public and is far faster than a mail2news
gateway.

Your mail gateway suffers another problem. You asked for the posts
to be posted to u.n.n.c and u.c-e.t in the RFD but you are posting
to u.n.n.c only.

Post by p***@iname.com
I read the initial thread with interest. Although Wm suggested
radical changes, even perhaps removing the group, I have made
very minimal changes to the charter to ensure that other
terrorist attacks, not only "9/11" and it's follow-up, are
included - such as the London bombings. I have also suggested a
change to the newsgroups line. This shouldn't cause any
problems for posters already using the group.

I've indicated elsewhere in this thread that the newsgroup line could be
usefully be amended. 'follow-up' can mean too many different things: at
one end you've got follow up reports to 9/11 and nowt else, at the other
end you've got 'follow-up' meaning terrorist events that may have a
relation (or not as time goes by) to the same group that instigated
9/11. Admittedly I missed the ambiguity when the permanent group was
proposed but that doesn't stop me commenting now.


Your problems are AFAICS:

a) your RFD comes hot on the heels of Wm's pre-RFD thread that started
off as a change of charter but changed to closing the group down, and
neither of which had little or no support.

b) a charter change won't stop posters who ignore charters. There's no
effective way of removing them unless you go moderated and which can
have it's own problems.

c) newsgroup line: your change currently says "recent" but the rationale
suggests that 9/11 is not recent but is on topic!

d) your most fervent supporter of a change is Wm who got people's backs
up previously and is being gratuitously rude in this thread also. The
Proponent and their supporters shouldn't matter but, sad to say, it does
happen.

There's probably others but it's late.

Post by p***@iname.com
I have already sent a second RFD to control removing the "UK
perspective" which, strangely IMHO for a UK group, was not
wanted.

Not that strange IMHO. Terrorism happening in the UK is not isolated
to things that have happened within the UK. You could limit the
newsgroup to terrorism that has happened in the UK and allow no
on-charter posts that suggest it might be a result of happenings
elsewhere etc. but I'd suggest that would be a mistake. Terrorism is a
different pot of piscines to, for example, uk.legal(.moderated) where
the emphasis is on UK law.

Think global if the issue is terrorism, limiting the group to terrorism
that has happened in the UK as a response to something that affects the
UK only is not the way to go though that appears to Wm's argument.


Regardless of the personalities mentioned above, you as the Proponent
haven't shown any sensible reason in the rationale for the charter
change that would persuade me to vote for it. I'll argue my POV if not
already aired and expect to have it challenged and rebutted. Make a good
case that I accept has a basis in fact then any Proponent would get my
vote. Fail to do so and you get an abstain (or not bother to register an
interest) or no from me.


I re-iterate my comments above, if you are serious about an RFD
regarding a newsgroup then you really should get a provider that can
post your comments in reply in a more timely manner and one that will
send your replies to the newsgroups that you wanted to get the replies
to be sent to in the RFD.

I have little time for someone who asks in an RFD for posts to be
xposted to two groups but then doesn't do it themselves. You asked for
it then it's your responsibility to ensure that you can do it yourself.

[Italy Anonymous Remailer]

Post by unknown

Post by p***@iname.com
Missing the thread - well, it had only just been posted when I
posted. The nature of my particular mail2news gateway (which
sometimes incurs significant delay and adds the time IT posts to
the news post) makes it look like I had missed it for 2 entire
days, which is far from the case.

May I suggest a different approach to posting to Usenet then. eg
readfreenews doesn't pass on identifying details if you want to
remain anonymous in public and is far faster than a mail2news
gateway.

Normally it is not so slow, but it is on occasion.

Readfreenews is not in the same ballpark as the system I use.

Post by unknown
Your mail gateway suffers another problem. You asked for the posts
to be posted to u.n.n.c and u.c-e.t in the RFD but you are posting
to u.n.n.c only.

I didn't, (deputy) control did. I will look into the reason why
this is happening.

Post by unknown

Post by p***@iname.com
I read the initial thread with interest. Although Wm suggested
radical changes, even perhaps removing the group, I have made
very minimal changes to the charter to ensure that other
terrorist attacks, not only "9/11" and it's follow-up, are
included - such as the London bombings. I have also suggested a
change to the newsgroups line. This shouldn't cause any
problems for posters already using the group.

I've indicated elsewhere in this thread that the newsgroup line could be
usefully be amended. 'follow-up' can mean too many different things: at
one end you've got follow up reports to 9/11 and nowt else, at the other
end you've got 'follow-up' meaning terrorist events that may have a
relation (or not as time goes by) to the same group that instigated
9/11. Admittedly I missed the ambiguity when the permanent group was
proposed but that doesn't stop me commenting now.

Those two are the main things that I am trying to correct. I am
not trying to do away with the group as Wm once suggested.

Post by unknown
a) your RFD comes hot on the heels of Wm's pre-RFD thread that started
off as a change of charter but changed to closing the group down, and
neither of which had little or no support.

RFDs generally do follow pre-RFDs.

Post by unknown
b) a charter change won't stop posters who ignore charters. There's no
effective way of removing them unless you go moderated and which can
have it's own problems.

I'm not trying to stop anyone posting, just allow others to post
(e.g. about the London bombings which, according to the present
newsgroups line (and arguably the "international" limitation in
the charter) would have been better discussed elsewhere).

Post by unknown
c) newsgroup line: your change currently says "recent" but the rationale
suggests that 9/11 is not recent but is on topic!

I would expect that 9/11 be discussed less and less in a
"current events" group as time goes on. There will obviously not
be a specific cutoff point. It may be better if 9/11 is not
mentioned at all.

Post by unknown
d) your most fervent supporter of a change is Wm who got people's backs
up previously and is being gratuitously rude in this thread also. The
Proponent and their supporters shouldn't matter but, sad to say, it does
happen.

I know.

--
Paul

[unknown]

In message <***@anonymous.poster>, at 11:09:29 on
Sun, 11 Sep 2005, Italy Anonymous Remailer <***@See.Comments.Header>
wibbled

Post by Italy Anonymous Remailer

Post by unknown

Post by p***@iname.com
Missing the thread - well, it had only just been posted when I
posted. The nature of my particular mail2news gateway (which
sometimes incurs significant delay and adds the time IT posts to
the news post) makes it look like I had missed it for 2 entire
days, which is far from the case.

May I suggest a different approach to posting to Usenet then. eg
readfreenews doesn't pass on identifying details if you want to
remain anonymous in public and is far faster than a mail2news
gateway.

Normally it is not so slow, but it is on occasion.
Readfreenews is not in the same ballpark as the system I use.

It'd be faster ;) [sorry, I'll get me coat]

Post by Italy Anonymous Remailer

Post by unknown
Your mail gateway suffers another problem. You asked for the posts
to be posted to u.n.n.c and u.c-e.t in the RFD but you are posting
to u.n.n.c only.

I didn't, (deputy) control did. I will look into the reason why
this is happening.

Well, most of the xposting is happening due to the following bit that
was in the RFD:

<quote>
*** ALL DISCUSSION MUST TAKE PLACE IN UK.NET.NEWS.CONFIG ***
*** CROSSPOSTED TO UK.CURRENT-EVENTS.TERRORISM ***
</quote>

I (and I rather suspect others) took it to mean the discussion should
be cross posted as it's more usual for the RFD to be xposted to the
relevant groups but discussion of it to take place in unnc.

If you didn't ask for that then my apologies for suggesting you did. You
need to ask Deputy Control why it was added and why you weren't informed
it would be.

Post by Italy Anonymous Remailer

Post by unknown

Post by p***@iname.com
I read the initial thread with interest. Although Wm suggested
radical changes, even perhaps removing the group, I have made
very minimal changes to the charter to ensure that other
terrorist attacks, not only "9/11" and it's follow-up, are
included - such as the London bombings. I have also suggested a
change to the newsgroups line. This shouldn't cause any
problems for posters already using the group.

I've indicated elsewhere in this thread that the newsgroup line could be
usefully be amended. 'follow-up' can mean too many different things: at
one end you've got follow up reports to 9/11 and nowt else, at the other
end you've got 'follow-up' meaning terrorist events that may have a
relation (or not as time goes by) to the same group that instigated
9/11. Admittedly I missed the ambiguity when the permanent group was
proposed but that doesn't stop me commenting now.

Those two are the main things that I am trying to correct. I am
not trying to do away with the group

Fixing the newsgroup line to be less ambiguous I'm in agreement with
though I think it could be better than your suggestion. Fixing the
charter is one to be careful of. I'm in agreement with what DaveJ
posted, change of charter to match current usage is fine, change that
doesn't match current usage of a newsgroup then I'm wary whoever
proposes it.

[snip]

I'm recusing myself from any further comments in this RFD. Your main
supporter has indicated in unnm that they may stand for Committee and
I'm the 2ndary VT. I'd do the same if they were your main detractor.

[Wm...]

Post by unknown
If you didn't ask for that then my apologies for suggesting you did.
You need to ask Deputy Control why it was added and why you weren't
informed it would be.

Pedt, stop teasing the silly people

Post by unknown
I'm recusing

recusing?

rescuing?

Post by unknown
myself from any further comments in this RFD. Your main supporter has
indicated in unnm that they may stand for Committee and I'm the 2ndary
VT. I'd do the same if they were your main detractor.

I do like the dryness of your humour, Pedt.

[Mark Goodge]

On Sun, 11 Sep 2005 22:49:19 +0100, Wm... put finger to keyboard and

Post by Wm...

Post by unknown
If you didn't ask for that then my apologies for suggesting you did.
You need to ask Deputy Control why it was added and why you weren't
informed it would be.

Pedt, stop teasing the silly people

Post by unknown
I'm recusing

recusing?

http://www.answers.com/recusing

Mark

[Wm...]

Sun, 11 Sep 2005 23:32:41

Post by Mark Goodge
On Sun, 11 Sep 2005 22:49:19 +0100, Wm... put finger to keyboard and

Post by Wm...

Post by unknown
If you didn't ask for that then my apologies for suggesting you did.
You need to ask Deputy Control why it was added and why you weren't
informed it would be.

Pedt, stop teasing the silly people

Post by unknown
I'm recusing

recusing?

http://www.answers.com/recusing

===
To disqualify or seek to disqualify from participation in a decision on
grounds such as prejudice or personal involvement.
===

interesting. Do let me know when you think I am sufficiently bad.

[Wm...]

Post by Italy Anonymous Remailer
Those two are the main things that I am trying to correct. I am
not trying to do away with the group as Wm once suggested.

Hopefully people will realise that you and I are not the same person.

Post by Italy Anonymous Remailer

Post by unknown
a) your RFD comes hot on the heels of Wm's pre-RFD thread that started
off as a change of charter but changed to closing the group down, and
neither of which had little or no support.

RFDs generally do follow pre-RFDs.

Gosh, who'd have thunk that?

Post by Italy Anonymous Remailer

Post by unknown
b) a charter change won't stop posters who ignore charters. There's no
effective way of removing them unless you go moderated and which can
have it's own problems.

I'm not trying to stop anyone posting, just allow others to post
(e.g. about the London bombings which, according to the present
newsgroups line (and arguably the "international" limitation in
the charter) would have been better discussed elsewhere).

I think most of the posters to uk.current-events.terrorism are, quite
simply, scared of their peers.

Post by Italy Anonymous Remailer

Post by unknown
c) newsgroup line: your change currently says "recent" but the rationale
suggests that 9/11 is not recent but is on topic!

I would expect that 9/11 be discussed less and less in a
"current events" group as time goes on. There will obviously not
be a specific cutoff point. It may be better if 9/11 is not
mentioned at all.

Current? Perhaps only a few of us know what it means

Post by Italy Anonymous Remailer

Post by unknown
d) your most fervent supporter of a change is Wm who got people's backs
up previously and is being gratuitously rude in this thread also. The
Proponent and their supporters shouldn't matter but, sad to say, it does
happen.

I know.

Me raises hand. Yes, I have been rude and will continue to be so.

What I'd like everyone to know is that Paul Smith and William Tarr are
different people. We are approaching a change in each of our own ways.
Paul Smith has not contacted me and I have not contacted him.

To ignore the fact that some of us would like the charter of
uk.current-events.terrorism changed would be silly.

Grow up people. I don't know about "Paul Smith" but I am in for the
long run.

[Paul Smith]

Post by unknown
I have little time for someone who asks in an RFD for posts to be
xposted to two groups but then doesn't do it themselves. You asked for
it then it's your responsibility to ensure that you can do it yourself.

Although I didn't ask for it myself, I have hopefully now
circumvented the problem. This post should tell.

--
Paul

[Wm...]

Post by unknown

Post by p***@iname.com

Post by unknown
AFAICS, Wm's pre-RFD thread garnered little or no support and this
Proponent's picking up of the idea at RFD stage isn't building upon
previous support for any charter change.

I think it is a little more complicated than that. It is easy to
dismiss "Paul Smith" because he is anonymous but I don't think sensible
people should do that. I am very disappointed that you, Pedt, won't
consider "Paul Smith's" words and seem to be encouraging other people to
not read what he has to say.

Post by unknown

Post by p***@iname.com

Post by unknown
Adding in that the Proponent
doesn't appear to have seen that the RFD has been posted and generated
single post I can understand, missing a whole thread is rather less
believable.
Admittedly, the newsgroup line could be usefully tweaked but I can't see
the need for a charter change as a lot of the postings are currently in
line with the current charter, once you remove the few trolls and the
widely-xposted-as-I-can type posts ~ neither of which a charter change
is going to remove.

Missing the thread - well, it had only just been posted when I
posted. The nature of my particular mail2news gateway (which
sometimes incurs significant delay and adds the time IT posts to
the news post) makes it look like I had missed it for 2 entire
days, which is far from the case.

May I suggest a different approach to posting to Usenet then. eg
readfreenews doesn't pass on identifying details if you want to
remain anonymous in public and is far faster than a mail2news
gateway.

Hang on a second, Pedt. "Paul Smith" is within his (or her) rights to
post as they feel best. Being anonymous is not against the rules.

Post by unknown
Your mail gateway suffers another problem. You asked for the posts
to be posted to u.n.n.c and u.c-e.t in the RFD but you are posting
to u.n.n.c only.

OK, so "Paul Smith" made a fuck up in his or her posting. Many of us
have made that sort of mistake.

Post by unknown

Post by p***@iname.com
I read the initial thread with interest. Although Wm suggested
radical changes, even perhaps removing the group, I have made
very minimal changes to the charter to ensure that other
terrorist attacks, not only "9/11" and it's follow-up, are
included - such as the London bombings. I have also suggested a
change to the newsgroups line. This shouldn't cause any
problems for posters already using the group.

I don't understand why people don't see that the changes I suggested
were intended to make people think.

It is becoming clear that most people posting to
uk.current-events.terrorism have brains like goldfish.

Oh, I swam around my bowl and now everything is different. Since
everything is different I'll post the same fucking article again.

Yay, no-one will ever know because they are all as thick as me.

Post by unknown
I've indicated elsewhere in this thread that the newsgroup line could
at one end you've got follow up reports to 9/11 and nowt else, at the
other end you've got 'follow-up' meaning terrorist events that may have
a relation (or not as time goes by) to the same group that instigated
9/11. Admittedly I missed the ambiguity when the permanent group was
proposed but that doesn't stop me commenting now.

I think a number of people missed it, actually

Post by unknown
a) your RFD comes hot on the heels of Wm's pre-RFD thread that started
off as a change of charter but changed to closing the group down, and
neither of which had little or no support.

I'm certainly supportive of my idea

Post by unknown
b) a charter change won't stop posters who ignore charters. There's no
effective way of removing them unless you go moderated and which can
have it's own problems.

Correct

Post by unknown
c) newsgroup line: your change currently says "recent" but the
rationale suggests that 9/11 is not recent but is on topic!

The newsgroup line is wrong. Period. The charter is wrong too. Period.
Argue against those facts at your peril, dear.

Post by unknown
d) your most fervent supporter of a change is Wm who got people's backs
up previously and is being gratuitously rude in this thread also. The
Proponent and their supporters shouldn't matter but, sad to say, it
does happen.

I don't think the people in uk.current-events.terrorism have sufficient
brain power to understand that, Pedt.

Post by unknown
There's probably others but it's late.

Post by p***@iname.com
I have already sent a second RFD to control removing the "UK
perspective" which, strangely IMHO for a UK group, was not
wanted.

Not that strange IMHO. Terrorism happening in the UK is not isolated
to things that have happened within the UK. You could limit the
newsgroup to terrorism that has happened in the UK and allow no
on-charter posts that suggest it might be a result of happenings
elsewhere etc. but I'd suggest that would be a mistake. Terrorism is a
different pot of piscines to, for example, uk.legal(.moderated) where
the emphasis is on UK law.

So, tell me Pedt, do you think people from Merka pissing in
uk.current-events.terrorism is right?

Unless I have misunderstood both you and I are immigrants to the UK.

Why the fuck do you support the mainly american idiots polluting a
perfectly ordinary uk.* group?

Post by unknown
Think global if the issue is terrorism, limiting the group to terrorism
that has happened in the UK as a response to something that affects the
UK only is not the way to go though that appears to Wm's argument.

Do you want me to raise the issue of Polish terrorism?

Post by unknown
Regardless of the personalities mentioned above, you as the Proponent
haven't shown any sensible reason in the rationale for the charter
change that would persuade me to vote for it.

I disagree with that.

Post by unknown
I'll argue my POV if not already aired and expect to have it
challenged and rebutted. Make a good case that I accept has a basis in
fact then any Proponent would get my vote. Fail to do so and you get an
abstain (or not bother to register an interest) or no from me.

Ah, so you're playing your nationalism against mine and anyone elses?

I didn't expect that of you, Pedt.

Post by unknown
I re-iterate my comments above, if you are serious about an RFD
regarding a newsgroup then you really should get a provider that can
post your comments in reply in a more timely manner and one that will
send your replies to the newsgroups that you wanted to get the replies
to be sent to in the RFD.

I think you are picking at the wrong end of the stick, Pedt. "Paul
Smith" is allowed to be anonymous. To criticise him (or her) for being
anonymous is wrong.

Post by unknown
I have little time for someone who asks in an RFD for posts to be
xposted to two groups but then doesn't do it themselves. You asked for
it then it's your responsibility to ensure that you can do it yourself.

OK, so "Paul Smith" made a mistake. Big deal. I suspect "Paul Smith"
thinks I am a cunt in spite of the fact that we are trying to go in the
same direction.

Try to look at the other persons point of view, Pedt. I do trust you.

[{R}]

In uk.net.news.config on Fri, 9 Sep 2005 23:14:33 +0100, "Ali Hopkins"
<***@dial.pipex.com> wrote:

}To coin a phrase, AOL.

Me too

Fuck off and die you stupid stupid cunt, Wm..

{R}

[Wm...]

Post by {R}
In uk.net.news.config on Fri, 9 Sep 2005 23:14:33 +0100, "Ali Hopkins"
}To coin a phrase, AOL.
Me too
Fuck off and die you stupid stupid cunt, Wm..

Hmmm, I wonder if Richard would accept responsibility if I did choose to
die?

I think the answer is "probably not". Drown yourself, Richard Ashton.

[O***@Oak-invalid.com]

Post by Percy Picacity
snip

Post by John F Hall
The only action needed for this RFD is to fast-track its dismissal
and to let the group return to its normal functioning without
further disruption.

Apparently me-to posts are desirable in response to RFDs - so here is
one.

Me three.



Oak

[Wm...]

In article

Post by Paul Smith
REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
This is a formal Request For Discussion (RFD) for the following changes
amend the charter of unmoderated newsgroup uk.current-events.terrorism

Regrettably uk.current-events.terrorism has suffered from a troll for
the last month who has disrupted discussions with continual complaints
about the group and its posting being "wrong", and wanting first to
remove the group and then to interfere with its charter.

Do you mean ah and Phil Kyle? (if so they tend to follow people about
and don't really have anything to do with the ng) If you mean someone
else do let us know who it is.

He received
no support from the regular posters for his views. In fact most of the
responses were quite hostile, asking why he had chosen suddenly to
disrupt an established, functioning newsgroup. We are now suffering
this all over again as a result of this RFD posting.

Are you saying the proponent of this RFD is the person who was
disrupting the group?

[snip]

There are two things that might perhaps be regretted. The name change
attracted some posters who searched for "terrorist" newsgroups and
posted with disregard for the charter

Aren't you saying (perhaps unwittingly) that a charter change is
necessary?

- I think most, if not all, of the
previous members now regret the name change.

What do you think it should be?

Secondly following the
London bombs in July we seem to be suffering from some conspiracy nuts
who are recognisable by their wild crossposts. Hopefully those will die
away again before too long.

The group has always had conspiracy nuts. We may differ on who is more
mad but I don't think it is correct to suggest they arrived recently.

However it's perfectly clear that no change to the charter would have
any effect on either of those, nor prevent anything similar in the
future.

We know that changing the charter will not affect bad posters. That
doesn't mean the charter should not be changed.

The only action needed for this RFD is to fast-track its dismissal and
to let the group return to its normal functioning without further
disruption.

I disagree strongly and am surprised you have said what you have.

[TWP]

Post by Wm...

In article

Post by Paul Smith
REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
This is a formal Request For Discussion (RFD) for the following changes
amend the charter of unmoderated newsgroup uk.current-events.terrorism

Regrettably uk.current-events.terrorism has suffered from a troll for
the last month who has disrupted discussions with continual complaints
about the group and its posting being "wrong", and wanting first to
remove the group and then to interfere with its charter.

Do you mean ah and Phil Kyle? (if so they tend to follow people about
and don't really have anything to do with the ng) If you mean someone
else do let us know who it is.

He received
no support from the regular posters for his views. In fact most of the
responses were quite hostile, asking why he had chosen suddenly to
disrupt an established, functioning newsgroup. We are now suffering
this all over again as a result of this RFD posting.

Are you saying the proponent of this RFD is the person who was
disrupting the group?
[snip]

There are two things that might perhaps be regretted. The name change
attracted some posters who searched for "terrorist" newsgroups and
posted with disregard for the charter

Aren't you saying (perhaps unwittingly) that a charter change is
necessary?

- I think most, if not all, of the
previous members now regret the name change.

What do you think it should be?

Secondly following the
London bombs in July we seem to be suffering from some conspiracy nuts
who are recognisable by their wild crossposts. Hopefully those will die
away again before too long.

The group has always had conspiracy nuts. We may differ on who is more
mad but I don't think it is correct to suggest they arrived recently.

However it's perfectly clear that no change to the charter would have
any effect on either of those, nor prevent anything similar in the
future.

We know that changing the charter will not affect bad posters. That
doesn't mean the charter should not be changed.

The only action needed for this RFD is to fast-track its dismissal and
to let the group return to its normal functioning without further
disruption.

I disagree strongly and am surprised you have said what you have.
--
Wm ...
Reply-To: address valid for at least 7 days from date of posting

What do you think would be achieved by a charter change or a newsgroup
description change? What will be different afterwards?

The people that have enough regard for the group to bother with charters and
such won't be the ones spoiling it for everyone else. ISP's aren't going to
refuse to propogate the group because people don't use the group in the
'correct way'.

I think the change to the charter is tilted towards purging US specific
terms of reference and who knows, perhaps posters, but we're always going to
come back to the US as they're the principal target of Al Qaeda terrorism
not to mention able to mount the strongest military response. This group
can't be made UK-centric because the issue is global. All you'll end up
with is a UK-specific commentary but no depth or understanding.

Unless changing the charter has real objective benefits for the users of the
ng I think things should stay as they are. All who genuinely want to
discuss terrorism are already welcome to post here - I'd rather share
another's perspective than only ever see the issue from my own.... Hell, if
a person can only tolerate discussion from their own perspective then
there's not a lot of point in coming to a newsgroup like this to discuss or
broaden their knowledge, you'd be better off with your favourite newspaper.

TWP

[Robin T Cox]

Post by TWP

Post by Wm...

In article

Post by Paul Smith
REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
This is a formal Request For Discussion (RFD) for the following changes
amend the charter of unmoderated newsgroup uk.current-events.terrorism

Regrettably uk.current-events.terrorism has suffered from a troll for
the last month who has disrupted discussions with continual complaints
about the group and its posting being "wrong", and wanting first to
remove the group and then to interfere with its charter.

Do you mean ah and Phil Kyle? (if so they tend to follow people about
and don't really have anything to do with the ng) If you mean someone
else do let us know who it is.

He received
no support from the regular posters for his views. In fact most of the
responses were quite hostile, asking why he had chosen suddenly to
disrupt an established, functioning newsgroup. We are now suffering
this all over again as a result of this RFD posting.

Are you saying the proponent of this RFD is the person who was
disrupting the group?
[snip]

There are two things that might perhaps be regretted. The name change
attracted some posters who searched for "terrorist" newsgroups and
posted with disregard for the charter

Aren't you saying (perhaps unwittingly) that a charter change is
necessary?

- I think most, if not all, of the
previous members now regret the name change.

What do you think it should be?

Secondly following the
London bombs in July we seem to be suffering from some conspiracy nuts
who are recognisable by their wild crossposts. Hopefully those will die
away again before too long.

The group has always had conspiracy nuts. We may differ on who is more
mad but I don't think it is correct to suggest they arrived recently.

However it's perfectly clear that no change to the charter would have
any effect on either of those, nor prevent anything similar in the
future.

We know that changing the charter will not affect bad posters. That
doesn't mean the charter should not be changed.

The only action needed for this RFD is to fast-track its dismissal and
to let the group return to its normal functioning without further
disruption.

I disagree strongly and am surprised you have said what you have.
--
Wm ...
Reply-To: address valid for at least 7 days from date of posting

What do you think would be achieved by a charter change or a newsgroup
description change? What will be different afterwards?
The people that have enough regard for the group to bother with charters and
such won't be the ones spoiling it for everyone else. ISP's aren't going to
refuse to propogate the group because people don't use the group in the
'correct way'.
I think the change to the charter is tilted towards purging US specific
terms of reference and who knows, perhaps posters, but we're always going to
come back to the US as they're the principal target of Al Qaeda terrorism
not to mention able to mount the strongest military response. This group
can't be made UK-centric because the issue is global. All you'll end up
with is a UK-specific commentary but no depth or understanding.
Unless changing the charter has real objective benefits for the users of the
ng I think things should stay as they are. All who genuinely want to
discuss terrorism are already welcome to post here - I'd rather share
another's perspective than only ever see the issue from my own.... Hell, if
a person can only tolerate discussion from their own perspective then
there's not a lot of point in coming to a newsgroup like this to discuss or
broaden their knowledge, you'd be better off with your favourite newspaper.
TWP

Terrorism may be global, but surely it is possible, permissible and indeed
desirable to have a group where it is discussed in terms of how it affects
the people and government of the UK. There are plenty of groups where the
unspoken assumption seems to be that the US is the centre of the universe,
and where ignorance of anything but US concerns is AOK, but this group
should not be one of them.

To make this focus as clear as possible, the group's purpose might be
stated as: "To discuss international terrorism and its implications for
the people and government of the UK."

Non-UK posters should continue to be welcomed to this discussion, since a
view from outside the UK is often very valuable. Of course, the relevance
of any such contributions will depend on the poster's knowledge of, and
sympathy for, the UK, its people and affairs.

[Wm...]

Sun, 11 Sep 2005 07:56:03 <***@nomail.net>
uk.net.news.config Robin T Cox <***@nomail.net>

Dear Mr Cox

Expect to get a lot of rubbish because you have made sense.

Post by Robin T Cox
Terrorism may be global, but surely it is possible, permissible and indeed
desirable to have a group where it is discussed in terms of how it affects
the people and government of the UK.

Yes, some people don't see it that way.

Post by Robin T Cox
There are plenty of groups where the
unspoken assumption seems to be that the US is the centre of the universe,
and where ignorance of anything but US concerns is AOK, but this group
should not be one of them.

I think they are scared to post to US-centric groups

Post by Robin T Cox
To make this focus as clear as possible, the group's purpose might be
stated as: "To discuss international terrorism and its implications for
the people and government of the UK."

OI! Speaking sense is deprecated here :)

Post by Robin T Cox
Non-UK posters should continue to be welcomed to this discussion, since a
view from outside the UK is often very valuable. Of course, the relevance
of any such contributions will depend on the poster's knowledge of, and
sympathy for, the UK, its people and affairs.

If you continue to speak sense I'll be quiet.

[p***@iname.com]

Post by TWP
What do you think would be achieved by a charter change or a newsgroup
description change? What will be different afterwards?
The people that have enough regard for the group to bother with charters and
such won't be the ones spoiling it for everyone else. ISP's aren't going to
refuse to propogate the group because people don't use the group in the
'correct way'.

People who would have posted about the London bombings, but
didn't because the newsgroup line (and charter) didn't appear to
allow it, will post.

The change is intended to allow some more people to post. It
won't stop anyone who is already posting.

[The Happy Hippy]

Post by p***@iname.com

Post by TWP
What do you think would be achieved by a charter change or a newsgroup
description change? What will be different afterwards?
The people that have enough regard for the group to bother with charters and
such won't be the ones spoiling it for everyone else. ISP's aren't going to
refuse to propogate the group because people don't use the group in the
'correct way'.

People who would have posted about the London bombings, but
didn't because the newsgroup line (and charter) didn't appear to
allow it, will post.
The change is intended to allow some more people to post. It
won't stop anyone who is already posting.

That may have happened, but I'm surprised if it did. There was a flurry of
activity on uk.c-e.t in the wake of the London Bombings, the second
attempted attack and the shooting of de Menezes, and a number of new posters
did arrive. I don't particularly see any issue with the charter which would
have led people to not post, and a quick read of the group would have shown
such discussion was taking place. Do people just read charters and not check
what the group actually carries ? I'd have expected it to be the other way
round; people lurk or dive-in and only read the charter if a breach of it is
alleged anytime. Even less so, do they read the newsgroup line and stop then
?

I don't perceive anything in the charter which would stop such discussions
taking place.

[Wm...]

Post by The Happy Hippy

Post by p***@iname.com

Post by TWP
What do you think would be achieved by a charter change or a newsgroup
description change? What will be different afterwards?
The people that have enough regard for the group to bother with charters

and

Post by p***@iname.com

Post by TWP
such won't be the ones spoiling it for everyone else. ISP's aren't

going to

Post by p***@iname.com

Post by TWP
refuse to propogate the group because people don't use the group in the
'correct way'.

People who would have posted about the London bombings, but
didn't because the newsgroup line (and charter) didn't appear to
allow it, will post.
The change is intended to allow some more people to post. It
won't stop anyone who is already posting.

That may have happened, but I'm surprised if it did. There was a flurry of
activity on uk.c-e.t in the wake of the London Bombings, the second
attempted attack and the shooting of de Menezes, and a number of new posters
did arrive. I don't particularly see any issue with the charter which would
have led people to not post, and a quick read of the group would have shown
such discussion was taking place. Do people just read charters and not check
what the group actually carries ? I'd have expected it to be the other way
round; people lurk or dive-in and only read the charter if a breach of it is
alleged anytime. Even less so, do they read the newsgroup line and stop then
?
I don't perceive anything in the charter which would stop such discussions
taking place.

Excellent. If what you say is true you will be happy to change it

[gandalf]

(Snip)

Post by p***@iname.com
People who would have posted about the London bombings, but
didn't because the newsgroup line (and charter) didn't appear to
allow it, will post.

--------
And who reads, or knows where to find, a NG line or charter? How would the
average potential poster find that info about this NG?

[Wm...]

Post by gandalf
(Snip)

Post by p***@iname.com
People who would have posted about the London bombings, but
didn't because the newsgroup line (and charter) didn't appear to
allow it, will post.

--------
And who reads, or knows where to find, a NG line or charter? How would the
average potential poster find that info about this NG?

Any person that realised shit was being posted to the group would have
checked.

[Wm...]

Post by TWP
What do you think would be achieved by a charter change or a newsgroup
description change? What will be different afterwards?

goodness, a person with a brain from uk.current-events.terrorism. I am
shocked. Does anyone think this will happen again?

Post by TWP
The people that have enough regard for the group to bother with charters and
such won't be the ones spoiling it for everyone else. ISP's aren't going to
refuse to propogate the group because people don't use the group in the
'correct way'.

Yes, most ISP's are crap. Fortunately I have a good one.

Post by TWP
I think the change to the charter is tilted towards purging US specific
terms of reference and who knows, perhaps posters, but we're always going to
come back to the US as they're the principal target of Al Qaeda terrorism
not to mention able to mount the strongest military response.

Oi! I disagree. We're talking about a newsgroup. I think the
newsgroup is mainly for british or uk.* points of view.

The reality is that most of the posters are americans who are too
fucking scared to post in their local groups.

Post by TWP
This group
can't be made UK-centric because the issue is global. All you'll end up
with is a UK-specific commentary but no depth or understanding.

I disagree strongly.

If I want to access international news I can do so.

I say again (and I will repeat this) the merkins that frequent
uk.current-events.terrorism are just too plain scared to take on the
issues they should be addressing at home.

Post by TWP
Unless changing the charter has real objective benefits for the users of the
ng I think things should stay as they are.

I think it would be positive if the americans started posting to their
home news groups.

Post by TWP
All who genuinely want to
discuss terrorism are already welcome to post here - I'd rather share
another's perspective than only ever see the issue from my own.... Hell, if
a person can only tolerate discussion from their own perspective then
there's not a lot of point in coming to a newsgroup like this to discuss or
broaden their knowledge, you'd be better off with your favourite newspaper.

LOL I think that is exactly the point. Americans are too fucking scared
to express their views and choose to pollute uk.* groups instead.

[gandalf]

Post by Paul Smith
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
REVISED CHARTER: uk.current-events.terrorism
This group is for discussion of terrorism from a UK
persepective.

(snip)

Post by Paul Smith
PRESENT CHARTER: uk.current-events.terrorism
This group is for discussion of international terrorism and efforts to
combat it.

(snip)

-----------
As the modern form of terrorism is by its very nature 'International' then
discussions regarding it will also be international in flavour. I fail to
see how an insular 'UK perspective', if one exists, can help anyone
understand the problem.

I shall vote against this pointless amendment as the proponent, whoever that
may be, clearly knows nothing about the subject and wants to parochialise
what is clearly a global issue. Only the blissfully, or wilfully, ignorant
can afford or desire such a view.

[Geoff Berrow]

Post by gandalf
As the modern form of terrorism is by its very nature 'International' then
discussions regarding it will also be international in flavour. I fail to
see how an insular 'UK perspective', if one exists, can help anyone
understand the problem.

The UK perspective comes from the fact that the group exists within the
uk.* hierarchy and the fact that the majority of posters will be looking
at the issues from that perspective.

[FACE]

On Sat, 10 Sep 2005 09:27:12 +0100, in uk.current-events.terrorism Geoff

Post by Geoff Berrow

Post by gandalf
As the modern form of terrorism is by its very nature 'International' then
discussions regarding it will also be international in flavour. I fail to
see how an insular 'UK perspective', if one exists, can help anyone
understand the problem.

The UK perspective comes from the fact that the group exists within the
uk.* hierarchy and the fact that the majority of posters will be looking
at the issues from that perspective.
--
Geoff Berrow (put thecat out to email)

****

Post by Geoff Berrow
It's only Usenet, no one dies.

****

I think that you have captured the kernel of the whole situation right
there. There is a certain humour in seeing people become overly serious in
all their posturing. But...that is only my opinion and others should feel
free to consider this some kind of life challenge -- it's fun to watch.

FACE

Post by Geoff Berrow
My opinions, not the committee's, mine.
Simple RFDs http://www.ckdog.co.uk/rfdmaker/

[Mr.G]

Post by Paul Smith
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
This is a formal Request For Discussion (RFD) for the following changes
amend the charter of unmoderated newsgroup uk.current-events.terrorism
Apologies for the delay in posting this RFD. Control's email system has
developed strange faults, and Deputy Control has taken over while this is
sorted out.
uk.current-events.terrorism Discussion of recent terrorist events
*** ALL DISCUSSION MUST TAKE PLACE IN UK.NET.NEWS.CONFIG ***
*** CROSSPOSTED TO UK.CURRENT-EVENTS.TERRORISM ***
This is not a Call for Votes (CFV); you cannot vote at this time.
Further procedural details are given below.
RATIONALE: uk.current-events.terrorism
The present charter and newsgroups line for the group indicates
that it is for discussion about international terrorism and
specifically the US Spetember 11th attacks. Those attacks can
hardly be thought of as current anymore, even though the
aftermath does still warrant discussion in the group. Other more
recent international attacks have occured outside the USA and
there have now been attacks inside the UK which have been carried
out by UK citizens (this is national, rather than international,
terrorism).
The charter and newsgroup line need to be updated to allow for
this.
REVISED CHARTER: uk.current-events.terrorism
This group is for discussion of terrorism from a UK
persepective. Postings which provide links to news items about
the "war on terrorism" are encouraged, especially those news
items concerning UK involvement and those helpinging to
elucidate UK perspectives. Discussion of these news events is
also on-topic - particularly that which helps encourage
understanding of disparate view points. Discussion of policy and
background to the events is also on topic, but potential posters
are encouraged to carefully consider whether they have anything
to say which hasn't been stated many times before.
Posters are reminded that feelings run strong about these issues
and are encouraged to discuss matters in a civil manner.
Posters are reminded that the group uk.current-events.n-ireland
exists and that discussion which is narrowly focused on Northern
Ireland may be better suited there.
Advertising
Advertising is forbidden.
Binaries & Formatting
Encoded binaries (e.g. pictures, compressed files, etc.) are
forbidden although cryptographic signatures (e.g. PGP) may be
used where authentication is important.
END CHARTER
PRESENT CHARTER: uk.current-events.terrorism
uk.current-events.terrorism 11 September 2001 attack on US and follow up
This group is for discussion of international terrorism and efforts to
combat it. Postings which provide links to news items about the so-called
war on terrorism are particularly encouraged. News items concerning UK
involvement or helping to elucidate UK perspectives are also specifically
encouraged.
Discussion of these news events is also on-topic, particular that which
helps encourage understanding of disparate view points. Discussion of
policy and background to the events is also on topic, but potential
posters are encouraged to carefully consider whether they have anything to
say which hasn't been stated many times before.
Posters are reminded that feelings run strong about these issues and are
encouraged to discuss matters in a civil manner.
Posters are reminded that the group uk.current-events.n-ireland exists and
that discussion which is narrowly focused on Northern Ireland may be
better suited there.
Advertising
Advertising is forbidden.
Binaries & Formatting
Encoded binaries (e.g. pictures, compressed files, etc.) are forbidden.
Such material belongs on a web or FTP site to which a pointer may be
posted. Cryptographic signatures (e.g. PGP) may be used where
authentication is important and should be as short as possible.
Posts must be readable as plain text. HTML, RTF and similarly formatted
messages are prohibited. To see how to make some common newsreaders comply
with this, read <http://www.usenet.org.uk/ukpost.html>.
END PRESENT CHARTER
This is a request for discussion, not a call for votes. In this phase of
the process, any potential problems with the proposal should be raised
and resolved. The discussion period will continue for a minimum of 10
days, starting from when this RFD is posted to uk.net.news.announce
(i.e. until September 19th) after which a Call For Votes (CFV) may be
posted by a neutral vote taker if the discussion warrants it.
Alternatively, the proposal may proceed by the fast-track method. Please
do not attempt to vote until this happens.
This RFD attempts to comply fully with the "Guidelines for Group Creation
within the UK Hierarchy" as published regularly in uk.net.news.announce
and is available from http://www.usenet.org.uk/guidelines.html (the UK
Usenet website). Please refer to this document if you have any questions
about the process.
uk.net.news.announce
uk.net.news.config
uk.current-events.terrorism
Paul Smith <pjcsmith (at) iname.com>

I submit that the charter is intact. Bearing in mind that the attacks on
the United States of America on September 11th 2001 and follow
up, includes nearly all current acts of terrorism. For uses of verification
of modus operandi, tactical operation, use of media outlets and many
other aspects that relate back to the first major attacks by Al Qaeda
against civilian and military targets on US soil.
All Al Qaeda involvement in international terrorism is referenced against
9/11. When the attacks on Madrid were thought to be local terrorism.
The first arguments against it, were that the attacks were far outside
of the modus operandi of the Eta, and more on par with Al Qaeda.
This is due in large part to what was learned during 9/11.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/March_11,_2004_Madrid_attacks

The attacks in Turkey were found to be Al Qaeda on the same lines
of reasoning, well before Turkish investigators admitted that it was so.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Istanbul_Bombings

The attacks on London were not compared to anything, before they
were compared to 9/11. The lessons learned were applied and the
second round of attacks was carried out, without success, just like
9/11. We knew there would be a second attack if it were Al Qaeda.
Only if we recalled our lessons from 9/11 though.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7_July_2005_London_bombings

For Usenet readers who use this group for nothing more than a passing
fancy or perhaps a cheap shot at running down the US for some self
glorification. It has no more to do with 9/11 than the man in the moon,
I suppose.
For those who of us who are in the continual battle to understand the
enemy, his mindset and the reasoning of the interested and informed
population of the allied nations? It is an indispensable barometer.

It is important to recall what the foundation of the group was formed
from. From which we all derived a sense of camaraderie, and the
understanding of our fellow man. We can hear what the thoughts of
our compatriots are. We may not agree with what they think, but we
do read what they think, and it relates back to 9/11 as often as any
current event is compared to it.

Dissenter
Mr.G <yes I know it's WM... in drag. No one else would be
so retarded, piss off mate!>

[Kim Andrews]

On Thu, 08 Sep 2005 14:04:47 +0100, Paul Smith

Post by Paul Smith
This group is for discussion of terrorism from a UK
persepective.

I oppose this change. This particular phrase is pointless, if not
entirely meaningless. The group is for users of the uk.* hierarchy to
discuss terrorism from any perspective they choose. There is no need
to try to make this uk-centric in order to justify it -- the subject
is big enough to justify itself.

[The Happy Hippy]

Post by Paul Smith
RATIONALE: uk.current-events.terrorism
The present charter and newsgroups line for the group indicates
that it is for discussion about international terrorism and
specifically the US Spetember 11th attacks. Those attacks can
hardly be thought of as current anymore, even though the
aftermath does still warrant discussion in the group. Other more
recent international attacks have occured outside the USA and
there have now been attacks inside the UK which have been carried
out by UK citizens (this is national, rather than international,
terrorism).
The charter and newsgroup line need to be updated to allow for
this.

In partial support of your proposal, I would accept that the newsgroup line
would be enhanced by being changed ...

Current : "11 September 2001 attack on US and follow up"

I'd propose : "Discussion of Terrorism"

That would match with existing uk.* newsgroup lines (
http://www.usenet.org.uk/newsgroups.html ). I don't believe there is any
need to qualify the newsgroup line further than that; it's an apt
description of what is intended to be discussed by the group.

I would respectfully suggest that any further move to effect a change to the
newsgroup line be pursued entirely separately to any move to effect a change
the uk.c-e.t charter. While there appears to be very strong resistance to
the proposed charter change, I suspect a simple newsgroup line change would
face much less resistance.

I believe though that any attempt to change the newsgroup line to include
any qualifications, such as "from a UK perspective" and similar, would be
met with the same resistance as that being shown to the proposed charter
change, and for the same reasons. I would most probably not vote to accept a
newsgroup line change which included additional qualifiers.

[p***@iname.com]

Post by The Happy Hippy

Post by Paul Smith
The charter and newsgroup line need to be updated to allow for
this.

In partial support of your proposal, I would accept that the newsgroup line
would be enhanced by being changed ...
Current : "11 September 2001 attack on US and follow up"
I'd propose : "Discussion of Terrorism"
That would match with existing uk.* newsgroup lines (
http://www.usenet.org.uk/newsgroups.html ). I don't believe there is any
need to qualify the newsgroup line further than that; it's an apt
description of what is intended to be discussed by the group.
I would respectfully suggest that any further move to effect a change to the
newsgroup line be pursued entirely separately to any move to effect a change
the uk.c-e.t charter. While there appears to be very strong resistance to
the proposed charter change, I suspect a simple newsgroup line change would
face much less resistance.

Good idea. I believe that should it come to a vote, the two
proposals can be voted on seperately - but perhaps that could be
clarified?

--
Paul

[The Happy Hippy]

Post by p***@iname.com

Post by The Happy Hippy

Post by Paul Smith
The charter and newsgroup line need to be updated to allow for
this.

In partial support of your proposal, I would accept that the newsgroup line
would be enhanced by being changed ...
Current : "11 September 2001 attack on US and follow up"
I'd propose : "Discussion of Terrorism"
That would match with existing uk.* newsgroup lines (
http://www.usenet.org.uk/newsgroups.html ). I don't believe there is any
need to qualify the newsgroup line further than that; it's an apt
description of what is intended to be discussed by the group.
I would respectfully suggest that any further move to effect a change to the
newsgroup line be pursued entirely separately to any move to effect a change
the uk.c-e.t charter. While there appears to be very strong resistance to
the proposed charter change, I suspect a simple newsgroup line change would
face much less resistance.

Good idea. I believe that should it come to a vote, the two
proposals can be voted on seperately - but perhaps that could be
clarified?

I'll put my hands up to only having superficial knowledge about uk.*
hierarchy procedures, but I'd go as far as suggesting raising two entirely
separate CFV's, one for the newsgroup line and one for the charter change
( if that is pursued ) - - If that is a possible mechanism to use.

I fear that with the animosity which "Wm..." has generated in uk.c-e.t, that
a combined CFV ( even with the two issues as separate votes ) could simply
be voted out, and the, IMO, sensible change to the newsgroup line could be
lost in the fracas.

However, as the one raising the RFD, it is of course for you to decide on
the way you wish to proceed. I don't believe there is any reason not to
continue pursuing the newsgroup line change and ultimately taking that to a
vote.

[Wm...]

Post by The Happy Hippy

Post by p***@iname.com
Good idea. I believe that should it come to a vote, the two
proposals can be voted on seperately - but perhaps that could be
clarified?

I'll put my hands up to only having superficial knowledge about uk.*
hierarchy procedures, but I'd go as far as suggesting raising two entirely
separate CFV's, one for the newsgroup line and one for the charter change
( if that is pursued ) - - If that is a possible mechanism to use.

If you think that is best then do it. What is more likely is that
you'll do fuck-all and just moan and moan and moan.

Post by The Happy Hippy
I fear that with the animosity which "Wm..." has generated in uk.c-e.t, that
a combined CFV ( even with the two issues as separate votes ) could simply
be voted out, and the, IMO, sensible change to the newsgroup line could be
lost in the fracas.

If you are at all interested in reality I think I am mud.

Obviously I have a point of view and will try to see it through but
you'd be dumb if you thought I was leading.

Post by The Happy Hippy
However, as the one raising the RFD, it is of course for you to decide on
the way you wish to proceed. I don't believe there is any reason not to
continue pursuing the newsgroup line change and ultimately taking that to a
vote.

Some of the folks posting to uk.current-events.terrorism will have to
say who they are if they vote. People who follow unnc are not afraid of
being known. Some people that post to uk.current-events.terrorism will
have to scratch their heads.

[Shane Matthews]

On Sat, 10 Sep 2005 20:51:15 +0100, "Wm..."

Post by Wm...
Some of the folks posting to uk.current-events.terrorism will have to
say who they are if they vote. People who follow unnc are not afraid of
being known. Some people that post to uk.current-events.terrorism will
have to scratch their heads.

What makes you think this is even going to a vote? So far, the
opposition to the RFD seems pretty overwhelming. Why waste the time?
I've yet to see any sign that you, or your position, has any
meaningful support. Why don't you just take the hint and leave things
alone. If you want some other group to pester, I've heard that some of
the television groups don't even discuss the programmes that they are
named for, and, even worse, non U.K. people post in them!

[Wm...]

Sat, 10 Sep 2005 14:07:23

Post by Shane Matthews
On Sat, 10 Sep 2005 20:51:15 +0100, "Wm..."

Post by Wm...
Some of the folks posting to uk.current-events.terrorism will have to
say who they are if they vote. People who follow unnc are not afraid of
being known. Some people that post to uk.current-events.terrorism will
have to scratch their heads.

What makes you think this is even going to a vote? So far, the
opposition to the RFD seems pretty overwhelming. Why waste the time?
I've yet to see any sign that you, or your position, has any
meaningful support. Why don't you just take the hint and leave things
alone. If you want some other group to pester, I've heard that some of
the television groups don't even discuss the programmes that they are
named for, and, even worse, non U.K. people post in them!

That one is easy to rebuke. I don't own a television.

Next!

[Ali Hopkins]

Post by Shane Matthews
On Sat, 10 Sep 2005 20:51:15 +0100, "Wm..."

Post by Wm...
Some of the folks posting to uk.current-events.terrorism will have to
say who they are if they vote. People who follow unnc are not afraid of
being known. Some people that post to uk.current-events.terrorism will
have to scratch their heads.

What makes you think this is even going to a vote? So far, the
opposition to the RFD seems pretty overwhelming. Why waste the time?
I've yet to see any sign that you, or your position, has any
meaningful support. Why don't you just take the hint and leave things
alone. If you want some other group to pester, I've heard that some of
the television groups don't even discuss the programmes that they are
named for, and, even worse, non U.K. people post in them!

Ah, send him over to the UK Babylon 5 or Trek groups. I'd give him five
minutes at most.

Ali

[The Happy Hippy]

"Wm..." <***@blackhole.do-not-spam.me.uk> wrote in message news:wve9yNCzkzIDFwCc@[127.0.0.1]...

[ uk.c-e.t added to newsgroup list ]

Post by Wm...

Post by The Happy Hippy

Post by p***@iname.com
Good idea. I believe that should it come to a vote, the two
proposals can be voted on seperately - but perhaps that could be
clarified?

I'll put my hands up to only having superficial knowledge about uk.*
hierarchy procedures, but I'd go as far as suggesting raising two entirely
separate CFV's, one for the newsgroup line and one for the charter change
( if that is pursued ) - - If that is a possible mechanism to use.

If you think that is best then do it.

What ? I didn't raise the RFD, I'm not pushing it forward or considering
moving anything to a CFV. I'm just making a suggestion to the poster who
raised the RFD.

Post by Wm...
What is more likely is that
you'll do fuck-all and just moan and moan and moan.

What ? You aren't making any sense here - I'm not the one pushing the RFD.

Post by Wm...
Some of the folks posting to uk.current-events.terrorism will have to
say who they are if they vote. People who follow unnc are not afraid of
being known. Some people that post to uk.current-events.terrorism will
have to scratch their heads.

You said similar to this before, along the lines that moving to a CFV would
make posters to uk.c-e.t identify themselves, as if you have some desire to
determine who the people posting to uk.c-e.t actually are.

According to http://www.usenet.org.uk/voting.html#voting ...

<quote>

Votes SHALL be explicit answers to the questions as put. They SHALL be
submitted on the ballot paper in accordance with the voting instructions and
SHALL include, in addition to the actual vote

The voter's name;

The voter's email address, which must be valid since the votetaker will send
email to it, and it is to be published in the result.

They MAY also include such further information as may be requested for the
purpose of identifying that voter's posts to usenet or, alternatively, an
affirmation that they do not currently post to usenet.

</quote>

As far as I can tell from this, all a voter has to do is provide a genuine
email address to which CFV correspondence can be received and responded to.
Whatever name they choose to use is a matter for themselves; it can either
be their real name or an alias - There's no way for anyone to be able to
determine which it was, and providing a name would not necessarily reveal
who they actually are in the real world.

As to providing a valid email address; that is most likely to be different
to what munged and fabricated email addresses are used for posting, so it
would be highly unlikely that a positive correlation between anyone voting
and those posting on uk.c-e.t could be made.

It is therefore likely that those who post to uk.c-e.t will vote using an
entirely different email address and name to that used on uk.c-e.t, and it
would be impossible to distinguish on u.n.n.c those voting who post to
uk.c-e.t and those who don't but have decided to vote.

I don't see how the CFV requirements would have anyone on uk.c-e.t
scratching their heads; it's not a hard task to create a short-lived genuine
email address and a made up name, and there are also quite a few people who
post to uk.c-e.t who have no problem in already having identified who they
are in the real world anyway.

I also don't see anything in the voting rules which precludes any poster
from uk.c-e.t using the moniker and email address they use there for voting
with, providing that their email address is valid.

I'm not sure why you appear to be getting so excited about posters to
uk.c-e.t identifying themselves, unless you are planning to start a spamming
campaign against them or stalking them in real life. It is because of such
concerns ( and even more mundane ones ) that people do use munged and
non-existent email addresses and monikers when posting, which is why, if it
comes to a CFV, I will be voting using an email address which will likely
only be valid for the duration of the vote, and no one will ever know if the
name I provide is my real one or some other entirely legal alias I've
created solely for the purpose of voting.

[Wm...]

Post by The Happy Hippy
What ? I didn't raise the RFD, I'm not pushing it forward or considering
moving anything to a CFV. I'm just making a suggestion to the poster who
raised the RFD.

I didn't raise the RFD. I was the pre-RFD person. Whether you believe
it or not Paul Smith (almost certainly a pseudonym) is not the same
person as me. I honestly do not know who Paul Smith is but do believe
he has every right to present an RFD.

Post by The Happy Hippy

Post by Wm...
What is more likely is that
you'll do fuck-all and just moan and moan and moan.

What ? You aren't making any sense here - I'm not the one pushing the RFD.

Correct. You are trying to obstruct it.

Post by The Happy Hippy

Post by Wm...
Some of the folks posting to uk.current-events.terrorism will have to
say who they are if they vote. People who follow unnc are not afraid of
being known. Some people that post to uk.current-events.terrorism will
have to scratch their heads.

You said similar to this before, along the lines that moving to a CFV would
make posters to uk.c-e.t identify themselves, as if you have some desire to
determine who the people posting to uk.c-e.t actually are.

Yes, it is a minor curiosity of mine to see if people will stand up and
be counted.

Post by The Happy Hippy
According to http://www.usenet.org.uk/voting.html#voting ...
As far as I can tell from this, all a voter has to do is provide a genuine
email address to which CFV correspondence can be received and responded to.
Whatever name they choose to use is a matter for themselves; it can either
be their real name or an alias - There's no way for anyone to be able to
determine which it was, and providing a name would not necessarily reveal
who they actually are in the real world.

Most people don't mind saying who they are.

If you are uncomfortable with your on-line personality you'd need to ask
for a dispensation from UKV.

I don't think they have given one before but you can try.

Post by The Happy Hippy
As to providing a valid email address; that is most likely to be different
to what munged and fabricated email addresses are used for posting, so it
would be highly unlikely that a positive correlation between anyone voting
and those posting on uk.c-e.t could be made.

I think you underestimate the folks who take our votes.

The people at UKV are, in my opinion, *very* good at what they do.

Test them at your peril.

Post by The Happy Hippy
It is therefore likely that those who post to uk.c-e.t will vote using an
entirely different email address and name to that used on uk.c-e.t, and it
would be impossible to distinguish on u.n.n.c those voting who post to
uk.c-e.t and those who don't but have decided to vote.

UKV have had to deal with many tricky situations. I will vote once
under my own name if a vote is called. You are saying that you expect
people who regularly post to uk.current-events.terrorism to lie about
who they are. I find that amusing.

Post by The Happy Hippy
I don't see how the CFV requirements would have anyone on uk.c-e.t
scratching their heads; it's not a hard task to create a short-lived genuine
email address and a made up name, and there are also quite a few people who
post to uk.c-e.t who have no problem in already having identified who they
are in the real world anyway.

UKV do check who votes. If you presume that you and other people will
fool them then I think it is good that they have a "heads up" now.

Post by The Happy Hippy
I also don't see anything in the voting rules which precludes any poster
from uk.c-e.t using the moniker and email address they use there for voting
with, providing that their email address is valid.

One person, one vote is ordinary. So long as people stick to that there
shouldn't be any problems.

Post by The Happy Hippy
I'm not sure why you appear to be getting so excited about posters to
uk.c-e.t identifying themselves, unless you are planning to start a spamming
campaign against them or stalking them in real life.

Nope, none of that.

Post by The Happy Hippy
It is because of such
concerns ( and even more mundane ones ) that people do use munged and
non-existent email addresses and monikers when posting, which is why, if it
comes to a CFV, I will be voting using an email address which will likely
only be valid for the duration of the vote, and no one will ever know if the
name I provide is my real one or some other entirely legal alias I've
created solely for the purpose of voting.

As I have said above, the good people at UKV will check.

Personally I just find it easy to use a known address.

If you want to make the people at UKV work that is your business. I
hope I make their work easy by being fairly consistent.

[Shane Matthews]

On Sun, 11 Sep 2005 20:14:49 +0100, "Wm..."
<***@blackhole.do-not-spam.me.uk> wrote:

<Usual dribble>

Why don't you give it a rest. It should be pretty clear by now that
this RFD has no support. Why even bother going for a vote?

[Nellie]

I detected that on Sun 11-Sep-2005 20:53:28 Shane Matthews

Post by Shane Matthews
On Sun, 11 Sep 2005 20:14:49 +0100, "Wm..."
<Usual dribble>
Why don't you give it a rest. It should be pretty clear by now that
this RFD has no support.

Some lurkers are still trying to form an opinion based on the number and
size of peanuts that are thrown. Thrown virtual peanuts are almost
certainly non-life threatening, which is probably why nobody dies on
Usenet.

Post by Shane Matthews
Why even bother going for a vote?

Why not? As you say, there is obviously no support, so the vote should
be a resounding result. Why not let the voters give their opinion? Have
faith in the voters!

[Wm...]

Sun, 11 Sep 2005 22:56:55

Post by Nellie
I detected that on Sun 11-Sep-2005 20:53:28 Shane Matthews

Post by Shane Matthews
On Sun, 11 Sep 2005 20:14:49 +0100, "Wm..."
<Usual dribble>
Why don't you give it a rest. It should be pretty clear by now that
this RFD has no support.

Some lurkers are still trying to form an opinion based on the number and
size of peanuts that are thrown. Thrown virtual peanuts are almost
certainly non-life threatening, which is probably why nobody dies on
Usenet.

Post by Shane Matthews
Why even bother going for a vote?

Why not? As you say, there is obviously no support, so the vote should
be a resounding result. Why not let the voters give their opinion? Have
faith in the voters!

Yes, lets vote.

[The Happy Hippy]

Post by Wm...

Post by The Happy Hippy
What ? I didn't raise the RFD, I'm not pushing it forward or considering
moving anything to a CFV. I'm just making a suggestion to the poster who
raised the RFD.

I didn't raise the RFD. I was the pre-RFD person. Whether you believe
it or not Paul Smith (almost certainly a pseudonym) is not the same
person as me. I honestly do not know who Paul Smith is but do believe
he has every right to present an RFD.

FFS - I never said you'd raised the RFD. I never said I thought you were the
same person as Paul Smith. I never said Paul Smith hasn't got the right to
raise an RFD.

And as for the rest of the bollocks you posted, that's exactly what it is in
a nutshell.

[snip]

Apart from it being obvious that you are intentionally playing the fool to
cause maximum disruption, you are quite probably the most fuckwitted person
I have ever encountered on usenet.