Re: PROPOSAL: Vote on FAQ Revision

From: kmgraphiks@aol.com (KMGraphiks)

Date: Thu, 24 Jul 1997 00:00:00 +0000

>No Ken, you're side-stepping. That the group could adopt a charter is one
of
>the things you could discuss. Some people may not consider it a positive
>step, some might. Thats why you discuss before you vote. I could have
just
>posted a call for votes on chartering the group and everyone would have
said
>"Huh ?" because nobody suggested it as a vote.

No Graeme, it's not sidestepping to point out the original purpose of the
CFD. If you'll check the thread its called "CFD: Change in the FAQ Ads
Policy". There's no mention of wanting to discuss a charter, that subject
is dilluting the problem. You seem to want the charter for some reason so
why don't you start a CFD for it?

>Why not take some time, back off, think about what the problem is, and
see
>if you can see a solution. Then post an article with your suggestion.
This
>would be a positive thing to do rather than simply sniping at Greg every
>time he posts which is not only wearing but the very thing that turned
this
>(important) issue into a flame-war in the first place.

Greg's posts just scream for attention. I take it upon myself as a "common
sense" individual to try and keep him accountable for his statements and
focused on what is best for our hobby IN THIS newsgroup. I don't know if
I'll post a big article or not. It's all been said before and we ran up
against a traditional brick wall. Maybe I'll compose my own FAQ instead.

Ken Mitchell

References

Re: PROPOSAL: Vote on FAQ Revision
graeme@discreet.co.uk (Graeme Griffiths)
Thu, 24 Jul 1997 00:00:00 +0000