Re: PROPOSAL: Vote on FAQ Revision

From: graeme@discreet.co.uk (Graeme Griffiths)

Date: Mon, 21 Jul 1997 00:00:00 +0000

In <godot22-ya023480001907970035560001@news.earthlink.net> godot22@earthlink.net (PJ Killian) writes:

>In article <5qneqt$f8r$1@slate.new.discreet.co.uk>, graeme@discreet.co.uk
>(Graeme Griffiths) wrote:

>> No-one "teaches" Usenet or Netiquette they are skills you pick up as you go.
>> News admins _should_ point new users to the entry points to Usenet
>> (news.announce.newusers is a good one) so they can pick up information
>> before they commit huge howlers and annoy everyone in a public forum.

>Well, guess what--they don't. You can either sit back, be snot-nosed every
>time someone who hasn't had the experience or acquired the knowledge makes
>an attempt to advance the conversation or do something proactively helpful
>for the group, or you could actually help. Your reaction to the attempted
>vote-by-posting was the former.

And I suppose my posting the beginnings of a formal vote wasn't proactive.
An act which has been mainly ignored. You may consider my postings
"snot-nosed", that is your right but all you're saying is you dislike the
style of my posts, not the content.

>I am all for Usenet tradition, I really am, but not as a bludgeon to make
>inexperienced users look dumb in the eyes of fellow veterans, and not as a
>means to ignore what they have to say.

Thats strange, I'm not one for blind tradition. If somethings stupid I'll
call it stupid. But the Usenet Ads tradition has been argued and argued
since the dawn of Usenet, the new guys don't appear to have any new insight.

>> So, it would seem, quite a few of us have been on or around Usenet for a
>> while and picked up the necessary knowledge about Netiquette and protocol.
>> Armed with that we feel we have a reasonable take on the ads situation.

>Fine, if that take was not to belittle everyone who disagrees with you.
>Granted, it's hard to keep one's composure when someone's calling you
>"dishonest" or worse, like the charges that have been levelled (IMO
>unfairly) at Greg, but to ignore the voices of people because they do not
>follow the correct protocol is like the president of a nation ignoring
>protesters because the sentences on their signs end in prepositions.

Yeah, a campaign for correct grammar in protesting... that would be
something.

If I have belittled anyone, it is a by-product of the argument. Its always
difficult to argue "we know, don't even bother to dissuade us" but that is
effectively the argument.

But its difficult to accept an argument on the structure of the group from
someone who appears to have no understanding of the current structure. That
is the problem, I fully expect any day now to see a post saying "I know how
we can stop the bickering. Post a list of answers to frequently asked
questions" and it will be 1978 all over again....

>> For instance its common practice to hold a formal discussion before you hold
>> a vote (you decide what to vote on in the discussion). I posted a CFD (Call
>> For Discussion) a couple of days ago for this very purpose and have, so far,
>> seen nada, nothing, zip. Its going to be difficult to hold a vote based on
>> that.

>Well, I've seen several responses, some of which I agreed with, others I
>did not disagree with vehemently enough to respond directly. Regardless of
>your opinion of my Netiquette, I DO know enough to not post a "ME TOO."

But the CFD says "Post your thought here" the other threads have digressed
into off-topic arguments. The CFD should have people stating their point of
view on the issues here. So far, apart from Eagle and I've already read his
points in our Emails, nothing.

--
Graeme Griffiths - Discreet Logic (Newbury, UK)
Disclaimer: I do not speak for anyone but myself and I do that badly.
Mail: graeme@discreet.co.uk
Spam: All unsolicited mail will be reported, and billed for my time.

References

Re: PROPOSAL: Vote on FAQ Revision
mlwilliams <mwilliams@signal.dra.hmg.gb>
Thu, 17 Jul 1997 00:00:00 +0000
Re: PROPOSAL: Vote on FAQ Revision
graeme@discreet.co.uk (Graeme Griffiths)
Fri, 18 Jul 1997 00:00:00 +0000
Re: PROPOSAL: Vote on FAQ Revision
godot22@earthlink.net (PJ Killian)
Sat, 19 Jul 1997 00:00:00 +0000
Re: PROPOSAL: Vote on FAQ Revision
mlwilliams <mwilliams@signal.dra.hmg.gb>
Wed, 16 Jul 1997 00:00:00 +0000
Re: PROPOSAL: Vote on FAQ Revision
lindahl@pbm.com (Greg Lindahl)
Wed, 16 Jul 1997 00:00:00 +0000

Referenced By

Re: PROPOSAL: Vote on FAQ Revision
mlwilliams <mwilliams@signal.dra.hmg.gb>
Thu, 17 Jul 1997 00:00:00 +0000
Re: PROPOSAL: Vote on FAQ Revision
graeme@discreet.co.uk (Graeme Griffiths)
Fri, 18 Jul 1997 00:00:00 +0000
Re: PROPOSAL: Vote on FAQ Revision
godot22@earthlink.net (PJ Killian)
Sat, 19 Jul 1997 00:00:00 +0000
Re: PROPOSAL: Vote on FAQ Revision
mlwilliams <mwilliams@signal.dra.hmg.gb>
Wed, 16 Jul 1997 00:00:00 +0000
Re: PROPOSAL: Vote on FAQ Revision
lindahl@pbm.com (Greg Lindahl)
Wed, 16 Jul 1997 00:00:00 +0000