[OT Troll] Some questions for Steve Young.

Lionel wrote:


I don't know why you waste keystrokes on this Lionel. Ignore SY
and company, concentrate on cameras.


--
--e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.--

Kibo informs me that Alan Browne
stated that:

Lionel wrote:


I don't know why you waste keystrokes on this Lionel. Ignore SY
and company, concentrate on cameras.

Yes, good advice Alan. God knows I've got a about a thousand more
productive things to do with my time.

--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------

"Steve Young" wrote in
:

what do the participants want?

Get out of here, troll. You are not a participant here. Participants
discuss cameras and photography. You only stalk and harass people. Not to
worry. LART is headed your way.

--
"Live fast. Die young." (Nikki Sixx)

-Richard Cockburn

Steve Young wrote:

Ya know, a little bit of time invested by all of us, toward some common
objectives, would go a long way toward making this experience more useful
and enjoyable to all readers / participants.

My experience here would be more enjoyable if such discussions were held
elsewhere.

I would like to read and learn and discuss photography.

--
John McWilliams

Kibo informs me that "Steve Young" stated
that:

"Lionel" wrote in message
Lionel informs me that Kibo wrote:
Yes, good advice Alan. God knows I've got a about a thousand more
productive things to do with my time.

I hope you don't mean that in the selfish tone it projects!?

I really couldn't give a stuff what you think of my 'tone'.

2ndly, *who* said you had to be here? (or is it your job?)
why not get crackin on those '1,000 things' ?

Because, unlike you, I like discussing photography with people. Seeing
as you don't have the slightest interest in discussing photography, why
don't YOU f*ck off? Go hang out out in news.groups, alt.flame or
news.admin.net-abuse.usenet, or some other more suitable group for
someone who likes causing trouble in newsgroups.

You and I have different positions about what we think should be topically
posted. Which is right?

Hm, let's see. I'm here to discuss photography, you're here to troll us,
impersonate the regulars, post our our personal details, & drag other
trolls into the newsgroup. Gee, tough call, Steve.

--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------

Steve Young wrote:



Ya know, a little bit of time invested by all of us, toward some common
objectives, would go a long way toward making this experience more useful
and enjoyable to all readers / participants.


The only problem is that not "all of us" agree with your objectives.
Take a poll, see how many are in favor of for sale ads here. But I
doubt that you will, because you know what the result will probably be.

Lisa

Steve Young wrote:

Steve Young wrote:

Ya know, a little bit of time invested by all of us, toward some common
objectives, would go a long way toward making this experience more
useful and enjoyable to all readers / participants.

"Lisa Horton" wrote
The only problem is that not "all of us" agree with your objectives.
Take a poll, see how many are in favor of for sale ads here. But I
doubt that you will, because you know what the result will probably be.

That's fine Lisa, let's hammer that into an amended charter. You're in
favor of the ability to amend aging and straying charters aren't you?

Before talking about amending a charter, it would be appropriate to
determine the level of support among newsgroup regulars.

What I am in favor of is the will of the group as a whole prevailing.
My position on amending charters is almost irrelevant. But to express
my current position clearly, I am open to the idea of creating a
mechanism by which newsgroup participants might have the ability to
change charters. Open to, not necessarily in favor of.

I had previously expressed to Steve a degree of approval for the basic
concept of his idea. But observing a notable lack of other support for
the idea in the newsgroups, I'm reevaluating my position.

Lisa

Lisa Horton wrote:


What I am in favor of is the will of the group as a whole prevailing.
My position on amending charters is almost irrelevant. But to express
my current position clearly, I am open to the idea of creating a
mechanism by which newsgroup participants might have the ability to
change charters. Open to, not necessarily in favor of.


What's wrong with the current method of changing the charter? You won't
get an enforcable charter if the normal rules aren't followed. At least I
doubt it.

RFD a request for discussion

Followed by a

CFV call for vote.

Nick

Lisa Horton wrote:


Before talking about amending a charter, it would be appropriate to
determine the level of support among newsgroup regulars.

What I am in favor of is the will of the group as a whole prevailing.
My position on amending charters is almost irrelevant. But to express
my current position clearly, I am open to the idea of creating a
mechanism by which newsgroup participants might have the ability to
change charters. Open to, not necessarily in favor of.

I had previously expressed a degree of approval for the basic
concept of the idea. But observing a notable lack of other support for
the idea in the newsgroups, I'm reevaluating my position.


IMO, the r.p.d and r.p.e.35mm charters require only clarification
wrt the prohibition of 'for sale', 'for auction' type postings.
The language [see below * * * for current .35mm charter] is
there, but should be made more explicit and not limited to
"commercial" sale as implied in the text. It should mention
auction listings/links (a la e-bay) as specifically prohibited.

An amendment in r.p.e.35mm permitting appropriate digital
discussion (lenses, flashes, etc. that are cross-medium) would be
welcome (if perhaps not really neccesary).

Cheers,
Alan

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
CURRENT CHARTER
rec.photo.equipment.35mm - 35mm cameras and lenses

This group is for the discussion of all aspects of 35mm camera
equipment. This includes 35mm SLR camera bodies and lenses, 35mm
point-and-shoot cameras, 35mm rangefinder cameras, 35mm scale
focus cameras and 35mm half-frame cameras.

All postings made to this group should conform to existing Usenet
guidelines (see news.announce.newusers for guideline documents).
This group explicitly prohibits the posting of commercial
advertisments or other promotional material, whether or not it is
in any way related to photography. Binary postings (i.e. non
text postings) are prohibited.

END CAHRTER
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Nick Zentena wrote:

What's wrong with the current method of changing the charter? You won't
get an enforcable charter if the normal rules aren't followed. At least I
doubt it.

RFD a request for discussion

Followed by a

CFV call for vote.

Nick


All fine and dandy, however given the current environment, I
would feel better if there was some authentication of voters.

Cheers,
Alan