Summing up the latest thread on this recurring topic:

1. Everyone who commented seemed to think it's a good idea, even if they
didn't all agree it was necessary. I certainly didn't see any "what a
horrible idea" posts.

2. Some folks proposed just making RAP moderated instead, but there's
much less consensus on this. Most tellingly, nobody volunteered to
moderate.

3. While RAP's charter has nothing to do with politics, there is some
interest (though certainly not on my part) in discussing politics with
people you already know, so that existing political newsgroups don't fit
the bill.

4. Of the folks who thought it was a good idea to have a saloon
newsgroup, nobody felt that he personally had the time to create it.

With that in mind, the fact that we've just lost another longtime
poster, and the fact that despite killfiles and ignore-thread commands
I'm still finding too high an SNR here, I *do* volunteer to create it.

Two questions for the first order of business:

1. Is "rec.audio.pro.saloon" the agreed-upon name? Another proposal was
rec.audio.pro.offtopic, which is certainly clearer but somewhat less fun
and less tone-setting. Is anyone actually opposed to the *name* of
r.a.p.s?

2. Is anyone actually opposed to the *idea* of r.a.p.s? That is, when
it comes to a vote, is anyone planning to vote no, and if so, could you
provide some counter-arguments, so perhaps we could head off the
concerns?

--
Jay Levitt |
Wellesley, MA | Hi!
Faster: jay at jay dot eff-em | Where are we going?
http://www.jay.fm | Why am I in this handbasket?

Jay Levitt wrote:
Summing up the latest thread on this recurring topic:

2. Some folks proposed just making RAP moderated instead, but there's
much less consensus on this. Most tellingly, nobody volunteered to
moderate.

I have to say...I could almost, almost go for this. Who would ever want
to moderate it, though?

3. While RAP's charter has nothing to do with politics, there is some
interest (though certainly not on my part) in discussing politics with
people you already know, so that existing political newsgroups don't fit
the bill.

4. Of the folks who thought it was a good idea to have a saloon
newsgroup, nobody felt that he personally had the time to create it.

With that in mind, the fact that we've just lost another longtime
poster, and the fact that despite killfiles and ignore-thread commands
I'm still finding too high an SNR here, I *do* volunteer to create it.

Two questions for the first order of business:

1. Is "rec.audio.pro.saloon" the agreed-upon name? Another proposal was
rec.audio.pro.offtopic, which is certainly clearer but somewhat less fun
and less tone-setting. Is anyone actually opposed to the *name* of
r.a.p.s?

2. Is anyone actually opposed to the *idea* of r.a.p.s? That is, when
it comes to a vote, is anyone planning to vote no, and if so, could you
provide some counter-arguments, so perhaps we could head off the
concerns?

It's a nice idea, and on it's own it might be a fun group. I don't think
it will solve anything. Do you think Will M. will actually divert his
politics there? Certainly not. Because RAP is more of a captive
audience.

Think of it this way---If you put to mail slots on your door: "regular
mail" and "junk mail"---where do you think the advertisers will put
their flyers?

Rob R.

Jay Levitt wrote:
Summing up the latest thread on this recurring topic:

2. Some folks proposed just making RAP moderated instead, but there's
much less consensus on this. Most tellingly, nobody volunteered to
moderate.

I have to say...I could almost, almost go for this. Who would ever want
to moderate it, though?

3. While RAP's charter has nothing to do with politics, there is some
interest (though certainly not on my part) in discussing politics with
people you already know, so that existing political newsgroups don't fit
the bill.

4. Of the folks who thought it was a good idea to have a saloon
newsgroup, nobody felt that he personally had the time to create it.

With that in mind, the fact that we've just lost another longtime
poster, and the fact that despite killfiles and ignore-thread commands
I'm still finding too high an SNR here, I *do* volunteer to create it.

Two questions for the first order of business:

1. Is "rec.audio.pro.saloon" the agreed-upon name? Another proposal was
rec.audio.pro.offtopic, which is certainly clearer but somewhat less fun
and less tone-setting. Is anyone actually opposed to the *name* of
r.a.p.s?

2. Is anyone actually opposed to the *idea* of r.a.p.s? That is, when
it comes to a vote, is anyone planning to vote no, and if so, could you
provide some counter-arguments, so perhaps we could head off the
concerns?

It's a nice idea, and on it's own it might be a fun group. I don't think
it will solve anything. Do you think Will M. will actually divert his
politics there? Certainly not. Because RAP is more of a captive
audience.

Think of it this way---If you put to mail slots on your door: "regular
mail" and "junk mail"---where do you think the advertisers will put
their flyers?

Rob R.

Jay Levitt wrote:
Summing up the latest thread on this recurring topic:


2. Some folks proposed just making RAP moderated instead, but there's
much less consensus on this. Most tellingly, nobody volunteered to
moderate.

I might be wrong but I am not sure that this /can/ be done. Normally,
you would have to create rec.audio.pro.moderated.

3. While RAP's charter has nothing to do with politics, there is some
interest (though certainly not on my part) in discussing politics with
people you already know, so that existing political newsgroups don't fit
the bill.

Fair enough. I for one would probably subscribe to it and perhaps
participate.

With that in mind, the fact that we've just lost another longtime
poster, and the fact that despite killfiles and ignore-thread commands
I'm still finding too high an SNR here, I *do* volunteer to create it.


Great stuff. As I said in another thread, it's really a three month
project. Just yell if you need a helper.

Two questions for the first order of business:

1. Is "rec.audio.pro.saloon" the agreed-upon name? Another proposal was
rec.audio.pro.offtopic, which is certainly clearer but somewhat less fun
and less tone-setting. Is anyone actually opposed to the *name* of
r.a.p.s?

I prefer 'offtopic' to 'saloon'. I consider it to be clearer. As far as
I know, 'saloon' is an Americanism. I'd probably be able to work out
what it meant. A saloon is more comonly a class of car in the UK. For
someone from a non English speaking country, it might be even less
clear. Anyway, I don't consider it to be of crucial importance.

2. Is anyone actually opposed to the *idea* of r.a.p.s? That is, when
it comes to a vote, is anyone planning to vote no, and if so, could you
provide some counter-arguments, so perhaps we could head off the
concerns?

I'd vote in favour.

--
***My real address is m/ike at u/nmusic d/ot co dot u/k (removing /s)
np:
http://www.unmusic.co.uk
http://www.unmusic.co.uk/amh-s-faq.html - alt.music.home-studio FAQ
http://www.unmusic.co.uk/wrap.php?file=vhs.html - vhs purchase log.

Jay Levitt wrote:
Summing up the latest thread on this recurring topic:


2. Some folks proposed just making RAP moderated instead, but there's
much less consensus on this. Most tellingly, nobody volunteered to
moderate.

I might be wrong but I am not sure that this /can/ be done. Normally,
you would have to create rec.audio.pro.moderated.

3. While RAP's charter has nothing to do with politics, there is some
interest (though certainly not on my part) in discussing politics with
people you already know, so that existing political newsgroups don't fit
the bill.

Fair enough. I for one would probably subscribe to it and perhaps
participate.

With that in mind, the fact that we've just lost another longtime
poster, and the fact that despite killfiles and ignore-thread commands
I'm still finding too high an SNR here, I *do* volunteer to create it.


Great stuff. As I said in another thread, it's really a three month
project. Just yell if you need a helper.

Two questions for the first order of business:

1. Is "rec.audio.pro.saloon" the agreed-upon name? Another proposal was
rec.audio.pro.offtopic, which is certainly clearer but somewhat less fun
and less tone-setting. Is anyone actually opposed to the *name* of
r.a.p.s?

I prefer 'offtopic' to 'saloon'. I consider it to be clearer. As far as
I know, 'saloon' is an Americanism. I'd probably be able to work out
what it meant. A saloon is more comonly a class of car in the UK. For
someone from a non English speaking country, it might be even less
clear. Anyway, I don't consider it to be of crucial importance.

2. Is anyone actually opposed to the *idea* of r.a.p.s? That is, when
it comes to a vote, is anyone planning to vote no, and if so, could you
provide some counter-arguments, so perhaps we could head off the
concerns?

I'd vote in favour.

--
***My real address is m/ike at u/nmusic d/ot co dot u/k (removing /s)
np:
http://www.unmusic.co.uk
http://www.unmusic.co.uk/amh-s-faq.html - alt.music.home-studio FAQ
http://www.unmusic.co.uk/wrap.php?file=vhs.html - vhs purchase log.

Jay Levitt wrote:
2. Is anyone actually opposed to the *idea* of r.a.p.s? That is, when
it comes to a vote, is anyone planning to vote no, and if so, could you
provide some counter-arguments, so perhaps we could head off the
concerns?

I'm opposed to the idea of making a decision or bringing it up for a
vote before the US presidential election. I think that the political
stuff will die down a huge amount a few weeks after the election is
over (unless there is some kind of vote counting controversy), so at
the point the new group is likely to become unnecessary.

Basically I really don't want to see r.a.p.s created just as the
need for it is disappearing and then find we've got a group that
isn't needed and isn't used.

Also, even if the political talk doesn't trail off at all, I'm not
really sure the group is that great an idea. There are two reasons:

(1) I'm really not sure it will be effective at removing political
discussions. Groups like that tend to have fewer readers. People
who have a political message they want to get out want to reach the
widest audience, so they'll post to the "real" group (this one). Yes,
the rules would say they *should* post to r.a.p.s instead of r.a.p,
but the rules already say they *shouldn't* post to r.a.p. If they're
ignoring the rules now, why would they follow them then?

(2) I don't think the political discussions are the group's biggest
problem, long term. There are lots of political posts, but they are
isolated in their own threads and relatively easy to kill in the sense
that you can knock out 50 or 100 or more posts with one command.
Meanwhile, doppler distortion controversy has generated practically
the same amount of traffic, and we have a few people on the group
who cause arguments every chance they get, and they affect most of
the threads.

So, I haven't made up my mind for sure, but since I think r.a.p.s
would probably offer much less than the expected benefit in practice
and since I usually prefer to stick with keeping things simple, I
might very well vote against its creation.

- Logan

Jay Levitt wrote:
2. Is anyone actually opposed to the *idea* of r.a.p.s? That is, when
it comes to a vote, is anyone planning to vote no, and if so, could you
provide some counter-arguments, so perhaps we could head off the
concerns?

I'm opposed to the idea of making a decision or bringing it up for a
vote before the US presidential election. I think that the political
stuff will die down a huge amount a few weeks after the election is
over (unless there is some kind of vote counting controversy), so at
the point the new group is likely to become unnecessary.

Basically I really don't want to see r.a.p.s created just as the
need for it is disappearing and then find we've got a group that
isn't needed and isn't used.

Also, even if the political talk doesn't trail off at all, I'm not
really sure the group is that great an idea. There are two reasons:

(1) I'm really not sure it will be effective at removing political
discussions. Groups like that tend to have fewer readers. People
who have a political message they want to get out want to reach the
widest audience, so they'll post to the "real" group (this one). Yes,
the rules would say they *should* post to r.a.p.s instead of r.a.p,
but the rules already say they *shouldn't* post to r.a.p. If they're
ignoring the rules now, why would they follow them then?

(2) I don't think the political discussions are the group's biggest
problem, long term. There are lots of political posts, but they are
isolated in their own threads and relatively easy to kill in the sense
that you can knock out 50 or 100 or more posts with one command.
Meanwhile, doppler distortion controversy has generated practically
the same amount of traffic, and we have a few people on the group
who cause arguments every chance they get, and they affect most of
the threads.

So, I haven't made up my mind for sure, but since I think r.a.p.s
would probably offer much less than the expected benefit in practice
and since I usually prefer to stick with keeping things simple, I
might very well vote against its creation.

- Logan

I don't think creating an off-topic subgroup will help the S/N ratio in the
long term. There is no way to enforce a charter unless you have a moderated
group. I think it's likely that a few people would move to the off-topic
group for a while, but because it'll have a much smaller audience, they'll
eventually move back.

And this doesn't even address stalkers/trolls. Is the existence of an
off-topic group going to discourage them from posting here?

And what about on-topic threads that get "hijacked" by political posters?

(I'm not opposing the effort, but I think it's heading in the wrong
direction.)

Stu.

I don't think creating an off-topic subgroup will help the S/N ratio in the
long term. There is no way to enforce a charter unless you have a moderated
group. I think it's likely that a few people would move to the off-topic
group for a while, but because it'll have a much smaller audience, they'll
eventually move back.

And this doesn't even address stalkers/trolls. Is the existence of an
off-topic group going to discourage them from posting here?

And what about on-topic threads that get "hijacked" by political posters?

(I'm not opposing the effort, but I think it's heading in the wrong
direction.)

Stu.

Jay Levitt wrote:

1. Is "rec.audio.pro.saloon" the agreed-upon name? Another proposal was
rec.audio.pro.offtopic, which is certainly clearer but somewhat less fun
and less tone-setting. Is anyone actually opposed to the *name* of
r.a.p.s?

2. Is anyone actually opposed to the *idea* of r.a.p.s? That is, when
it comes to a vote, is anyone planning to vote no, and if so, could you
provide some counter-arguments, so perhaps we could head off the
concerns?

I like the name and the idea. I don't think it will completely solve
the problem, though.

Jay Levitt wrote:

1. Is "rec.audio.pro.saloon" the agreed-upon name? Another proposal was
rec.audio.pro.offtopic, which is certainly clearer but somewhat less fun
and less tone-setting. Is anyone actually opposed to the *name* of
r.a.p.s?

2. Is anyone actually opposed to the *idea* of r.a.p.s? That is, when
it comes to a vote, is anyone planning to vote no, and if so, could you
provide some counter-arguments, so perhaps we could head off the
concerns?

I like the name and the idea. I don't think it will completely solve
the problem, though.

On Thu, 23 Sep 2004 10:15:21 -0400, Rob Reedijk wrote
(in article ):

Jay Levitt wrote:
Summing up the latest thread on this recurring topic:

2. Some folks proposed just making RAP moderated instead, but there's
much less consensus on this. Most tellingly, nobody volunteered to
moderate.

I have to say...I could almost, almost go for this. Who would ever want
to moderate it, though?

3. While RAP's charter has nothing to do with politics, there is some
interest (though certainly not on my part) in discussing politics with
people you already know, so that existing political newsgroups don't fit
the bill.

That's crap. Somebody you don't know is just somebody you haven't met yet.

4. Of the folks who thought it was a good idea to have a saloon
newsgroup, nobody felt that he personally had the time to create it.

With that in mind, the fact that we've just lost another longtime
poster, and the fact that despite killfiles and ignore-thread commands
I'm still finding too high an SNR here, I *do* volunteer to create it.

There's a place for you in heaven.


Two questions for the first order of business:

1. Is "rec.audio.pro.saloon" the agreed-upon name? Another proposal was
rec.audio.pro.offtopic, which is certainly clearer but somewhat less fun
and less tone-setting. Is anyone actually opposed to the *name* of
r.a.p.s?

Why not just shuffle off to rec.audio.misc? It's already up and under used?

2. Is anyone actually opposed to the *idea* of r.a.p.s? That is, when
it comes to a vote, is anyone planning to vote no, and if so, could you
provide some counter-arguments, so perhaps we could head off the
concerns?

It's a nice idea, and on it's own it might be a fun group. I don't think
it will solve anything. Do you think Will M. will actually divert his
politics there? Certainly not. Because RAP is more of a captive
audience.

Think of it this way---If you put to mail slots on your door: "regular
mail" and "junk mail"---where do you think the advertisers will put
their flyers?

Rob R.

I agree with Rob. I also think part of the payoff is to **** off people. They
need something equal to the charge they get for ****ing people off.

That and their too afraid to post to a real political newsgroup because
they'd never be able to compete.


Ty Ford


-- Ty Ford's equipment reviews, audio samples, rates and other audiocentric
stuff are at www.tyford.com

On Thu, 23 Sep 2004 10:15:21 -0400, Rob Reedijk wrote
(in article ):

Jay Levitt wrote:
Summing up the latest thread on this recurring topic:

2. Some folks proposed just making RAP moderated instead, but there's
much less consensus on this. Most tellingly, nobody volunteered to
moderate.

I have to say...I could almost, almost go for this. Who would ever want
to moderate it, though?

3. While RAP's charter has nothing to do with politics, there is some
interest (though certainly not on my part) in discussing politics with
people you already know, so that existing political newsgroups don't fit
the bill.

That's crap. Somebody you don't know is just somebody you haven't met yet.

4. Of the folks who thought it was a good idea to have a saloon
newsgroup, nobody felt that he personally had the time to create it.

With that in mind, the fact that we've just lost another longtime
poster, and the fact that despite killfiles and ignore-thread commands
I'm still finding too high an SNR here, I *do* volunteer to create it.

There's a place for you in heaven.


Two questions for the first order of business:

1. Is "rec.audio.pro.saloon" the agreed-upon name? Another proposal was
rec.audio.pro.offtopic, which is certainly clearer but somewhat less fun
and less tone-setting. Is anyone actually opposed to the *name* of
r.a.p.s?

Why not just shuffle off to rec.audio.misc? It's already up and under used?

2. Is anyone actually opposed to the *idea* of r.a.p.s? That is, when
it comes to a vote, is anyone planning to vote no, and if so, could you
provide some counter-arguments, so perhaps we could head off the
concerns?

It's a nice idea, and on it's own it might be a fun group. I don't think
it will solve anything. Do you think Will M. will actually divert his
politics there? Certainly not. Because RAP is more of a captive
audience.

Think of it this way---If you put to mail slots on your door: "regular
mail" and "junk mail"---where do you think the advertisers will put
their flyers?

Rob R.

I agree with Rob. I also think part of the payoff is to **** off people. They
need something equal to the charge they get for ****ing people off.

That and their too afraid to post to a real political newsgroup because
they'd never be able to compete.


Ty Ford


-- Ty Ford's equipment reviews, audio samples, rates and other audiocentric
stuff are at www.tyford.com

Ty Ford wrote:

That and their too afraid to post to a real political newsgroup because
they'd never be able to compete.


Um, I guess such a silly statement doesn't really deserve a resonse.

(..)

b.t.w., that would be they're. Good spelling helps to compete.

Ty Ford wrote:

That and their too afraid to post to a real political newsgroup because
they'd never be able to compete.


Um, I guess such a silly statement doesn't really deserve a resonse.

(..)

b.t.w., that would be they're. Good spelling helps to compete.

Jay Levitt wrote:

3. While RAP's charter has nothing to do with politics, there is some
interest (though certainly not on my part) in discussing politics with
people you already know, so that existing political newsgroups don't fit
the bill.

Very true.

1. Is "rec.audio.pro.saloon" the agreed-upon name? Another proposal was
rec.audio.pro.offtopic, which is certainly clearer but somewhat less fun
and less tone-setting. Is anyone actually opposed to the *name* of
r.a.p.s?

That is the name I would prefer. It's whimsical and I would
hope for more than a bit of whimsical content in it.
Saloons are ideal places for brawls too. :-)


2. Is anyone actually opposed to the *idea* of r.a.p.s? That is, when
it comes to a vote, is anyone planning to vote no, and if so, could you
provide some counter-arguments, so perhaps we could head off the
concerns?

Several (who don't like the way it is) have said its a bad
idea because it won't change anything. It most certainly
will for me. If that group exists I can fully commit to
contributing/requesting nothing other than audio in r.a.p
and attempting to steer others who take tangents to go to
r.a.p.s as well. Not talking self appointed cop here, I
despise that bad spirited breed of human, but I'd certainly
try to make effective nudges and invitations to c'mon over.

Right now we don't have a place to invite people to, only
absurd places for the cops to banish them to and I think
that distinction will make all the difference if the cops
can get themselves under control. Basically stay the ****
out of it and let those that would like to see it succeed
take the responsibility for that.

Jay, if there are any specific tasks you can delegate I'd be
happy to help you.


Bob
--

"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no
simpler."

A. Einstein

Jay Levitt wrote:

3. While RAP's charter has nothing to do with politics, there is some
interest (though certainly not on my part) in discussing politics with
people you already know, so that existing political newsgroups don't fit
the bill.

Very true.

1. Is "rec.audio.pro.saloon" the agreed-upon name? Another proposal was
rec.audio.pro.offtopic, which is certainly clearer but somewhat less fun
and less tone-setting. Is anyone actually opposed to the *name* of
r.a.p.s?

That is the name I would prefer. It's whimsical and I would
hope for more than a bit of whimsical content in it.
Saloons are ideal places for brawls too. :-)


2. Is anyone actually opposed to the *idea* of r.a.p.s? That is, when
it comes to a vote, is anyone planning to vote no, and if so, could you
provide some counter-arguments, so perhaps we could head off the
concerns?

Several (who don't like the way it is) have said its a bad
idea because it won't change anything. It most certainly
will for me. If that group exists I can fully commit to
contributing/requesting nothing other than audio in r.a.p
and attempting to steer others who take tangents to go to
r.a.p.s as well. Not talking self appointed cop here, I
despise that bad spirited breed of human, but I'd certainly
try to make effective nudges and invitations to c'mon over.

Right now we don't have a place to invite people to, only
absurd places for the cops to banish them to and I think
that distinction will make all the difference if the cops
can get themselves under control. Basically stay the ****
out of it and let those that would like to see it succeed
take the responsibility for that.

Jay, if there are any specific tasks you can delegate I'd be
happy to help you.


Bob
--

"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no
simpler."

A. Einstein

I honestly don't think this is true. At least not generally.

Ty Ford wrote:
They need something equal to the charge
they get for ****ing people off.
That and their too afraid to post to a
real political newsgroup because they'd
never be able to compete.

I honestly don't think this is true. At least not generally.

Ty Ford wrote:
They need something equal to the charge
they get for ****ing people off.
That and their too afraid to post to a
real political newsgroup because they'd
never be able to compete.

This might be a good idea, if you can find a place to put a spigit on my
monitor. Unless there is a bandwidth problem, why censure anything that is
honest discussion.
I mean aren't OT threads, kinda like channels you don't want to watch on the
tube. Keep on surfing dude.
Watching this stuff, bubble up, is healthy. We are but a microcosm anyway,
and it just shows how important this stuff is, well at least for the next 6
weeks.

Tom

"Per Karlsson" wrote in message
ups.com...
I honestly don't think this is true. At least not generally.

Ty Ford wrote:
They need something equal to the charge
they get for ****ing people off.
That and their too afraid to post to a
real political newsgroup because they'd
never be able to compete.

This might be a good idea, if you can find a place to put a spigit on my
monitor. Unless there is a bandwidth problem, why censure anything that is
honest discussion.
I mean aren't OT threads, kinda like channels you don't want to watch on the
tube. Keep on surfing dude.
Watching this stuff, bubble up, is healthy. We are but a microcosm anyway,
and it just shows how important this stuff is, well at least for the next 6
weeks.

Tom

"Per Karlsson" wrote in message
ups.com...
I honestly don't think this is true. At least not generally.

Ty Ford wrote:
They need something equal to the charge
they get for ****ing people off.
That and their too afraid to post to a
real political newsgroup because they'd
never be able to compete.

Ty Ford wrote:
They need something equal to the charge
they get for ****ing people off.
That and their too afraid to post to a
real political newsgroup because they'd
never be able to compete.


"Per Karlsson" wrote ...
I honestly don't think this is true. At least not generally.

OK, then lets see them move their political discussions
over there and we'll find out. I'm not holding my breath.

Ty Ford wrote:
They need something equal to the charge
they get for ****ing people off.
That and their too afraid to post to a
real political newsgroup because they'd
never be able to compete.


"Per Karlsson" wrote ...
I honestly don't think this is true. At least not generally.

OK, then lets see them move their political discussions
over there and we'll find out. I'm not holding my breath.

On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 08:17:32 -0400, Tommy B wrote
(in article et):

This might be a good idea, if you can find a place to put a spigit on my
monitor. Unless there is a bandwidth problem, why censure anything that is
honest discussion.
I mean aren't OT threads, kinda like channels you don't want to watch on the
tube. Keep on surfing dude.
Watching this stuff, bubble up, is healthy. We are but a microcosm anyway,
and it just shows how important this stuff is, well at least for the next 6
weeks.

Tom

Because Tom, the charter for the group say no off topic posting.

Organic excess is no excuse for dumping one's person ashtray in the group.
You do drive between the lines on the highway, right?

Ty Ford




"Per Karlsson" wrote in message
ups.com...
I honestly don't think this is true. At least not generally.

Ty Ford wrote:
They need something equal to the charge
they get for ****ing people off.
That and their too afraid to post to a
real political newsgroup because they'd
never be able to compete.






-- Ty Ford's equipment reviews, audio samples, rates and other audiocentric
stuff are at www.tyford.com

On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 08:17:32 -0400, Tommy B wrote
(in article et):

This might be a good idea, if you can find a place to put a spigit on my
monitor. Unless there is a bandwidth problem, why censure anything that is
honest discussion.
I mean aren't OT threads, kinda like channels you don't want to watch on the
tube. Keep on surfing dude.
Watching this stuff, bubble up, is healthy. We are but a microcosm anyway,
and it just shows how important this stuff is, well at least for the next 6
weeks.

Tom

Because Tom, the charter for the group say no off topic posting.

Organic excess is no excuse for dumping one's person ashtray in the group.
You do drive between the lines on the highway, right?

Ty Ford




"Per Karlsson" wrote in message
ups.com...
I honestly don't think this is true. At least not generally.

Ty Ford wrote:
They need something equal to the charge
they get for ****ing people off.
That and their too afraid to post to a
real political newsgroup because they'd
never be able to compete.






-- Ty Ford's equipment reviews, audio samples, rates and other audiocentric
stuff are at www.tyford.com

On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 00:29:49 -0400, Bob Cain wrote
(in article ):

Several (who don't like the way it is) have said its a bad idea because it
won't change anything. It most certainly will for me. If that group exists
I can fully commit to contributing/requesting nothing other than audio in
r.a.p and attempting to steer others who take tangents to go to r.a.p.s as
well. Not talking self appointed cop here, I despise that bad spirited breed

of human, but I'd certainly try to make effective nudges and invitations to
c'mon over.

Right now we don't have a place to invite people to, only absurd places for
the cops to banish them to and I think that distinction will make all the
difference if the cops can get themselves under control. Basically stay the
**** out of it and let those that would like to see it succeed take the
responsibility for that.

Jay, if there are any specific tasks you can delegate I'd be happy to help
you.


Bob

Dearest Bob,

"If you stand up for what you believe in, prepared to be shot down."

In this case it's to stop the trashing of what was once a nice newsgroup.

Got it?

Ty Ford




-- Ty Ford's equipment reviews, audio samples, rates and other audiocentric
stuff are at www.tyford.com

On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 00:29:49 -0400, Bob Cain wrote
(in article ):

Several (who don't like the way it is) have said its a bad idea because it
won't change anything. It most certainly will for me. If that group exists
I can fully commit to contributing/requesting nothing other than audio in
r.a.p and attempting to steer others who take tangents to go to r.a.p.s as
well. Not talking self appointed cop here, I despise that bad spirited breed

of human, but I'd certainly try to make effective nudges and invitations to
c'mon over.

Right now we don't have a place to invite people to, only absurd places for
the cops to banish them to and I think that distinction will make all the
difference if the cops can get themselves under control. Basically stay the
**** out of it and let those that would like to see it succeed take the
responsibility for that.

Jay, if there are any specific tasks you can delegate I'd be happy to help
you.


Bob

Dearest Bob,

"If you stand up for what you believe in, prepared to be shot down."

In this case it's to stop the trashing of what was once a nice newsgroup.

Got it?

Ty Ford




-- Ty Ford's equipment reviews, audio samples, rates and other audiocentric
stuff are at www.tyford.com

On Thu, 23 Sep 2004 23:28:18 -0400, Pete Dimsman wrote
(in article ):



Ty Ford wrote:

That and their too afraid to post to a real political newsgroup because
they'd never be able to compete.


Um, I guess such a silly statement doesn't really deserve a resonse.

(..)

b.t.w., that would be they're. Good spelling helps to compete.


I guess you lost my respect months ago by your continued abuse of the
newsgroup.

BTW, pick up a grammar and punctuation book sometime real soon, Dude.

While you're at it, look up the word pedantic in the dictionary.

Ty Ford



-- Ty Ford's equipment reviews, audio samples, rates and other audiocentric
stuff are at www.tyford.com

On Thu, 23 Sep 2004 23:28:18 -0400, Pete Dimsman wrote
(in article ):



Ty Ford wrote:

That and their too afraid to post to a real political newsgroup because
they'd never be able to compete.


Um, I guess such a silly statement doesn't really deserve a resonse.

(..)

b.t.w., that would be they're. Good spelling helps to compete.


I guess you lost my respect months ago by your continued abuse of the
newsgroup.

BTW, pick up a grammar and punctuation book sometime real soon, Dude.

While you're at it, look up the word pedantic in the dictionary.

Ty Ford



-- Ty Ford's equipment reviews, audio samples, rates and other audiocentric
stuff are at www.tyford.com

You do drive between the lines on the highway, right?
I try when there are other folks around, at 3 AM, well that's another story.
Anyway that's an issue of safety, this is only free expression.

Because Tom, the charter for the group say no off topic posting.

Then enforce it, amend it or let it be.
What can I say.

Organic excess is no excuse for dumping one's person ashtray in the group.
If it was one person, it would be a very short thread, and we would not be
having this discussion.
Presonally, I like organic excess,
as long as I'm wearing the right shoes!

Tom




"Ty Ford" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 08:17:32 -0400, Tommy B wrote
(in article et):

This might be a good idea, if you can find a place to put a spigit on my
monitor. Unless there is a bandwidth problem, why censure anything that
is
honest discussion.
I mean aren't OT threads, kinda like channels you don't want to watch on
the
tube. Keep on surfing dude.
Watching this stuff, bubble up, is healthy. We are but a microcosm
anyway,
and it just shows how important this stuff is, well at least for the
next 6
weeks.

Tom

Because Tom, the charter for the group say no off topic posting.

Organic excess is no excuse for dumping one's person ashtray in the group.
You do drive between the lines on the highway, right?

Ty Ford




"Per Karlsson" wrote in message
ups.com...
I honestly don't think this is true. At least not generally.

Ty Ford wrote:
They need something equal to the charge
they get for ****ing people off.
That and their too afraid to post to a
real political newsgroup because they'd
never be able to compete.






-- Ty Ford's equipment reviews, audio samples, rates and other
audiocentric
stuff are at www.tyford.com

You do drive between the lines on the highway, right?
I try when there are other folks around, at 3 AM, well that's another story.
Anyway that's an issue of safety, this is only free expression.

Because Tom, the charter for the group say no off topic posting.

Then enforce it, amend it or let it be.
What can I say.

Organic excess is no excuse for dumping one's person ashtray in the group.
If it was one person, it would be a very short thread, and we would not be
having this discussion.
Presonally, I like organic excess,
as long as I'm wearing the right shoes!

Tom




"Ty Ford" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 08:17:32 -0400, Tommy B wrote
(in article et):

This might be a good idea, if you can find a place to put a spigit on my
monitor. Unless there is a bandwidth problem, why censure anything that
is
honest discussion.
I mean aren't OT threads, kinda like channels you don't want to watch on
the
tube. Keep on surfing dude.
Watching this stuff, bubble up, is healthy. We are but a microcosm
anyway,
and it just shows how important this stuff is, well at least for the
next 6
weeks.

Tom

Because Tom, the charter for the group say no off topic posting.

Organic excess is no excuse for dumping one's person ashtray in the group.
You do drive between the lines on the highway, right?

Ty Ford




"Per Karlsson" wrote in message
ups.com...
I honestly don't think this is true. At least not generally.

Ty Ford wrote:
They need something equal to the charge
they get for ****ing people off.
That and their too afraid to post to a
real political newsgroup because they'd
never be able to compete.






-- Ty Ford's equipment reviews, audio samples, rates and other
audiocentric
stuff are at www.tyford.com

On Thu, 23 Sep 2004 08:33:33 -0400, Jay Levitt
wrote:

Summing up the latest thread on this recurring topic:

1. Everyone who commented seemed to think it's a good idea, even if they
didn't all agree it was necessary. I certainly didn't see any "what a
horrible idea" posts.

2. Some folks proposed just making RAP moderated instead, but there's
much less consensus on this. Most tellingly, nobody volunteered to
moderate.

3. While RAP's charter has nothing to do with politics, there is some
interest (though certainly not on my part) in discussing politics with
people you already know, so that existing political newsgroups don't fit
the bill.

4. Of the folks who thought it was a good idea to have a saloon
newsgroup, nobody felt that he personally had the time to create it.

With that in mind, the fact that we've just lost another longtime
poster,

Who was that? I'm in the middle of a move and haven't read 1/4 of
just the on-topic posts in recent weeks.

and the fact that despite killfiles and ignore-thread commands
I'm still finding too high an SNR here, I *do* volunteer to create it.

Two questions for the first order of business:

1. Is "rec.audio.pro.saloon" the agreed-upon name? Another proposal was
rec.audio.pro.offtopic, which is certainly clearer but somewhat less fun
and less tone-setting. Is anyone actually opposed to the *name* of
r.a.p.s?

I obviously haven't followed the previous thread that prompted
this.

2. Is anyone actually opposed to the *idea* of r.a.p.s? That is, when
it comes to a vote, is anyone planning to vote no, and if so, could you
provide some counter-arguments, so perhaps we could head off the
concerns?

I'm not sure I can put my finger on it, but the idea of starting a
new sub-newsgroup because the main group has "too many off-topic
threads" seems like a bad precedent and a bad solution to the problem.
It just doesn't seem right. Has such a thing ever happened before?
Perhaps it's just a sense that if this is done, "the terrorists,
er, trolls win."
The off-topic threads are not in any real sense related to RAP -
they're not about anything like live sound or video production, which
might each be justifiable for making new subgroups if appropriate
groups didn't already exist.

-----
http://mindspring.com/~benbradley

On Thu, 23 Sep 2004 08:33:33 -0400, Jay Levitt
wrote:

Summing up the latest thread on this recurring topic:

1. Everyone who commented seemed to think it's a good idea, even if they
didn't all agree it was necessary. I certainly didn't see any "what a
horrible idea" posts.

2. Some folks proposed just making RAP moderated instead, but there's
much less consensus on this. Most tellingly, nobody volunteered to
moderate.

3. While RAP's charter has nothing to do with politics, there is some
interest (though certainly not on my part) in discussing politics with
people you already know, so that existing political newsgroups don't fit
the bill.

4. Of the folks who thought it was a good idea to have a saloon
newsgroup, nobody felt that he personally had the time to create it.

With that in mind, the fact that we've just lost another longtime
poster,

Who was that? I'm in the middle of a move and haven't read 1/4 of
just the on-topic posts in recent weeks.

and the fact that despite killfiles and ignore-thread commands
I'm still finding too high an SNR here, I *do* volunteer to create it.

Two questions for the first order of business:

1. Is "rec.audio.pro.saloon" the agreed-upon name? Another proposal was
rec.audio.pro.offtopic, which is certainly clearer but somewhat less fun
and less tone-setting. Is anyone actually opposed to the *name* of
r.a.p.s?

I obviously haven't followed the previous thread that prompted
this.

2. Is anyone actually opposed to the *idea* of r.a.p.s? That is, when
it comes to a vote, is anyone planning to vote no, and if so, could you
provide some counter-arguments, so perhaps we could head off the
concerns?

I'm not sure I can put my finger on it, but the idea of starting a
new sub-newsgroup because the main group has "too many off-topic
threads" seems like a bad precedent and a bad solution to the problem.
It just doesn't seem right. Has such a thing ever happened before?
Perhaps it's just a sense that if this is done, "the terrorists,
er, trolls win."
The off-topic threads are not in any real sense related to RAP -
they're not about anything like live sound or video production, which
might each be justifiable for making new subgroups if appropriate
groups didn't already exist.

-----
http://mindspring.com/~benbradley

Ben Bradley wrote:

I'm not sure I can put my finger on it, but the idea of starting a
new sub-newsgroup because the main group has "too many off-topic
threads" seems like a bad precedent and a bad solution to the problem.
It just doesn't seem right. Has such a thing ever happened before?
Perhaps it's just a sense that if this is done, "the terrorists,
er, trolls win."
The off-topic threads are not in any real sense related to RAP -
they're not about anything like live sound or video production, which
might each be justifiable for making new subgroups if appropriate
groups didn't already exist.


I agree. I just don't see that many of them, and they tend to stay in
their own threads.

In fact, if you try to look for them, you have to scroll though ALL
these threads about "audio".

: )

Ben Bradley wrote:

I'm not sure I can put my finger on it, but the idea of starting a
new sub-newsgroup because the main group has "too many off-topic
threads" seems like a bad precedent and a bad solution to the problem.
It just doesn't seem right. Has such a thing ever happened before?
Perhaps it's just a sense that if this is done, "the terrorists,
er, trolls win."
The off-topic threads are not in any real sense related to RAP -
they're not about anything like live sound or video production, which
might each be justifiable for making new subgroups if appropriate
groups didn't already exist.


I agree. I just don't see that many of them, and they tend to stay in
their own threads.

In fact, if you try to look for them, you have to scroll though ALL
these threads about "audio".

: )

Ben Bradley wrote:

I'm not sure I can put my finger on it, but the idea of starting a
new sub-newsgroup because the main group has "too many off-topic
threads" seems like a bad precedent and a bad solution to the problem.
It just doesn't seem right. Has such a thing ever happened before?
Perhaps it's just a sense that if this is done, "the terrorists,
er, trolls win."
The off-topic threads are not in any real sense related to RAP -
they're not about anything like live sound or video production, which
might each be justifiable for making new subgroups if appropriate
groups didn't already exist.


I agree. I just don't see that many of them, and they tend to stay in
their own threads.

In fact, if you try to look for them, you have to scroll though ALL
these threads about "audio".

: )

Don Cooper writes:


Ben Bradley wrote:

I'm not sure I can put my finger on it, but the idea of starting a
new sub-newsgroup because the main group has "too many off-topic
threads" seems like a bad precedent and a bad solution to the problem.
It just doesn't seem right. Has such a thing ever happened before?
Perhaps it's just a sense that if this is done, "the terrorists,
er, trolls win."
The off-topic threads are not in any real sense related to RAP -
they're not about anything like live sound or video production, which
might each be justifiable for making new subgroups if appropriate
groups didn't already exist.


I agree. I just don't see that many of them, and they tend to stay in
their own threads.

In fact, if you try to look for them, you have to scroll though ALL
these threads about "audio".

Would the new group be only for political posts, or for "traditional"
OT posts as well (such as scotch, pizza, BBQ, deli sandwiches, etc) ?

I'd hesitate to call it "saloon" if only the former.

Don Cooper writes:


Ben Bradley wrote:

I'm not sure I can put my finger on it, but the idea of starting a
new sub-newsgroup because the main group has "too many off-topic
threads" seems like a bad precedent and a bad solution to the problem.
It just doesn't seem right. Has such a thing ever happened before?
Perhaps it's just a sense that if this is done, "the terrorists,
er, trolls win."
The off-topic threads are not in any real sense related to RAP -
they're not about anything like live sound or video production, which
might each be justifiable for making new subgroups if appropriate
groups didn't already exist.


I agree. I just don't see that many of them, and they tend to stay in
their own threads.

In fact, if you try to look for them, you have to scroll though ALL
these threads about "audio".

Would the new group be only for political posts, or for "traditional"
OT posts as well (such as scotch, pizza, BBQ, deli sandwiches, etc) ?

I'd hesitate to call it "saloon" if only the former.

Don Cooper writes:


Ben Bradley wrote:

I'm not sure I can put my finger on it, but the idea of starting a
new sub-newsgroup because the main group has "too many off-topic
threads" seems like a bad precedent and a bad solution to the problem.
It just doesn't seem right. Has such a thing ever happened before?
Perhaps it's just a sense that if this is done, "the terrorists,
er, trolls win."
The off-topic threads are not in any real sense related to RAP -
they're not about anything like live sound or video production, which
might each be justifiable for making new subgroups if appropriate
groups didn't already exist.


I agree. I just don't see that many of them, and they tend to stay in
their own threads.

In fact, if you try to look for them, you have to scroll though ALL
these threads about "audio".

Would the new group be only for political posts, or for "traditional"
OT posts as well (such as scotch, pizza, BBQ, deli sandwiches, etc) ?

I'd hesitate to call it "saloon" if only the former.

Ty Ford wrote:


Dearest Bob,

"If you stand up for what you believe in, prepared to be shot down."

In this case it's to stop the trashing of what was once a nice newsgroup.

Got it?


All I got from that is that there is something very wrong
with you and it isn't OT newsgroup postings.


Bob
--

"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no
simpler."

A. Einstein