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

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

"Ben Bradley" wrote in message
...
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.

Firstly, if you try to create a group under the "big 8" hierarchy, which rec
is, specifically for the purpose of housing off-topic political posts, the
admins who will set up the newsgroups will say, "there are already tons of
newsgroups for politics, use one of those." (sound familiar)

Secondly, in the highly unlikely event the admins create the group, what
makes anyone think it'll get used?

Stu

"Ben Bradley" wrote in message
...
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.

Firstly, if you try to create a group under the "big 8" hierarchy, which rec
is, specifically for the purpose of housing off-topic political posts, the
admins who will set up the newsgroups will say, "there are already tons of
newsgroups for politics, use one of those." (sound familiar)

Secondly, in the highly unlikely event the admins create the group, what
makes anyone think it'll get used?

Stu

"Ben Bradley" wrote in message
...
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.

Firstly, if you try to create a group under the "big 8" hierarchy, which rec
is, specifically for the purpose of housing off-topic political posts, the
admins who will set up the newsgroups will say, "there are already tons of
newsgroups for politics, use one of those." (sound familiar)

Secondly, in the highly unlikely event the admins create the group, what
makes anyone think it'll get used?

Stu

"Jay Levitt" wrote in message
...
I believe that also addresses the "there are already politics" groups -
this isn't a political forum, it's an off-topic, social forum. I've
seen this work on many web-based message boards, though I'm not sure if
there's precedent in USENET or not.

I'd suggest that you subscribe or crosspost a question/message about this to
news.groups

That's where discussion like this have to end up if anything is actually
going to be done. I was involved in (opposing) the creation of a moderated
group, and read news.groups for a couple months, I learned stuff about
usenet by osmosis. They are the keepers of usenet, when it comes to the big
8 hierarchy.


Stu Venable

"Jay Levitt" wrote in message
...
I believe that also addresses the "there are already politics" groups -
this isn't a political forum, it's an off-topic, social forum. I've
seen this work on many web-based message boards, though I'm not sure if
there's precedent in USENET or not.

I'd suggest that you subscribe or crosspost a question/message about this to
news.groups

That's where discussion like this have to end up if anything is actually
going to be done. I was involved in (opposing) the creation of a moderated
group, and read news.groups for a couple months, I learned stuff about
usenet by osmosis. They are the keepers of usenet, when it comes to the big
8 hierarchy.


Stu Venable

"Jay Levitt" wrote in message
...
I believe that also addresses the "there are already politics" groups -
this isn't a political forum, it's an off-topic, social forum. I've
seen this work on many web-based message boards, though I'm not sure if
there's precedent in USENET or not.

I'd suggest that you subscribe or crosspost a question/message about this to
news.groups

That's where discussion like this have to end up if anything is actually
going to be done. I was involved in (opposing) the creation of a moderated
group, and read news.groups for a couple months, I learned stuff about
usenet by osmosis. They are the keepers of usenet, when it comes to the big
8 hierarchy.


Stu Venable

"Jay Levitt" wrote in message
...
I believe that also addresses the "there are already politics" groups -
this isn't a political forum, it's an off-topic, social forum. I've
seen this work on many web-based message boards, though I'm not sure if
there's precedent in USENET or not.

Also, one major reason new newsgroups are defeated is if an existing group
already satisfies the requirements of the proposed group.

Here are a couple of faqs about usenet new group creation:
http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/faqs/big-eight.html
http://www.dmcom.net/bard/ngfaq.txt

"Jay Levitt" wrote in message
...
I believe that also addresses the "there are already politics" groups -
this isn't a political forum, it's an off-topic, social forum. I've
seen this work on many web-based message boards, though I'm not sure if
there's precedent in USENET or not.

Also, one major reason new newsgroups are defeated is if an existing group
already satisfies the requirements of the proposed group.

Here are a couple of faqs about usenet new group creation:
http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/faqs/big-eight.html
http://www.dmcom.net/bard/ngfaq.txt

"Jay Levitt" wrote in message
...
I believe that also addresses the "there are already politics" groups -
this isn't a political forum, it's an off-topic, social forum. I've
seen this work on many web-based message boards, though I'm not sure if
there's precedent in USENET or not.

Also, one major reason new newsgroups are defeated is if an existing group
already satisfies the requirements of the proposed group.

Here are a couple of faqs about usenet new group creation:
http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/faqs/big-eight.html
http://www.dmcom.net/bard/ngfaq.txt

In article , lshaw-
says...
I'm opposed to the idea of making a decision or bringing it up for a
vote before the US presidential election.

I think this is an excellent point. Personally, I think the OT traffic
is not solely election-related, as we've seen perennial complaints here
about it, but certainly that's part of it. I do think that some folks
might vote against a new group now for just that reason, so I'll wait
till after the election before doing an RFD.

--
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?

In article , lshaw-
says...
I'm opposed to the idea of making a decision or bringing it up for a
vote before the US presidential election.

I think this is an excellent point. Personally, I think the OT traffic
is not solely election-related, as we've seen perennial complaints here
about it, but certainly that's part of it. I do think that some folks
might vote against a new group now for just that reason, so I'll wait
till after the election before doing an RFD.

--
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?

In article , lshaw-
says...
I'm opposed to the idea of making a decision or bringing it up for a
vote before the US presidential election.

I think this is an excellent point. Personally, I think the OT traffic
is not solely election-related, as we've seen perennial complaints here
about it, but certainly that's part of it. I do think that some folks
might vote against a new group now for just that reason, so I'll wait
till after the election before doing an RFD.

--
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?

For one thing, the political NGs are full of real crazies...

Al

On 24 Sep 2004 04:35:57 -0700, "Per Karlsson"
wrote:

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.

For one thing, the political NGs are full of real crazies...

Al

On 24 Sep 2004 04:35:57 -0700, "Per Karlsson"
wrote:

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.

For one thing, the political NGs are full of real crazies...

Al

On 24 Sep 2004 04:35:57 -0700, "Per Karlsson"
wrote:

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.

On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 08:38:53 -0400, Ty Ford
wrote:

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.

Yeah and it's against the law to eat pussy in some states too.

Ty, if you are going to enforce this like a cranky grandma, I for one
would like to see you go after the other OT threads just as hard, or
risk being seen as a hypocrite..

Al

On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 08:38:53 -0400, Ty Ford
wrote:

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.

Yeah and it's against the law to eat pussy in some states too.

Ty, if you are going to enforce this like a cranky grandma, I for one
would like to see you go after the other OT threads just as hard, or
risk being seen as a hypocrite..

Al

On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 08:38:53 -0400, Ty Ford
wrote:

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.

Yeah and it's against the law to eat pussy in some states too.

Ty, if you are going to enforce this like a cranky grandma, I for one
would like to see you go after the other OT threads just as hard, or
risk being seen as a hypocrite..

Al

"playon" wrote in message...

For one thing, the political NGs are full of real crazies...


If it makes any difference, I played a few of the politico groups
a couple of weeks ago.... lo and behold, a couple of shmucks
from over there followed me here and posted. Not as follow-ups
to any message of mine, but in common threads with the same
material they posted on the politico groups. I never replied, and
they disappeared.

Those people are goof-balls.... on alt.politics.kerry and alt.politics.bush
people are accusing their opposition of eating the vaginal matter of the
candidates wives and children... real sickos...

"playon" wrote in message...

For one thing, the political NGs are full of real crazies...


If it makes any difference, I played a few of the politico groups
a couple of weeks ago.... lo and behold, a couple of shmucks
from over there followed me here and posted. Not as follow-ups
to any message of mine, but in common threads with the same
material they posted on the politico groups. I never replied, and
they disappeared.

Those people are goof-balls.... on alt.politics.kerry and alt.politics.bush
people are accusing their opposition of eating the vaginal matter of the
candidates wives and children... real sickos...

"playon" wrote in message...

For one thing, the political NGs are full of real crazies...


If it makes any difference, I played a few of the politico groups
a couple of weeks ago.... lo and behold, a couple of shmucks
from over there followed me here and posted. Not as follow-ups
to any message of mine, but in common threads with the same
material they posted on the politico groups. I never replied, and
they disappeared.

Those people are goof-balls.... on alt.politics.kerry and alt.politics.bush
people are accusing their opposition of eating the vaginal matter of the
candidates wives and children... real sickos...

georgeh wrote:

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.

My druthers would a wide open gathering place.


Bob
--

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

A. Einstein

georgeh wrote:

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.

My druthers would a wide open gathering place.


Bob
--

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

A. Einstein

georgeh wrote:

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.

My druthers would a wide open gathering place.


Bob
--

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

A. Einstein

Stu Venable wrote:


Firstly, if you try to create a group under the "big 8" hierarchy, which rec
is, specifically for the purpose of housing off-topic political posts, the
admins who will set up the newsgroups will say, "there are already tons of
newsgroups for politics, use one of those." (sound familiar)

This would have a much different purpose than that. It's to
be a place where any kind of discussion among us would be
welcome, where "us" is, by intent only, the rec.audio.pro
community.

Secondly, in the highly unlikely event the admins create the group, what
makes anyone think it'll get used?

What makes you think it won't get used? I believe that the
people who talk to each other here about broader matters
don't do it to be contrary, but simply because they aren't
willing to give up the ability to communicate with others in
this group about things other than audio just because some
choose to immerse themselves in it in order to annoy
themselves. Why wouldn't we use it?

You really don't seem to want this. Administrative reasons
and sheer pessimism aside, why is that?


Bob
--

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

A. Einstein

Stu Venable wrote:


Firstly, if you try to create a group under the "big 8" hierarchy, which rec
is, specifically for the purpose of housing off-topic political posts, the
admins who will set up the newsgroups will say, "there are already tons of
newsgroups for politics, use one of those." (sound familiar)

This would have a much different purpose than that. It's to
be a place where any kind of discussion among us would be
welcome, where "us" is, by intent only, the rec.audio.pro
community.

Secondly, in the highly unlikely event the admins create the group, what
makes anyone think it'll get used?

What makes you think it won't get used? I believe that the
people who talk to each other here about broader matters
don't do it to be contrary, but simply because they aren't
willing to give up the ability to communicate with others in
this group about things other than audio just because some
choose to immerse themselves in it in order to annoy
themselves. Why wouldn't we use it?

You really don't seem to want this. Administrative reasons
and sheer pessimism aside, why is that?


Bob
--

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

A. Einstein

Stu Venable wrote:


Firstly, if you try to create a group under the "big 8" hierarchy, which rec
is, specifically for the purpose of housing off-topic political posts, the
admins who will set up the newsgroups will say, "there are already tons of
newsgroups for politics, use one of those." (sound familiar)

This would have a much different purpose than that. It's to
be a place where any kind of discussion among us would be
welcome, where "us" is, by intent only, the rec.audio.pro
community.

Secondly, in the highly unlikely event the admins create the group, what
makes anyone think it'll get used?

What makes you think it won't get used? I believe that the
people who talk to each other here about broader matters
don't do it to be contrary, but simply because they aren't
willing to give up the ability to communicate with others in
this group about things other than audio just because some
choose to immerse themselves in it in order to annoy
themselves. Why wouldn't we use it?

You really don't seem to want this. Administrative reasons
and sheer pessimism aside, why is that?


Bob
--

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

A. Einstein

"David Morgan (MAMS)" wrote in message
news:0o55d.2182$Wu1.1960@trnddc02...

"playon" wrote in message...

For one thing, the political NGs are full of real crazies...

I don't know if anyone has mentioned this but a rec.audio.politics-religion
would be more fitting. I'm a member of other audio "coffeehouses" and care
about the non-audio conversation there but about 95% of that is
religion-politics.

"David Morgan (MAMS)" wrote in message
news:0o55d.2182$Wu1.1960@trnddc02...

"playon" wrote in message...

For one thing, the political NGs are full of real crazies...

I don't know if anyone has mentioned this but a rec.audio.politics-religion
would be more fitting. I'm a member of other audio "coffeehouses" and care
about the non-audio conversation there but about 95% of that is
religion-politics.

"David Morgan (MAMS)" wrote in message
news:0o55d.2182$Wu1.1960@trnddc02...

"playon" wrote in message...

For one thing, the political NGs are full of real crazies...

I don't know if anyone has mentioned this but a rec.audio.politics-religion
would be more fitting. I'm a member of other audio "coffeehouses" and care
about the non-audio conversation there but about 95% of that is
religion-politics.

On Sat, 25 Sep 2004 02:13:27 -0400, Ricky W. Hunt wrote
(in article b085d.106312$MQ5.103647@attbi_s52):

"David Morgan (MAMS)" wrote in message
news:0o55d.2182$Wu1.1960@trnddc02...

"playon" wrote in message...

For one thing, the political NGs are full of real crazies...

I don't know if anyone has mentioned this but a rec.audio.politics-religion
would be more fitting. I'm a member of other audio "coffeehouses" and care
about the non-audio conversation there but about 95% of that is
religion-politics.



I'm not surprised. A time honored policy of polite society is NOT to discuss
politics or religion.

Ty Ford



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

On Sat, 25 Sep 2004 02:13:27 -0400, Ricky W. Hunt wrote
(in article b085d.106312$MQ5.103647@attbi_s52):

"David Morgan (MAMS)" wrote in message
news:0o55d.2182$Wu1.1960@trnddc02...

"playon" wrote in message...

For one thing, the political NGs are full of real crazies...

I don't know if anyone has mentioned this but a rec.audio.politics-religion
would be more fitting. I'm a member of other audio "coffeehouses" and care
about the non-audio conversation there but about 95% of that is
religion-politics.



I'm not surprised. A time honored policy of polite society is NOT to discuss
politics or religion.

Ty Ford



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

On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 14:01:09 -0400, Bob Cain wrote
(in article ):



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


Dear Bob,

We'll never get right with each other, because you just like to argue and you
don't really give a **** about what or where.

We've had these discussions about the problem in the past. Please do me (and
the group) a really big favor and try (as hard as it may be) not to be so
redundant. Please play by the rules or go somewhere where BOB makes the
rules. You'll be happier and rap will be happier.

This is as nice as I get Bob. If you persist, it's only gets worse.

Here's a quote especially for you. "A man hears what he wants to hear and
disregards the rest."...Paul Simon.

Have a nice life.

Ty Ford




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

On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 14:01:09 -0400, Bob Cain wrote
(in article ):



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


Dear Bob,

We'll never get right with each other, because you just like to argue and you
don't really give a **** about what or where.

We've had these discussions about the problem in the past. Please do me (and
the group) a really big favor and try (as hard as it may be) not to be so
redundant. Please play by the rules or go somewhere where BOB makes the
rules. You'll be happier and rap will be happier.

This is as nice as I get Bob. If you persist, it's only gets worse.

Here's a quote especially for you. "A man hears what he wants to hear and
disregards the rest."...Paul Simon.

Have a nice life.

Ty Ford




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

Ty Ford wrote:

I'm not surprised. A time honored policy of polite society is NOT to discuss
politics or religion.


And that whole Doppler thing, either.

Ty Ford wrote:

I'm not surprised. A time honored policy of polite society is NOT to discuss
politics or religion.


And that whole Doppler thing, either.

"Bob Cain" wrote in message
...
You really don't seem to want this. Administrative reasons
and sheer pessimism aside, why is that?

I'm not against it. My perceived opposition is due purely to what you call
pessimism (I call it realism). I think the proponents are underestimating
the difficulty of the task.

http://tinyurl.com/6hew7 -- Here's a nice piece of history, it's a google
groups search of the RFD and CFV for rec.audio.pro (circa 1992). To make a
new group, you have to jump through these hoops, except now it's harder.

Here's the problem: it's going to waste a lot of (somebody's) time, fill
the group with yet even more non-audio-related threads for at least 45 days,
and probably -- in the end -- not happen.

1. It takes a minimum of (something like) 45 days to go from RFD to CFV.
During this time, there'll be an enormous amount of discussion on
news.groups AND rec.audio.pro -- because people inevitably start
crossposting the discussion threads.

2. Someone has to be the proponent of this and has to devote a huge amount
of time arguing for, answering questions about, and defending the proposal
during the RFD phase.

3. When a CFV happens, the proposal has to pass by a 3-to-1 margin (IIRC) --
that's right, 3 yes votes for every no vote! And anyone can vote, including
the USENET admins, who may vote "no" for lots of reasons, including what
they perceive as "misuses" of USENET, the existance of groups that already
fulfill the needs of the proposed group, poorly thought-out justifications
in the proposal, etc.

In all honesty, I would probably vote in favor of such a proposal, just out
of shear desparation to lower OT/flame threads. But (also) in all honesty, I
don't think it'll pass. And I hold the (yes) pessimistic view that the
creation of such a group won't fix the problem, at least not in the long
term. I *KNOW* it won't make the trolls go away. "Please, trolls, go to
rec.audio.pro.saloon -- we've made a place for you there."

But please, don't take my word for it. Subscribe to news.groups and ask the
admins. If you post something on news.groups, someone there will point you
to the FAQs, you might even find an admin who'll help with the wording of
the proposal, tell you why it may or may not pass, and help improve its
chances of passing.


Stu

"Bob Cain" wrote in message
...
You really don't seem to want this. Administrative reasons
and sheer pessimism aside, why is that?

I'm not against it. My perceived opposition is due purely to what you call
pessimism (I call it realism). I think the proponents are underestimating
the difficulty of the task.

http://tinyurl.com/6hew7 -- Here's a nice piece of history, it's a google
groups search of the RFD and CFV for rec.audio.pro (circa 1992). To make a
new group, you have to jump through these hoops, except now it's harder.

Here's the problem: it's going to waste a lot of (somebody's) time, fill
the group with yet even more non-audio-related threads for at least 45 days,
and probably -- in the end -- not happen.

1. It takes a minimum of (something like) 45 days to go from RFD to CFV.
During this time, there'll be an enormous amount of discussion on
news.groups AND rec.audio.pro -- because people inevitably start
crossposting the discussion threads.

2. Someone has to be the proponent of this and has to devote a huge amount
of time arguing for, answering questions about, and defending the proposal
during the RFD phase.

3. When a CFV happens, the proposal has to pass by a 3-to-1 margin (IIRC) --
that's right, 3 yes votes for every no vote! And anyone can vote, including
the USENET admins, who may vote "no" for lots of reasons, including what
they perceive as "misuses" of USENET, the existance of groups that already
fulfill the needs of the proposed group, poorly thought-out justifications
in the proposal, etc.

In all honesty, I would probably vote in favor of such a proposal, just out
of shear desparation to lower OT/flame threads. But (also) in all honesty, I
don't think it'll pass. And I hold the (yes) pessimistic view that the
creation of such a group won't fix the problem, at least not in the long
term. I *KNOW* it won't make the trolls go away. "Please, trolls, go to
rec.audio.pro.saloon -- we've made a place for you there."

But please, don't take my word for it. Subscribe to news.groups and ask the
admins. If you post something on news.groups, someone there will point you
to the FAQs, you might even find an admin who'll help with the wording of
the proposal, tell you why it may or may not pass, and help improve its
chances of passing.


Stu