Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#41
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#42
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#43
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#44
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#45
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#46
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#47
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#48
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#49
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#50
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#51
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#53
|
|||
|
|||
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? |
#54
|
|||
|
|||
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? |
#55
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#56
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#57
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#58
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#59
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#60
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#61
|
|||
|
|||
"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... |
#62
|
|||
|
|||
"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... |
#63
|
|||
|
|||
"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... |
#64
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#65
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#66
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#67
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#68
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#69
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#70
|
|||
|
|||
"David Morgan (MAMS)" wrote in message
news:0o55d.2182$Wu1.1960@trnddc02... "playon" wrote in message... For one thing, the political NGs are full of real crazies... I don't know if anyone has mentioned this but a rec.audio.politics-religion would be more fitting. I'm a member of other audio "coffeehouses" and care about the non-audio conversation there but about 95% of that is religion-politics. |
#71
|
|||
|
|||
"David Morgan (MAMS)" wrote in message
news:0o55d.2182$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. |
#72
|
|||
|
|||
"David Morgan (MAMS)" wrote in message
news:0o55d.2182$Wu1.1960@trnddc02... "playon" wrote in message... For one thing, the political NGs are full of real crazies... I don't know if anyone has mentioned this but a rec.audio.politics-religion would be more fitting. I'm a member of other audio "coffeehouses" and care about the non-audio conversation there but about 95% of that is religion-politics. |
#73
|
|||
|
|||
On Sat, 25 Sep 2004 02:13:27 -0400, Ricky W. Hunt wrote
(in article b085d.106312$MQ5.103647@attbi_s52): "David Morgan (MAMS)" wrote in message news:0o55d.2182$Wu1.1960@trnddc02... "playon" wrote in message... For one thing, the political NGs are full of real crazies... I don't know if anyone has mentioned this but a rec.audio.politics-religion would be more fitting. I'm a member of other audio "coffeehouses" and care about the non-audio conversation there but about 95% of that is religion-politics. I'm not surprised. A time honored policy of polite society is NOT to discuss politics or religion. Ty Ford -- Ty Ford's equipment reviews, audio samples, rates and other audiocentric stuff are at www.tyford.com |
#74
|
|||
|
|||
On Sat, 25 Sep 2004 02:13:27 -0400, Ricky W. Hunt wrote
(in article b085d.106312$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 |
#75
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#76
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#77
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#78
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#79
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#80
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
WTB:USED MOVING COIL PHONO CARTRIDGES< TONEARMS | Marketplace | |||
FS: Goldring Elite Moving Coil Cartridge $225 | Marketplace | |||
WTB: Sony Moving Coil cartridge | Marketplace | |||
FA: Ortofon T-20 Moving Coil Transformer | Marketplace | |||
WTB: PHONO PREAMP MM/MC; MOVING COIL; PHONO PREAMP OR PRE PREAMP) | Marketplace |