Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!ames!ncar!woods From: woods@ncar.ucar.edu (Greg Woods) Newsgroups: news.admin Subject: Re: SRH (soc.rights.human) is up, but with problems Message-ID: <4121@ncar.ucar.edu> Date: 25 Aug 89 17:46:40 GMT References: <19391@usc.edu> <19433@usc.edu> <578@uvaarpa.virginia.edu> <19448@usc.edu> Reply-To: woods@handies.UCAR.EDU (Greg Woods) Organization: Scientific Computing Division/NCAR, Boulder CO Lines: 35 In article <19448@usc.edu> kriz@skat.usc.edu (Dennis Kriz) writes: >Greg Woods IS obligated to create the group if it says that to create >the group one can send a message to that effect to "newgroup@ncar.ucar.edu" That address is not my personal mailbox, it goes to several people. The guidelines say that if your system administrator can't create the group, you can send a message to that address. NOWHERE does it say that anyone is obligated to respond to such a request. Nor does it say anywhere that newgroup messages have to come from a certain set of people. Honoring only certain people's newgroup messages is a decision made independently by certain site administrators and does NOT come out of the guidelines. >What is silly is that this objection was only voiced *after* I put the group >up for a vote. That is simply NOT TRUE. I posted my objection to placing this group in the soc hierarchy IMMEDIATELY after I first saw the original call for discussion. Dennis is just plain wrong here. >The inspiration for SRH was SCC (soc.culture.china). The political discussions in SCC are not appropriate to the original charter of the newsgroup. While there is nothing that can be done to stop them (short of creating a talk.politics.china) the fact that one newsgroup is currently carrying discussions not appropriate to its charter or the hierarchy it is in is really a rotten justification for creating ANOTHER misnamed group. >SCC also is carried world-wide, whereas "talk" groups tend to stay state-side. This is an even WORSE justification. The Europeans (and others) choose not to pay for talk groups for a REASON. Their wishes ought to be respected. Sneaking a group into the wrong hierarchy to get around someone's desire to not pay for political discussions is really a dirty trick. --Greg