From: pack-news@rattus.net 
  
 Lionel  writes: 
  
 > Kibo informs me that Alan Browne  
 > stated that: 
 > 
 > >With all due respect to the news.groups-ies, while their efforts 
 > >rigor is appreciated inasmuch as it is strenghtening the 
 > >proposlal, I don't believe they have a feel for the culture of 
 > >the intended group to the degree that I, Thad or you have. 
 > 
 > While there are many things I've disagreed with the news.groupies about 
 > at one time or another, this is one area where I agree 100% with their 
 > stance. 
 > A newsgroup with a name that is at odds with the 'intent' of the 
 > proponent is one that is broken. You are setting the group up for all 
 > sorts of totally unneccessary flame wars over the conflict between the 
 > name & the charter. No matter what you or I consider to be the "culture 
 > of the intended group", the fact is that it's important for people to be 
 > able to see the name of the group & get a fairly accurate idea what it's 
 > about. If they arrive in the group with a mistaken, (but reasonable) 
 > interpretation of the group topic, then you will inevitably (a) get 
 > flamage over the misinterpretation, & (b) spend half your life telling 
 > people that their posts are off-topic, & pointing them at the 'right' 
 > newsgroup. 
  
 This would get /so/ much easier if people would either 
  
 1) really go with DSLR-only topics, whatever those are, and not faff 
    about trying to include other stuff that would be handy for them to 
    have in the same group, or 
  
 2) admit that they're really out-and-out elitists and pick one of the 
    many much more suitable group names that I've suggested. 
  
 And these are exactly the same two alternatives that myself and 
 several other people suggested right at the start. 
  
 The proponents appear to be hiding behind a quite strongly (ho ho ho) 
 worded charter in the hope that this will protect them from poor 
 newsgroup design. One might as well codify Godwin's law in the bloody 
 thing[1]. How about bottom posting! I won't vote yes for a charter 
 that doesn't include a requirement for bottom posting, and every third 
 word to start with a vowel on tuesdays, and an annual Welsh day. How 
 about a charter that explictly excludes people that the proponents 
 don't like by name? 
  
 A simpler charter really is likely to be a better one, particularly 
 when it comes down to scope. 
  
 B> 
  
 [1] Hitler Hitler Hitler, there I said it. 
  
 --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05 
  * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)