XPost: rec.woodworking 
 From: igopogo@ix.netcom.com 
  
 ru.igarashi@usask.ca wrote in news:chqcs7$7nt$1@tribune.usask.ca: 
  
 > In news.groups John McCoy  wrote: 
 >>ru.igarashi@usask.ca wrote in news:chnljh$i45$2@tribune.usask.ca: 
 > 
 >>>   The issue 
 >>> at hand is whether an existing topic space, with existing readership, 
 >>> can be made usable (again) 
 > 
 >>You have slightly jumped the gun here, ru.  The question of whether 
 >>the existing topic space is unusable has not been determined (and 
 >>I would say the evidence is that the current group is very usable, 
 >>hence the trend to oppose creating a .mod group). 
 > 
 > Ultimately, that is what this proposal would determine if it is 
 > followed through.  If there are enough people that vote for it's 
 > creation, then that would indicate that enough people think the 
 > existing group is not usable and that the proposed group should 
 > be created.  Basically, that's what matters most, barring 
 > moderation issues.  So in some sense, whether the existing 
 > group is considered usable or not by a majority is irrelevant. 
  
 Well, the wording of your original statement (topic space... 
 can be made usable) implies the replacement of the current group 
 with the moderated group (yes, I recognize that the way things 
 work right now, a true replacement isn't possible).  It may not 
 be obvious to everyone reading this thread that both a mod and 
 a non-mod group can exist in parallel. 
  
 With both groups potentially existing, two questions arise:  firstly, 
 would the new .mod group attract enough readership to be viable (and, 
 as you say, the vote will reveal that; I suspect the answer will be 
 no, but we shall see); and secondly if the proposed moderators 
 understand and are capable of doing what they propose (which I do 
 not beleive to be the case, and on which grounds I'll vote no if 
 the proposal reaches a CFV). 
  
 John 
  
 --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05 
  * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)