From: yowie9644@DIE.SPAM.DIE.yahoo.com.au 
  
 "Joe Bernstein"  wrote in message 
 news:bko6i5$74v$1@reader2.panix.com... 
 > In article <3f6e2721$0$23150$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au>, 
 > Yowie  wrote: 
 > > While I myself am sympathetic to the formation of the group, I haven't 
 > > seen much evidence in the RFD discussion so far that anyone will 
 > > actually want to post to rpc.breeds. And while I don't subscribe to all 
 > > of the rec.pets.cats heirachy, there has been virtually no discussion 
 > > about the formation of a breeder group in the ones I do read. I am 
 > > also unaware of any mailing list for breeders, although I admit I have 
 > > not really gone out looking as I am not a breeder. My vote is now 
 > > wavering - while I can see why breeders want a spot in cyberspace that 
 > > is not full of abuse from the anti-breeder brigade, I'm unconvinced of 
 > > the need of another group in the rpc heirachy if its going to be 
 > > exceedingly low traffic (as is currently suggested by the discussions 
 > > I've seen here). As information about different breeds is already out 
 > > there on the 'net (and indeed, the FAQs for many are posted in 
 > > rpc.announce, even if it is a 'bot posting them), I am sceptical as to 
 > > the purpose of the group. Sure, there are people out there who breed 
 > > cats and would like to discuss *breeding* with other breeders (rather 
 > > than the breeds themselves), but who are they and are they likely to 
 > > post to Usenet? 
 > > 
 > > In other words, do we need another NG when there doens't seem to be too 
 much 
 > > evidence of people likely to post to it? 
 > 
 > It's not clear to me what these paragraphs represent.  So I'm going to 
 > tackle several possibilities: 
 > 
 > 1) The poster is considering voting ABSTAIN rather than YES.  It 
 >    appears that ?she is not, in fact, terribly likely to use the 
 >    group, so by normal news.groups standards, ABSTAIN is in fact 
 >    the proper vote.  Let the group pass or fail on its own. 
 > 
 > 2) The poster is considering voting NO rather than YES because of 
 >    an expectation of low traffic. 
 >       This sort of self-fulfilling prophecy is, in my opinion at 
 >    least, an extremely bad idea.  Do what you can to make sure 
 >    people don't vote YES just out of sympathy with the breeders, 
 >    and thus inflate the totals; but don't make it harder for the 
 >    group to be created just because you don't think it'll get 
 >    enough traffic.  These days, it's a fairly safe bet that if a 
 >    group can get enough votes in the first place, it *will* get 
 >    traffic. 
  
 That is fair enough, and I'll probably either abstain or vote yes. 
  
 I am new to news.groups, and am on a steep learning curve, so may not be 
 basing my thoughts on how things happen in Usenet. However, I am not a big 
 fan of the principle 'build it and they shall come', because I know there 
 are an enormous number of NGs out there that are nothing more than spam 
 accumulators. Perhaps "empty" NGs are less common in the Big8, but there is 
 something about empty NGs that deeply irks me. 
  
 > 3) The poster is trying to influence the proponent's behaviour. 
  
 Yes, this is the reason, although perhaps not clearly stated. 
  
 While I'm happy for the breeders of cats to have their own cyberspace, I am 
 wondering if a new NG is the best possible option. While that in of itself 
 is no reason to vote "no" as such, I don't like seeing cyberspace and 
 various people's time used unnecessarily. If a mailing list would better 
 serve the breeding community for example, I'd encourage them to make a 
 mailing list rather than an NG. 
  
 I am not encouraging other people to vote "no", what I'd *like* to see is 
 the original proponent put forward a much stronger case for the creation of 
 the breed group. At the moment, it seems to this admitted newbie that the 
 proponent feels that there *ought* to be a NG for breeders in the cat 
 heirachy, and that is pretty much the only reason that s/he has put it up 
 for discussion. I'd like to be convinced, with facts is possible, of the 
 *need* for one. 
  
 >       You are, I think, the FAQ-keeper for rec.pets.cats.anecdotes. 
 >    Aren't you glad most people didn't vote my way? 
  
 Sure am! RPCA is my "home" group. It runs into well over 100+ messages a day 
 (I can barely keep up!) and is a thriving community in its own right. The 
 anecdotes FAQ is my attempt to compile some explanations for our sometimes 
 eccentric behaviour (compared both to standard netiquette and general 
 societal norms) and our "in jokes"  that could completely bamboozle a 
 newcomer to the group. 
  
 > I don't find your arguments unreasonable at all.  I just don't know 
 > where you're taking them, so wanted to cover the bases. 
 > 
 > Regardless, you've now persuaded me that you are, in fact, the kind 
 > of person news.groups needs around.  Welcome! 
  
  Thankyou. And I'm a she-Yowie if thats important to you. 
  
 Glad to have helped! 
  
 Yowie 
  
 --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05 
  * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)