Loretta Eisenberg wrote:
I believe that the majority of the participants here are type II so
most of the ideas are geared towards type IIs.

We do have a number of type Is but type IIs outnumber them.

In my opinion, there is no need for segregation.

Loretta

t1s need the expertise and support t2s provide, and vice versa. On
alt.config Peter C has a proposal which is being thoroughly rubbished. How
about everyone moseying on over there to state we need each other?!! Further
fragmentation is not needed, witness the low-volume of Peter Cs mailing list
on Yahoo, on alt.food.diabetic, and on uk.people support.diabetes.

Al. A t1 who has learned a lot fromt2s

RK wrote:
I agree!


I wonder how many of us could do without the sanity and common-sense
provided by so many t2s. Lists are invidious and always incomplete, so I
won`t give one, but there are immdiately 4 ladies who spring to mind,
without a moment`s thought.

So, from my heart I ask, if the proposal succeeds (HARRUMPH) please don`t
go, not anybody.
--
Al.
Idiopathic t1
Last HbA1c 5.95 Total Chol 2.7
Current Blood Pressure 118/74 Resting Pulse Rate 71
Beef Lente 1x Beef Neutral 2x

And I need my t2 friends

Al Hardy wrote:

So, from my heart I ask, if the proposal succeeds (HARRUMPH)

That's not how alt.config works. It's an unmanaged hierarchy, no
"central management" to approve/reject proposals. No votes, nothing
like that.

The regs here are limited to simply giving advice and counsel on how to
format a control message and opinions on whether or not "we" think a
group can succeed or not. Sometimes that advice is contradictory.

A proponent can pick and choose which advice to listen to, if any. A
proponent can reject all advice given and pursue a course of action on
his/her own. Costs the same either way

A proponent will decide if it's worth the time and energy to send a
control message AND THEN promote the group (sending a control message is
the easy part, getting the group carried by thousands of servers
world-wide is the difficult part).

Even if then, there's no "rule" that says someone must use the new
group. If you're considered to be posting ontopic in the groups that
already exist, then that will remain true.

B/

On Thu, 1 Jan 2004 20:03:07 -0000, in alt.config, "Al Hardy"
wrote:

How about everyone moseying on over there to state
we need each other?!!

The voting booth is closed for the holidays

--
__









This space is reserved for my .sig








___
Meow

I agree!

--
RK - t1
In tribute to the United States of America and the State
of Israel, two bastions of strength in a world filled with strife and
terrorism.

"Al Hardy" wrote in message
...
Loretta Eisenberg wrote:
I believe that the majority of the participants here are type II so
most of the ideas are geared towards type IIs.

We do have a number of type Is but type IIs outnumber them.

In my opinion, there is no need for segregation.

Loretta

t1s need the expertise and support t2s provide, and vice versa. On
alt.config Peter C has a proposal which is being thoroughly rubbished. How
about everyone moseying on over there to state we need each other?!!
Further
fragmentation is not needed, witness the low-volume of Peter Cs mailing
list
on Yahoo, on alt.food.diabetic, and on uk.people support.diabetes.

Al. A t1 who has learned a lot fromt2s

"Vo=BFo-Do=BFo Highway" wrote:
=

On Thu, 1 Jan 2004 20:03:07 -0000, in alt.config, "Al Hardy"
wrote:
=

How about everyone moseying on over there to state
we need each other?!!
=

The voting booth is closed for the holidays

But the beer cooler^H^H^Hballot box is open.

B/

On Thu, 1 Jan 2004 20:03:07 -0000, "Al Hardy"
scribbled:

How
about everyone moseying on over there to state we need each other?!!

How about everyone NOT. There's no voting in alt. your opinions
don't matter since alt.config does NOT approve or disapprove
of new groups. Kindly DON'T mosey on over.

--
Want to propose a newsgroup? Browse these links for help:
http://www.faqs.org/usenet/alt/
http://www.gweep.ca/~edmonds/usenet/good-newgroup.html
http://nylon.net/alt/newgroup.htm
For information on moderating a newsgroup:
http://www.swcp.com/~dmckeon/mod-faq.html
http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/faqs/mod-pitfalls.html
http://www.landfield.com/moderators/
Tale discusses control messages:
ftp://ftp.isc.org/pub/usenet/CONFIG/README
For proposals that belong in the UK hierarchy:
http://www.usenet.org.uk/
To locate a newsgroup control message:
ftp://ftp.isc.org/pub/usenet/control/[hierarchy]/[group.name].gz
Open with WinZip.
Newsgroup Propagation Search:
http://usenet.klaas.ca/groupsearch/

i just asked the question if such a group devoted to type 2 diabetes was
necessary / wanted by t2s in two newsgroups. the consensus is against it (
although there have been very few comments on it as yet ) so no proposal
will be sent as a control message for a new group. Asking such questions
from time to time is perfectly legitimate and really i have no idea why some
people are getting so aerated about what should be a simple matter to
discuss nor why some posters are seeing such sinister motives in my original
questions.
"Brian Mailman" wrote in message
...
Al Hardy wrote:

So, from my heart I ask, if the proposal succeeds (HARRUMPH)

That's not how alt.config works. It's an unmanaged hierarchy, no
"central management" to approve/reject proposals. No votes, nothing
like that.

The regs here are limited to simply giving advice and counsel on how to
format a control message and opinions on whether or not "we" think a
group can succeed or not. Sometimes that advice is contradictory.

A proponent can pick and choose which advice to listen to, if any. A
proponent can reject all advice given and pursue a course of action on
his/her own. Costs the same either way

A proponent will decide if it's worth the time and energy to send a
control message AND THEN promote the group (sending a control message is
the easy part, getting the group carried by thousands of servers
world-wide is the difficult part).

Even if then, there's no "rule" that says someone must use the new
group. If you're considered to be posting ontopic in the groups that
already exist, then that will remain true.

B/

On Fri, 02 Jan 2004 00:04:00 +0000, Peter C posted:

i just asked the question if such a group devoted to type 2 diabetes was
necessary / wanted by t2s in two newsgroups. the consensus is against it (
although there have been very few comments on it as yet ) so no proposal
will be sent as a control message for a new group. Asking such questions
from time to time is perfectly legitimate and really i have no idea why some
people are getting so aerated about what should be a simple matter to

Perhaps if you listened to the advice given to you instead of arguing and
whining, you wouldn't **** so many people off.

discuss nor why some posters are seeing such sinister motives in my original
questions.
"Brian Mailman" wrote in message
...
Al Hardy wrote:

So, from my heart I ask, if the proposal succeeds (HARRUMPH)

That's not how alt.config works. It's an unmanaged hierarchy, no
"central management" to approve/reject proposals. No votes, nothing
like that.

The regs here are limited to simply giving advice and counsel on how to
format a control message and opinions on whether or not "we" think a
group can succeed or not. Sometimes that advice is contradictory.

A proponent can pick and choose which advice to listen to, if any. A
proponent can reject all advice given and pursue a course of action on
his/her own. Costs the same either way

A proponent will decide if it's worth the time and energy to send a
control message AND THEN promote the group (sending a control message is
the easy part, getting the group carried by thousands of servers
world-wide is the difficult part).

Even if then, there's no "rule" that says someone must use the new
group. If you're considered to be posting ontopic in the groups that
already exist, then that will remain true.

B/
--
Steve alt.test FAQ Enforcer badge# 7G.H2O-L0K
mhm28x28 alt.pizza.delivery.drivers# 5t3v13-80y

http://www.petitmorte.net/stevew/

Peter C wrote:

i just asked the question if such a group devoted to type 2 diabetes was
necessary / wanted by t2s in two newsgroups. the consensus is against it (
although there have been very few comments on it as yet ) so no proposal
will be sent as a control message for a new group. Asking such questions
from time to time is perfectly legitimate and really i have no idea why some
people are getting so aerated about what should be a simple matter to
discuss nor why some posters are seeing such sinister motives in my original
questions.

Because 1) You still haven't learned to stop top posting and
2) The proposal to split the discussion was made in alt.config.

When proponents go behind the backs of users of the groups in question without
having first consulted with those posting on the topic, when they misrepresent
the situation in existing newsgroups, then it's fair game to assume that such
proponents intend a disruptive split of the discussion.

Proposals for splits are ALWAYS premature when first proposed in alt.config.
They MUST be proposed in the affected newsgroups. It's their call!

"Brian Mailman" wrote in message
...
Al Hardy wrote:

So, from my heart I ask, if the proposal succeeds (HARRUMPH)

That's not how alt.config works. It's an unmanaged hierarchy, no
"central management" to approve/reject proposals. No votes, nothing
like that.

The regs here are limited to simply giving advice and counsel on how to
format a control message and opinions on whether or not "we" think a
group can succeed or not. Sometimes that advice is contradictory.

A proponent can pick and choose which advice to listen to, if any. A
proponent can reject all advice given and pursue a course of action on
his/her own. Costs the same either way

A proponent will decide if it's worth the time and energy to send a
control message AND THEN promote the group (sending a control message is
the easy part, getting the group carried by thousands of servers
world-wide is the difficult part).

Even if then, there's no "rule" that says someone must use the new
group. If you're considered to be posting ontopic in the groups that
already exist, then that will remain true.

B/

sorry Adam i just followed the guidelines set out in a ng "how to .." do a
proposal. Alt.config, as i understand it, are only supposed to comment on
whether the proposal would be adequate as a control message to set up a
newsgroup. The posters in alt.config, who stuck to that brief, rather than
the ones who took up the wider ethical issues such as yourself , agreed that
with the deletion of one "s" and the addition of a full stop, my proposal
would have passed muster as a control message should it have been needed.
Thank you for your input Adam, i am sure that today there are half a dozen
more proposals for you to sink your teeth into.

"Peter C" wrote in news:bt3gra$2t62k$1@ID-
126567.news.uni-berlin.de:

Alt.config, as i understand it, are only supposed to comment on
whether the proposal would be adequate as a control message to set up a
newsgroup

Myth.

Peter C wrote:

sorry Adam i just followed the guidelines set out in a ng "how to .." do a
proposal. Alt.config, as i understand it, are only supposed to comment on
whether the proposal would be adequate as a control message to set up a
newsgroup. The posters in alt.config, who stuck to that brief,

The *one* poster, who is known to encourage weak proposals and
purposefully NOT give complete information in order to falsely bolster
someone's ego as well as sabotage the effort.

Something g'ma used to say about leading and garden paths...
B/

Brian Mailman wrote:
Peter C wrote:

sorry Adam i just followed the guidelines set out in a ng "how to
.." do a proposal. Alt.config, as i understand it, are only
supposed to comment on whether the proposal would be adequate as a
control message to set up a newsgroup. The posters in alt.config,
who stuck to that brief,

The *one* poster, who is known to encourage weak proposals and
purposefully NOT give complete information in order to falsely bolster
someone's ego as well as sabotage the effort.

Something g'ma used to say about leading and garden paths...

....plus something Adam used to say about "blowing" and "sunshine".

dvus

dvus wrote:

Brian Mailman wrote:
Peter C wrote:

sorry Adam i just followed the guidelines set out in a ng "how to
.." do a proposal. Alt.config, as i understand it, are only
supposed to comment on whether the proposal would be adequate as a
control message to set up a newsgroup. The posters in alt.config,
who stuck to that brief,

The *one* poster, who is known to encourage weak proposals and
purposefully NOT give complete information in order to falsely bolster
someone's ego as well as sabotage the effort.

Something g'ma used to say about leading and garden paths...

...plus something Adam used to say about "blowing" and "sunshine".

Johan's Clue-Meter is one tool, another one can be the measure of
attraction a proponent has to certain disruptive elements.

B/