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/

"Brian Mailman" > wrote in

Well Brian the funny thing is that the proposal i roughed out on alt.config
was Ratty's proposal which underlies this ng ( alt.support.diabetes.uk )
with "type2" added where appropriate. The mainly different bit was the
"Justification" which I should have focused on likely traffic rather than
overall general justification.
But that was also amusing - when someone quoted 2500 posts on type 2
diabetes in the last 90 days, some posters said that volume of interest
looked likely justification for the proposed group, others stated flatly
that no new ng was needed because there were already 2500 posts on the
subject in other ngs ! Very confusing.
I can't really see what useful function alt.config serves if it is so beset
with trolls who fight each other rather than weigh up proposals.

"Peter C" > wrote in
:

> But that was also amusing - when someone quoted 2500 posts on type 2
> diabetes in the last 90 days, some posters said that volume of
> interest looked likely justification for the proposed group, others
> stated flatly that no new ng was needed because there were already
> 2500 posts on the subject in other ngs ! Very confusing.

Wait a minute - wasn't the person who said that 2500 was good
justification YOU? No wonder you're confused.

> I can't really see what useful function alt.config serves if it is so
> beset with trolls who fight each other rather than weigh up proposals.

Well, in this case, it served the "useful function" of bringing the
existing diabetes groups in on the discussion, before a potentially harmful
split was attempted without them knowing.

What's the point of continuing to rake this over? Do you still think you
have a good proposal?

On Fri, 02 Jan 2004 10:23:45 +0000, Peter C posted:

> 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.

Alt.config are "supposed to" do nothing. We are not a company, we are not
employed or contracted by anyone, we are people who happen to subscribe
here and know a fair bit about Usenet. Most alt.config regulars will help
a proponent by either telling them what their proposal needs to become
worth sending, or point out existing active newsgroups which cover the
topic in question. Both have taken place.

> 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

The "Justification" you wrote was not justification.

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

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

Peter C > wrote:

>sorry Adam i just followed the guidelines set out in a ng "how to .." do a
>proposal.

What FAQ is that?

>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.

alt.config is an ordinary newsgroup. The main topic is discussion of proposals
for new alt groups and their potential impact on existing groups. What made
you think there would be no discussion?

>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.

You had your ass kissed by Eugene; he likes doing that. It's especially
sad when he plays his little games with proponents whose actions could
have serious consequences for the users of valuable newsgroups. There are
actually a few such groups on Usenet. The diabetes groups are among those. If
you care about decent discussion of diabetes at all, I'd urge you to make
improving the quality of discussion your first consideration. Sometimes,
the best way to do that is to participate in existing newsgroups.

>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.

The point is that the proponent needs to take pride in his own work and make
an effort to understand the true needs of those discussing the topic.

Peter C > wrote:

>Well Brian the funny thing is that the proposal i roughed out on alt.config
>was Ratty's proposal which underlies this ng ( alt.support.diabetes.uk )
>with "type2" added where appropriate. The mainly different bit was the
>"Justification" which I should have focused on likely traffic rather than
>overall general justification.

Sorry, dude, but there are different kinds of proposals, just like there are
different kinds of diabetes. The quality of DISCUSSION is the paramount issue,
not appeasing the proponent's ego.

As it happens, Type 1 and Type 2 diabetes are discussed together, They are the
main topics of several existing newsgroups. You didn't bother to ask any of
the hundreds of people discussing diabetes if they wanted to split out the
discussion of Type 1 and Type 2, if they wanted yet another diabetes group.

>But that was also amusing - when someone quoted 2500 posts on type 2
>diabetes in the last 90 days, some posters said that volume of interest
>looked likely justification for the proposed group, others stated flatly
>that no new ng was needed because there were already 2500 posts on the
>subject in other ngs ! Very confusing.

For the twelth time, I pointed out that there were NUMEROUS Type 2 messages to
counter your misrepresentation that Type 2 could not be successfully discussed
in any of the existing newsgroups, that therefore, yet another diabetes group
was needed.

In the case of a split, which this is, the existing users have to support the
proponent. The raw numbers of messages are less important than whether a
consensus to split the newsgroup exists.

You have no support. Please withdraw the proposal.

>I can't really see what useful function alt.config serves if it is so beset
>with trolls who fight each other rather than weigh up proposals.

Said by a proponent who failed to weigh the feelings and needs of the users of
the existing groups before attempting to force them to change their posting
habits.

On Sat, 03 Jan 2004 02:53:46 +0000, Adam H. Kerman posted:

> Peter C > wrote:
>
>>sorry Adam i just followed the guidelines set out in a ng "how to .." do a
>>proposal.
>
> What FAQ is that?
>
>>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.
>
> alt.config is an ordinary newsgroup. The main topic is discussion of proposals
> for new alt groups and their potential impact on existing groups. What made
> you think there would be no discussion?
>
>>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.
>
> You had your ass kissed by Eugene; he likes doing that. It's especially
> sad when he plays his little games with proponents whose actions could
> have serious consequences for the users of valuable newsgroups. There are
> actually a few such groups on Usenet. The diabetes groups are among those. If
> you care about decent discussion of diabetes at all, I'd urge you to make
> improving the quality of discussion your first consideration. Sometimes,
> the best way to do that is to participate in existing newsgroups.

Having said that, I have a funny feeling Peter thinks that if you create a
newsgroup you are in-charge of it. Perhaps Peter wants "his own" newsgroup
all to himself so he can rule and dictate.

>>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.
>
> The point is that the proponent needs to take pride in his own work and make
> an effort to understand the true needs of those discussing the topic.
--
Steve alt.test FAQ Enforcer badge# 7G.H2O-L0K
mhm28x28 alt.pizza.delivery.drivers# 5t3v13-80y

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

Esta Vida Nueva > wrote:

>Having said that, I have a funny feeling Peter thinks that if you create a
>newsgroup you are in-charge of it. Perhaps Peter wants "his own" newsgroup
>all to himself so he can rule and dictate.

Hope he's not too lonely on his very own news server.

"ratzilla" > wrote in message > What's the point of
continuing to rake this over?

so why dont you STFU ?

"Peter C" > wrote in news:bt67ev$3n0j9$1@ID-
126567.news.uni-berlin.de:

>
> "ratzilla" > wrote in message > What's the point of
> continuing to rake this over?
>
> so why dont you STFU ?

I take it that means "there's no point", then. Bye bye.

On Sat, 03 Jan 2004 11:01:50 +0000, Peter C posted:

>
> "ratzilla" > wrote in message > What's the point of
> continuing to rake this over?
>
> so why dont you STFU ?

Why *are* you still here?

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

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

Peter C wrote:
> "ratzilla" > wrote:

>> What's the point of continuing to rake this over?
>
> so why dont you STFU ?

Why, so you can misrepresent the facts and have no one dispute it?

The fact is that you asked what was the "point" of alt.config and
ratzilla pointed out that:
"in this case, it served the "useful function" of bringing the existing
diabetes groups in on the discussion, before a potentially harmful split
was attempted without them knowing."

I don't see you addressing this important "function" ac served in this
case, I just see you ignoring it and telling him to "STFU". The truth
hurts, as they say.

dvus