Nancy Young wrote:
> "Nick Andrew" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Katherine" > writes:
>>
>>> I am not a luddite. But I can't find ballots anywhere.
>>
>> I guess you didn't read the CALL FOR VOTES then.
>> You've got only 34 hours to get your vote in.
>
> I think she's already voted, but if she hadn't, I don't see
> any help here coming from you. Why don't you just tell
> her how instead of posting this?

Thanks, Nancy. Fortunately, Lindsay pointed me in the right direction.

Katherine

Nancy Young wrote:

>
> "Nick Andrew" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Katherine" > writes:
>>
>>>I am not a luddite. But I can't find ballots anywhere.
>>
>> I guess you didn't read the CALL FOR VOTES then.
>> You've got only 34 hours to get your vote in.
>
> I think she's already voted, but if she hadn't, I don't see
> any help here coming from you. Why don't you just tell
> her how instead of posting this?

But he did tell her how to vote - in the CFV.

Katherine only needed to read the CFV as advised. Just simply telling her
how to cast the vote kinda defeats the purpose of the CFV and is akin to
asking someone to sign a contract without first reading the contract.

Victor Sack wrote:
> > wrote:
>
> > Wrong thread for that sort of discussion. It's a call for votes, not a
> > call for whingers to moan and groan about being ignored becuase their
> > objections aren't being agreed with. Nothing flew over my head other
> > than your need to go on and on and on about something that is obviuosly
> > outside your bounds of control. Do you like to be controlling and hate
> > it when things don't go your way?
>
> I'm arguing my case in the only thread that is relevant to it. Are you
> trying to be controlling of what and where people post? What a
> hypocrite!
>
> > > It is unethical to vote "YES" for a group one couldn't care less about.
> > > What an unprincipled decision!
> >
> > What's more unethical than hijacking a thread about a new aus food
> > group to rant and rave about your feelings on the whole aus hierarchy?
>
> Hijacking a thread, indeed! Any thread about any new group in an
> administrative newsgroup is almost by definition about the whole
> hierarchy too, when there are issues that obviously touch the whole.
> Duh!
>
> > You're allowed your opinion and yes, you've made it perfectly clear
> > many, many times. Have you thought about the negative impact that it
> > could have on other posters attitude toward the subject? Feh, talk
> > about principles.
>
> Why, yes, one posts one's opinion to have a negative or positive or
> neutral impact, as the case may be. Else why post at all? Have I had
> such a negative impact on you? Has your attitude toward the subject
> suffered a lot? Oh, the poor, poor attitude! And such a touchy concern
> for those hapless sheep (other posters) who cannot even form their own
> opinion! You wouldn't know principles if they hit your on the head.

And there lies the rub. other posters are just hapless sheep? You're
opnion of yourself is vastly over inflated. I wouldn't know principles
if they hit me on the head? What are you blithering on about man?

FYI I was pointing out that by posting over and over and over again
with the same whiney attitude that you would have a negative impact on
those who were understanding of your cause. Now by posting such inane
diatribe you've cemented those 'hapless sheep's thoughts (even though
they can't 'form their own opinion') into voting for this NG. I've seen
a couple of posts mentioning this because of your 'attitude'. Which, by
the way, sucks. Big Time.

Have a nice day :-D

Doc

> wrote:

> Victor Sack wrote:
> >
> > And such a touchy concern
> > for those hapless sheep (other posters) who cannot even form their own
> > opinion! You wouldn't know principles if they hit your on the head.
>
> And there lies the rub. other posters are just hapless sheep? You're
> opnion of yourself is vastly over inflated. I wouldn't know principles
> if they hit me on the head? What are you blithering on about man?

ROFL! I can't believe you didn't get it! This is hilarious! Is it a
gift you possess, or has it taken a lot of effort? Do you chew your own
food, or do you require someone's help, too?

Okay, I'll type slowly now. It was you who implied that the others are
hapless sheep, with their attitude and opinions unduly influenced by my
posts. I merely pointed this out to you in a sarcastic way. Feeling
better now?

BTW, has it even come to your attention that my repeated requests have
finally yielded results and some stats were posted, making a mockery of
your useless rantings? And that, as a result, I'm not even voting at
all? Unlike unethical, harmful drudges like you, who would vote for or
against a newsgroup just out of spite, I pay no attention to personal
animosities, real or imagined, in such cases and, once the proposal is
shown to have some merit I wish it every success. As to you, again, you
wouldn't know principles if they hit you on the head.

Victor

In article . com>,
wrote:
>Victor Sack wrote:
>> > wrote:
>> > Wrong thread for that sort of discussion. It's a call for votes, not a
>> > call for whingers to moan and groan about being ignored becuase their
>> > objections aren't being agreed with. Nothing flew over my head other
>> > than your need to go on and on and on about something that is obviuosly
>> > outside your bounds of control. Do you like to be controlling and hate
>> > it when things don't go your way?
>>
>> I'm arguing my case in the only thread that is relevant to it. Are you
>> trying to be controlling of what and where people post? What a hypocrite!
>>
>> > > It is unethical to vote "YES" for a group one couldn't care less about.
>> > > What an unprincipled decision!
>> >
>> > What's more unethical than hijacking a thread about a new aus food
>> > group to rant and rave about your feelings on the whole aus hierarchy?
>>
>> Hijacking a thread, indeed! Any thread about any new group in an
>> administrative newsgroup is almost by definition about the whole
>> hierarchy too, when there are issues that obviously touch the whole.
>> Duh!
>>
>> > You're allowed your opinion and yes, you've made it perfectly clear
>> > many, many times. Have you thought about the negative impact that it
>> > could have on other posters attitude toward the subject? Feh, talk
>> > about principles.
>>
>> Why, yes, one posts one's opinion to have a negative or positive or
>> neutral impact, as the case may be. Else why post at all? Have I had
>> such a negative impact on you? Has your attitude toward the subject
>> suffered a lot? Oh, the poor, poor attitude! And such a touchy concern
>> for those hapless sheep (other posters) who cannot even form their own
>> opinion! You wouldn't know principles if they hit your on the head.
>
>And there lies the rub. other posters are just hapless sheep? You're

Rather missed the point of that didn't ya, mate!

ROTFLMAO

>opnion of yourself is vastly over inflated. I wouldn't know principles
>if they hit me on the head? What are you blithering on about man?
>
>FYI I was pointing out that by posting over and over and over again
>with the same whiney attitude that you would have a negative impact on
>those who were understanding of your cause. Now by posting such inane
>diatribe you've cemented those 'hapless sheep's thoughts (even though
>they can't 'form their own opinion') into voting for this NG. I've seen
>a couple of posts mentioning this because of your 'attitude'. Which, by
>the way, sucks. Big Time.

Cheers, Phred.

--
LID

"Ms Leebee" > wrote

> "Nancy Young" > wrote...

>> I don't really see a clique.
>> Perhaps it's the old forest/trees thing.
>
> Possibly, Nancy.
> I tend to agree with Phred though.

I think 'regulars' are confused with being a clique. There's a difference.

> At once stage a few of us posted 'test' posts to RFC to prove to ourselves
> that the disinterest was not imagined.
> Posts were appropriately titled ( if you want me to google them, i'll try,
> but i'm pretty sure they were all x-no-archived posters , and we even
> had a couple of mini-threads going on, where only we, the Australians,
> replied to ourselves ( note: they were NOT 'Aussie' threads that would be
> of no interest to others - they were general food threads ).

I would certainly be interested to know what threads they were. The
implication here is that people are even noticing the threads are from
'Aussies', therefore ignored. Lots of posts go unanswered, from people
all over.

> Nobody from RFC replied, and the threads died naturally.

Here's the thing. *You* are from RFC. The other people are from RFC.
(laugh) I feel as if I'm about to say there is no cabal. RFC *is* the
people
who post here. You are not outsiders.

If you think there are RFCers and then there is everyone else, no wonder
you might feel (whatever). But don't go forming a group for that reason,
form it for the other reasons that were offered. Not because you aren't
welcome in rfc, because that couldn't be further from the truth.

At any rate, yeah, you might not get so much of a response in a thread
about vegemite. I am frightened of it.

Besides, also, I really don't see how a group could be sustained when all
the food you have there is vegemite along with shrimp on the barbie and
Foster's beer. (laughing)

nancy (that last was a *joke*)

On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 07:53:50 -0400, "Nancy Young"
> wrote:

>
>"Ms Leebee" > wrote
>
>> "Nancy Young" > wrote...
>
>>> I don't really see a clique.
>>> Perhaps it's the old forest/trees thing.
>>
>> Possibly, Nancy.
>> I tend to agree with Phred though.
>
>I think 'regulars' are confused with being a clique. There's a difference.
>
>> At once stage a few of us posted 'test' posts to RFC to prove to ourselves
>> that the disinterest was not imagined.
>> Posts were appropriately titled ( if you want me to google them, i'll try,
>> but i'm pretty sure they were all x-no-archived posters , and we even
>> had a couple of mini-threads going on, where only we, the Australians,
>> replied to ourselves ( note: they were NOT 'Aussie' threads that would be
>> of no interest to others - they were general food threads ).
>
>I would certainly be interested to know what threads they were. The
>implication here is that people are even noticing the threads are from
>'Aussies', therefore ignored. Lots of posts go unanswered, from people
>all over.
>
>> Nobody from RFC replied, and the threads died naturally.
>
>Here's the thing. *You* are from RFC. The other people are from RFC.
>(laugh) I feel as if I'm about to say there is no cabal. RFC *is* the
>people
>who post here. You are not outsiders.
>
>If you think there are RFCers and then there is everyone else, no wonder
>you might feel (whatever). But don't go forming a group for that reason,
>form it for the other reasons that were offered. Not because you aren't
>welcome in rfc, because that couldn't be further from the truth.
>
>At any rate, yeah, you might not get so much of a response in a thread
>about vegemite. I am frightened of it.
>
>Besides, also, I really don't see how a group could be sustained when all
>the food you have there is vegemite along with shrimp on the barbie and
>Foster's beer. (laughing)
>
>nancy (that last was a *joke*)
>
HEY! We also have Bundy rum, give us some credit!

Cheryl

"Cheryl" > wrote

> On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 07:53:50 -0400, "Nancy Young"
> > wrote:

>>Besides, also, I really don't see how a group could be sustained when all
>>the food you have there is vegemite along with shrimp on the barbie and
>>Foster's beer. (laughing)
>>
>>nancy (that last was a *joke*)
>>
> HEY! We also have Bundy rum, give us some credit!

HEY yourself!! We have Al Bundy, we just don't drink his rum!

(smile) nancy

G'day Nance,

In article >, "Nancy Young"
> wrote:
[...]
>Besides, also, I really don't see how a group could be sustained when all
>the food you have there is vegemite along with shrimp on the barbie and
>Foster's beer. (laughing)

"Shrimp" was a translation in the ads for you northern hemisphere
ferals; we ferals down here always throw a *prawn* on the barbie.
Also, the issue of Fosters was being discussed at a local "social
gathering" (drinking session %-) just last week. The question was
raised as to why no one down here actually drinks the stuff but the
rest of the world clearly associates it with Australia -- another
triumph of marketing over reality!

Cheers, Phred.

--
LID

On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 02:09:46 GMT, Phred wrote:

> G'day Nance,
>
> In article >, "Nancy Young"
> > wrote:
> [...]
> >Besides, also, I really don't see how a group could be sustained when all
> >the food you have there is vegemite along with shrimp on the barbie and
> >Foster's beer. (laughing)
>
> "Shrimp" was a translation in the ads for you northern hemisphere
> ferals; we ferals down here always throw a *prawn* on the barbie.
> Also, the issue of Fosters was being discussed at a local "social
> gathering" (drinking session %-) just last week. The question was
> raised as to why no one down here actually drinks the stuff but the
> rest of the world clearly associates it with Australia -- another
> triumph of marketing over reality!
>
> Cheers, Phred.

What is foster's down there? It's chicken in my area.

sf wrote on 20 Sep 2005 in rec.food.cooking

> What is foster's down there? It's chicken in my area.
>

Didn't foster invent flaming Bananas?

--
The eyes are the mirrors....
But the ears...Ah the ears.
The ears keep the hat up.

sf wrote:

> What is foster's down there? It's chicken in my area.

It's beer.

http://www.fosters.com.au/enjoy/beer/fosters_lager.htm

I've heard Aussie friends of mine say exactly what Phred is saying.
Americans seem to think Foster's is big in Australia, and they swear
it's anything but. Brilliant marketing there.

--
Reg email: RegForte (at) (that free MS email service) (dot) com

S'mee in WA wrote:
>
> Attribution Restored:

And I just removed them again, just so you can feel real good
about putting them back:



>
> > > > > http://aus.news-admin.org/Faq/aus_faq
> > > > >
> > > > > "You should include the following information:
> > > > >
> > > > > 4. An estimate of expected traffic for this group and the current
> > > > > traffic on the net related to this topic."
>
> > > > It says "should".
> > > >
> > > > It does not say "MUST".
>
> > > *Sigh* You missed the point. Proponants "SHOULD" post that information
> > > in their RFD, hence asking for it is hardly a crime.
>
> > And "SIGH" to you too. Proponents dont HAVE to post that information
> > in their RFD (but it obviously helps to keep the pedants at bay)
> > hence the *point* I supposedly missed is useless.
>
> No, the point is quite valid,

No. Your point is not valid.

> although your ability to grasp it
> is apparently in question.

Yuk Yuk. Well done, flathead. What a ripper.

> Let me try this one more time:
>
> Traffic stats have long been an important part of news group creation.

Not recently here in Oz. I couldnt care less about anything else.
So your point is useless.

> The aus.* admins seem to think so,

Wrong.

> the folks in news.groups (Big8) think
> so,

Couldnt give a toss about "the Big 8"....

> even alt.config proposals need traffic information. So this air of
> persecution that some of you are venting at anyone who asks for such
> stats is a load of cow manure. Period.

Wrong again.

> > > > Other aus.* groups have been created without having to supply traffic
> > > > stats, yet I didnt see anyone wringing their hands and gnashing their
> > > > teeth over that...
> > >
> > > And?
> >
> > And what?
>
> And what is your point?

Can't you read? Get an 8 year old to help if it's too hard.

--
Scrap the 00 to post direct.

"We all should present legal cars. I'm embarrassed we've presented a car
that's ineligible." Mark Skaife, Chief Sook, HRT.12/11/04 (It must hurt
to say illegal!)

'Speed limit near schools lowered to 40 grams per student' - CNNNN

S'mee in WA wrote:

> Some of them will never get
> that point, but I feel better for having made it... ;-)

Of course you do.!


--
Scrap the 00 to post direct.

"We all should present legal cars. I'm embarrassed we've presented a car
that's ineligible." Mark Skaife, Chief Sook, HRT.12/11/04 (It must hurt
to say illegal!)

'Speed limit near schools lowered to 40 grams per student' - CNNNN

"Phred" > wrote in message
...

> "Shrimp" was a translation in the ads for you northern hemisphere
> ferals; we ferals down here always throw a *prawn* on the barbie.
> Also, the issue of Fosters was being discussed at a local "social
> gathering" (drinking session %-) just last week. The question was
> raised as to why no one down here actually drinks the stuff but the
> rest of the world clearly associates it with Australia -- another
> triumph of marketing over reality!

That's just the Australian version of the Coors Beer Phenomenon;
for years, Coors has been seen throughout the rest of the country
as the quintessential "Western" or "Rocky Mountain" beer, and
until relatively recently (when Coors expanded their distribution
nationwide), people looked longingly toward Colorado and thought
how very, very lucky those of us who LIVED here were, to
have the actual source of the Wonderbeer virtually in our back
yards! People would actually lug cases of the stuff back home
at the end of a Colorado vacation.

The only problem is that most Coloradans view Coors as somewhere
between stagnant pond water and the sweat from old gym socks, in
terms of it being their preferred drink; it's certainly not seen as
significantly better than Budweiser, or pretty much any other weak,
watered-down, "American-style" beer you'd think of. The classic
joke here refers to a Coors competitor sending a sample of the stuff
off to a lab for analysis, and then the report comes back with,
"Dear Sir: Regret to inform you that your horse has diabetes...."

Same thing, different beer....


Bob M.

"Ms Leebee" > wrote in message
...

>
> They've certainly got the $$$ to market well.
> It's like many here ( in Australia ) might assume everyone in the US
drinks
> "Bud". From my impressions, nobody really does.

Are you at all familiar with the current string of U.S. ads for
Foster's, which all conclude with the tag line, "Foster's. It's
Australian for beer, mate!" They're sure spening a LOT of
bucks trying to give us the impression that each and every one
of you in Oz has a Foster's permanently affixed to your drinking
hand.


Bob M.

On Sept. 20th, Lindsay > said:
> S'mee in WA wrote:

> > Attribution Restored:
>
> And I just removed them again,

ROFL! Why am I not surprised?

> just so you can feel real good about putting them back:

<snip>

Obviously you're one of those selfish folks who cares not about
Usenet as a whole (of which, like it or not, aus.food will be a
part); you only care about getting what *you* want, protocols be
damned. Sad. Very sad.

BTW, now that the voting is over, I'm done with this subject.
But do feel free to make more a few more limp jabs at me; it
seems to amuse you for some weird reason. And I'm sure you'll
love getting in the last word...

"Ms Leebee" > wrote in message
...
> Yeah, i've seen the ads ( in the UK ) ... and you know what ? - I like
them.

Well, I gotta admit - I LIKE the ads, too. Especially the ones which
purport to be teaching us Yanks this strange language called
"Australian." My personal favorite: the ad opens with a close-up of an
absolutely HUGE steak, and then a hand appears from off-camera and
places one tiny sprig of parsley on top. The voice-over (in an Australian
accent thicker than anything we ever heard from Paul Hogan or Steve
Irwin) at that point is just a single word: "Salad." :-) :-) :-)


> My fave beer ad back then was the one featuring Steve Winwood singing
"Back
> in the High Life". It was either for Miller or Coors, IIRR.

Would have to be Miller. "High Life" is part of the full name of
their main brand of beer ("Miller High Life").

Bob M.

(Phred) wrote in news:3pbtnaF9o1rkU1
@individual.net:


> Also, the issue of Fosters was being discussed at a local "social
> gathering" (drinking session %-) just last week. The question was
> raised as to why no one down here actually drinks the stuff but the
> rest of the world clearly associates it with Australia -- another
> triumph of marketing over reality!
>

There was an article in the Sydney Morning Herald today reporting on
Fosters planning to try and increase their Australian market share by
getting more taps into pubs. Apparently only 250 of Australia's 5000 pubs
have Fosters on tap. Of 100 million slabs of Fosters drunk in 150
countries, only 4 million are sold in Australia.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/business/...otting-a-home-
run/2005/09/21/1126982122853.html

Rhonda Anderson
Cranebrook, NSW, Australia

Any word on this ng starting?

Katherine

Katherine wrote:

> Any word on this ng starting?

There's a delay built into the voting system.

On 9/20, it was announced that the group had passed. The rules require
a five-day waiting period, for complaints of voting irregularities to
be made and judged.

So the control message (which launches it) will probably be sent out on
Sunday September 25th.

How long after that your ISP starts offering it is another matter.


--
Dan Goodman
Journal http://www.livejournal.com/users/dsgood/
Clutterers Anonymous unofficial community
http://www.livejournal.com/community/clutterers_anon/
Decluttering http://decluttering.blogspot.com
Predictions and Politics http://dsgood.blogspot.com
All political parties die at last of swallowing their own lies.
John Arbuthnot (1667-1735), Scottish writer, physician.

Dan Goodman wrote:
> Katherine wrote:
>
>> Any word on this ng starting?
>
> There's a delay built into the voting system.
>
> On 9/20, it was announced that the group had passed. The rules
> require a five-day waiting period, for complaints of voting
> irregularities to be made and judged.
>
> So the control message (which launches it) will probably be sent out
> on Sunday September 25th.
>
> How long after that your ISP starts offering it is another matter.

Thank you, Dan. My ISP usually adds newsgroups immediately. So I guess I
should start checking next week.

Katherine