🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <8BF128A.1BB4001FD0.uuout@westonia.com>,
DAVE FLEMING <dave.fleming@westonia.com> wrote:

>>CL>Normal process for can.* groups is to post expressions of interest _here_.
>>CL>But there's been very little.

>>        Don't underestimate the support for CAN.REC.NATURIST.  If you
>>expect the numbers that they get in the states when showing support
>>for a new newsgroup, don't.  They have 10 times the population and
>>perhaps 20 times (my assumption here) more people on the net than in Canada,
>>therefore 1 Canadian post in support of CAN.REC.NATURIST is equivalent
>>to seeing 10 to 20 posts from Americans supporting some other new group.

>CL>At the time I made that comment, there had been precisely two people
>CL>expressing interest.  That's virtually non-existant interest.

>CL>I guage interest for can.rec.naturist compared to interest shown for
>CL>previous groups _in_ can.*.  So the American/Canadian comment is bogus.

>        First of all,  who are you Chris?  What is your role here and
>is it official or unofficial?  Exactly, in detail, how do you assess
>support?  Are you the only one in Canada I have to work with?  I am
>looking for someone who is friendly and supportive and who wants to be
>very helpful.

See the Dawn Whiteside's can.config FAQ.  It's perhaps worthy of note
that I have been the one who has created the past 10-15 can.* groups.

>CL>So far, even with the minor flurry after my posting, there hasn't been
>CL>nearly enough.

>        In my pre-RFD announcement in rec.nude...I did not ask anyone
>to post messages here, only to make sure they could find CAN.CONFIG and
>add it to their off-line mail packets.  At this time I have agreed to
>wait until the soc.naturist.moderated has reached some sort of resolution.
>We will probably need a moderated conference as well considering how
>system operators of the internet are destroying their own newsgroups by
>allowing 28% to 100% OFF-TOPIC X-posts to take over certain groups.
>It seems that nothing can be done at your end except to create moderated
>newsgroups to solve this terrible problem.

You obviously haven't a clue as to who I am - and wouldn't believe me
if I told you.  I suggest you consult news.admin.net-abuse.announce.

>I would appreciate any constructive suggestions.

I'm trying, but you seem to have this chip on your shoulder.

>CL>Don't waste your time and your support by diluting it with your "pre-RFD".
>CL>Get your proposal lined up and propose it.

>        Sorry, I'm not going to play your game...and not get enough support
>lined up, and then have the proposal fail...that's a waste of my time.
>Many people, who have read rec.nude have given up reading it...those people
>are the ones I have to find and it's going to take a little time.  If
>you are impatient, that's your problem.

You seem to be under the misapprehension that formal RFD/CFV are
used to create can.* groups.  This is not true.  I suggest that you
read Dawn's FAQ.  RFDs in can.* look just like your first proposal
posting.  Most groups are created on the strength of a proposal no
more formal than yours.  Naturally I took your first posting to be the
proposal.  Instead, you've decided to waste everyone's time and call it a
"pre-RFD" and we'll have to go through this whole thing again.

>I'm not going to let anyone push me around.  I'm 47 years old and I
>expect a little respect!

In the old days, automatically giving respect to someone who had managed
to reach some ripe old age made sense - anyone managing to make it past
age 30 was truly deserving of respect.

In these days, when any idiot can make 75, respect is earned.

>>        What are you doing to promote naturism?

>CL>And the purpose of this question is?

>        Since you did not identify your role here, I assumed you had a
>personal interest in this proposal.  Sorry for the confusion. :)

You still haven't answered the question.