🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <49htf9$dom@felix.junction.net>,
Bob nelson <rsnelson@portage.net> wrote:
>kamamer@io.org (karl mamer) wrote:
>
>>Now maybe I'm wrong, but I'm under the impression that *anyone* with
>>access to the control news group can issue a newgroup message
>>and name that group anything they want. For example, I can issue
>>a newgroup rec.arts.godlike_beings.karl or alt.godlike_beings.karl.
>>Even though neither group has gone through any kind of voting
>>process the latter, as it falls under the alt group, will likely
>>be picked up by news admins not hell bent on alt.config. The former, 
>>as there was no formal voting process, will likely be picked up by few. 
>>In fact, a rmgroup "suggestion" will likely quickly follow, "suggesting" 
>>to other news admins that rec.arts.godlike_beings.karl should be removed.

>Uh...Karl...Karl...yo Karl...the can.* hierarcy is non conforming to
>the process of the "Big 7/8". The process for can.* newsgroup
>creation is shown in can.config. under Dawn Whitesides FAQ.
>It's pretty convoluted and vague, and in any event doesn't acurately
>reflect what the true state of affairs is. Unfortunately Dawn doesn't
>want to be involved in 'net politics.

On the contrary, Dawn's FAQ is quite simple.  And vague.  And accurate.

A very accurate reflection of reality.  Specifically: inconsistent,
vague, subject to the phases of the moon.

>>Calling him a Czar is kind of a slap in the face to someone
>>who is generous enough to waste his time on creating any
>>groups at all.

>I never called him a Czar, Dawn even said he wasn't a newsgroup czar.
>All I alluded to is that he appeared to be stepping into czar shoes.

Which just serves to demonstrate that I was right that you don't know
what czar means.  "Czar" in this context means that there is a voting
process.  There isn't.

>I happen to think Mr. Lewis has a very special place in the can.*
>hierarcy, and I'm considering an RFC on  a can.chris.lewis
>group. };-)).

Uh... Bob ... Bob ... yo Bob, That's RFD/CFV.  "RFC" stands for
"Request For Comments" which is what all of the Internet standards
are called.

Much as I'd like to see an IETF Internet standard defining what a
"Chris Lewis" is and making it mandatory, I don't think that would
fly.

Besides, it should be can.chris-lewis-is-god, but that's more than
14 characters.

And RFD/CFV doesn't apply to can.* anyways.  But you just said that.

What are you trying to say anyways?