|
Another fine message from the rec.arts.movies.erotica reading room...
[Prev][Next][Subject][Thread] Re: RFD: rec.arts.movies.erotica moderated
In article <[email protected]>, Orc <[email protected]> wrote: >In article <[email protected]>, > Evan Leibovitch <[email protected]> wrote: >>Also: It is bad Usenet practise to have a name that is both a newsgroup >>and a base for a hierarchy -- this is indeed a royal pain for >>administrators. You cannot have *both* rec.arts.erotica and >>rec.arts.erotica.movies; >Don't be silly; of _course_ you can have both rec.arts.erotica >and rec.arts.erotica.movies. Sigh. Technically you can, prectically you can't. See below. >Some people like .misc'ing the main >group when subgroups are formed, and some people don't, but the >transport software doesn't give a fuck whether a group has subgroups >or not. And the royal pain for _this_ administrator is renaming >groups whenever someone inplements one of these 'required' renamings >to satisfy the clique that must have .misc on every name. Well, there it is. This 'clique' happens to include the moderators of news.announce.newgroups, without whose approval RFDs and CFVs don't get anywhere. I ran into this problem, very specifically, on a proposal I made about a year ago; it wasn't accepted as an RFD until I misc'd the existing group when turning a group name into a hierarchy. A proposal to create rec.arts.erotica.movies without changing the base group would *never* have made it as far as RFD stage... Wanna take on tale and company? Go ahead. To me, the principles involved in fighting them on this issue just ain't worth it. -- Evan Leibovitch, Sound Software Ltd., located in beautiful Brampton, Ontario SCO & Novell Unix Master Reseller / [email protected] / (905) 452-0504 There are two types of people: those who divide people into two types, and those who don't. Follow-Ups:
|