Re: Charter of alt.cellular.attws

John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote in
news:e0ln93tsmdigb5coqu6g2klf08uahg9mbe@4ax.com:

> On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 09:53:40 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
> wrote in <469ba267$0$27164$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:
>
>>While that charter doesn't really apply to alt.cellular.attws any more
>>than the old alt.cellular.cingular charter applies, the more appropriate
>>Usenet group for discussions of the wireless service offered by AT&T
>>(whatever they may be calling it) is now alt.cellular.attws.
>
> Nope.
>
>>An unofficial charter is probably a good idea.
>
> It's actually meaningless. Only the original charter is valid.

And only valid if enforced, which the a.c.c is not.

Scott wrote:

> And only valid if enforced, which the a.c.c is not.

I was referring to a charter for alt.cellular.attws, which if it ever
did exist, was never posted by whoever started the group.

You can't take a charter for another group, and suddenly claim it
applies to different group because you're mad that people are posting
content in that other group that you think should be posted in the group
you wrote a charter for. Everyone knows why Navas is doing this, but it
doesn't make it valid.

It does help to have some posting guidelines, even if voluntary, and
even though they cannot be enforced (nor can a charter on an unmoderated
group be enforced). At least some posters will pay attention to the
guidelines, whether an official charter or not. It's rather ironic that
Navas is probably the single person that most often violates the charter
that he himself wrote.

On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 18:49:16 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote in <469d716c$0$27194$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:

>Scott wrote:
>
>> And only valid if enforced, which the a.c.c is not.
>
>I was referring to a charter for alt.cellular.attws, which if it ever
>did exist, was never posted by whoever started the group.

You of course have no way of knowing that to be true or not.

>You can't take a charter for another group, and suddenly claim it
>applies to different group because you're mad that people are posting
>content in that other group that you think should be posted in the group
>you wrote a charter for. Everyone knows why Navas is doing this, but it
>doesn't make it valid.

I'm not doing that.

>It does help to have some posting guidelines, even if voluntary, and
>even though they cannot be enforced (nor can a charter on an unmoderated
>group be enforced). At least some posters will pay attention to the
>guidelines, whether an official charter or not. It's rather ironic that
>Navas is probably the single person that most often violates the charter
>that he himself wrote.

That would actually be you.

--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>