OT: comp.cad.solidworks Charter changes

No kidding. This is called a NIMBY proposal, an attempt to set up a new group to get rid of a poster or discussion that's not liked by one or more users of an established newsgroup. They never work because no one wants to use them and no one will request their creation. 100% of the time, suggestions for NIMBY groups are rightly seen as hostile by their targets.

In truth, you don't support the NIMBY group because you have no interest in using it and have no interest in getting it widely created, not even on the servers you use.

Reply to
Adam H. Kerman
Loading thread data ...

Do your homework, Jon. I was a machinist.

Reply to
That70sTick

You may have to explain that.

B/

Reply to
Brian Mailman

It's actually a misnomer.

Reply to
John R. Carroll

Please provide proof.

Reply to
Gary L. Burnore

Which one of us lets his tools be the limiting factor of his work? Crying foul about inadequate tools is the classic whine of the incompetent hack.

The real, talented machinists who get my design work never cry like you do. They only quietly go about their business and return parts to print. No trouble, no worry. Maybe the real talent is too busy working to spend this much time crying. Maybe I never sent my work close enough to the bottom of the food chain to have it cross paths with the likes of you.

Reply to
That70sTick

I apprenticed as a Moldmaker and something I was taught early on is that good people don't blame their tools for their own mistakes.

Reply to
John R. Carroll

Let me guess; By the people who designed the tools?

In the software world, it's even more of a possibility that you're stuck using a bad tool.

Reply to
Gary L. Burnore

That doesn't mean anyone expects or accepts excuses. It also isn't any more or less true either way.

Reply to
John R. Carroll

"Light travels faster than sound. That's why some people appear bright until you hear them speak."

Reply to
John R. Carroll

What does that have to do with anything?

What would the "it" you're referring to be?

Reply to
Gary L. Burnore

That nobody cares much about excuses. It's results that count.

Your premise. I doubled in Mechanical Engineering and Mathematics at one of the top five engineering schools in the world Gary and was taught, among other things, the same lesson. The world has changed a lot in the interim but that hasn't. Nobody either pays for or has much interest in tools or excuses.

Reply to
John R. Carroll

Not In My Backyard

Reply to
Adam H. Kerman

Yes, we know, but we like the term anyway. It's catchy and makes the point.

Reply to
Adam H. Kerman

This is certainly true. There may even be a large enough number of identical posts to count as cancellable spam.

Even if he were interested, one interested user isn't enough to justify a new newsgroup, whether in the Big-8 or elsewhere.

Reply to
Peter J Ross

I meant how the process works that you put forth.

I don't think they understand the bamby's advisories aren't acted on particularly well and that propagation is alt.*-like.

B/

Reply to
Brian Mailman

Access to ccsw by employees is typically not something management is going to view as "necessary" for one to do ones job. A lot of companies don't even think that SW's own forums are necessary. That has never been the argument. ccsw is user supported, not management supported. Use of the usenet is most likely going to be viewed by management on the same terms as use of eBay or google. You can do it as long as it doesn't interfere. If it helps, good. The usenet is "necessary" for very few things in life, especially one's job. The usenet can make one's life easier. People can suggest that management can do this or that but it just isn't going to happen. On ccsw a goodly proportion of users use Google and will always use Google.

Reply to
TOP

wrote in

Of course you couldn't; that would be too sensible. The question was decided by your betters long, long ago, but that's never stopped you from revisiting things that shouldn't even be considered, let alone debated.

Reply to
Wayne Brown

Yes, that's a pretty accurate description of Kathy and Marty (and the rest of the b8mbies).

Reply to
Wayne Brown

For a newsgroup to thrive, it needs two things, to propagate widely, that is, to be created on News servers throughout Usenet, and to have a popular topic discussed by many Usenet users who are willing to move discussions to the proposed group.

Proposed groups thrive due to the actions of motivated users. These users must be interested enough in discussing the topic in the proposed group that they are willing to change their reading and posting habits and that they are willing to request creation of the group from their News administrators. Long gone are the days when News administrators provide a service to their users by selecting groups to create that sound interesting.

In groups proposed in both alt and Big 8 hierarchies, most News servers do not create groups in response to a newgroup message but only in response to user request. Big 8 newgroup messages used to be widely accepted but that's no longer the case. On most servers, newgroup messages, even in managed hierarchies like the Big 8, are ignored.

NIMBY groups are the antithesis of proposed groups that stand a chance of thriving. Typically, only one user is the target, because someone doesn't like what he has to say. This user isn't interested in changing his posting habits, and even if he were, no other user is interested in discussing his messages with him as the result of an attempted imposition of a change in posting habits. Only a user can decide for himself to change the groups he reads and posts to. No other user can force him to change his own habits. NIMBY groups are unwanted, peoriod. They have no audience because the proponent's theory that some users can be sent there is flawed. The proponent himself would refuse to use it, even if it were created anywhere.

Reply to
Adam H. Kerman

PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.