Downshifting

AFAICT, it had been asserted that it wasn't a valid group, but no one had bothered to provide and evidence beyond "it isn't on these servers".

Grant Edwards wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@corp.supernews.com:

And you're still wrong, of course.

You've incorrectly "explained" your wrong assertions? Yeah, right.

The group does exists on properly configured servers or would you please email Highwinds, et al and tell them how to "properly" configure their servers?

Alan Baker wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@news.telus.net:

You might want to head for a dictionary and look up "canonical" and "valid".

Existing on a properly configured server doesn't make it a valid group.

Will it propogate properly? To every properly configured news server?

I'm sorry, but in this case they are synonymous.

From Oxford:

canon a. "authoritative, standard, accepted"

valid a. "executed with proper formalities"

Now, I can take a properly configured news server and tell it that "rec.autos.makers.bakercars" is a newsgroup it should serve, but that group will not be valid (i.e. "executed with proper formalities"), because it is created with the authority of the big-8 organization; it isn't canonical ("authoritative").

Now, would you like to play some other word games?

I apologize. I would have sworn it had already been pointed out that RAMM wasn't in the official list. That must have been a previous thread (this topic comes up regularly). I also pretty much assumed that people understand that's what was meant when the group was describe as "bogus" and "invalid".

Exactly

IMO, that server is then not properly configured, but that's probably arguable.

Exactly. And anyone who didn't know enough to check news.announce.newsgroups shouldn't even have been taking part in the discussion except to ask questions.

-- Larry

They will say no, and they should, because *there is no such group*. Rec groups were established by a discussion/voting procedure, and rec.autos.makers.mazda.miata was, but rec.autos.makers.mazda was *not*.

To establish a general Mazda newsgroup in the rec hierarchy, you would have to go through a process and such a newsgroup would normally be called rec.autos.makers.mazda.misc.

I have noted this before. Just because your ISP operator is incompetent and allows posting to non existing groups does not mean they exist or that competent operators would want to carry them without the proper process.

Leon

pltrgyst wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com:

Why? They don't determine validity, there are literally hundreds of valid newsgroups not listed there.

Alan Baker wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@news.telus.net:

No need, your own post above shows the two words are not snyonymous.

rammm@REMOVE_THIS_TAGdommelen.net (Leon van Dommelen) wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com:

Sorry, Leon, but there is.

Yes, as a matter of fact, it was and you should know that. I'll leave it up to you to think why.

Yes, they do. That's the definition of a valid Big-8 newsgroup. Claiming they don't decide what's valid is like saying that the a decision of the US Supreme Court is unconstitutional.

No, there isn't. There isn't because many servers don't carry what is not a valid group and thus messages don't propogate.

No, it wasn't. If it was, please show the results of the voting...

| > They will say no, and they should, because *there is no such group*. | | Sorry, Leon, but there is. | | > Rec groups were established by a discussion/voting procedure, | > and rec.autos.makers.mazda.miata was, but rec.autos.makers.mazda | > was *not*. | | Yes, as a matter of fact, it was and you should know that. I'll leave | it up to you to think why. |

It did exist, but looks like it has been removed, it is in archive format only.

FYI I think that is just an USA design rule. My Australian '94 has no clutch interlock, nor do Jap imports. Sports cars in Australia generally assume the driver can drive.

It was not removed because it never existed.

If you have an incompetent ISP as, apparently, telus, you can post to the "group" but don't expect anyone with a competent ISP like earthlink to see your posts. Competent ISP do not carry "groups" that have not been created, because it defeats the purpose of the rec hierarchy versus the alt one.

Apparently the google.au software picked up some of those posts from such incompetent ISPs before they got wise.

Leon

OK, Leon, assuming you're right and we're going to follow the "letter of the law" and all in regards to Usenet, is it appropriate to pick another newsgroup to hijack if your preferred subject isn't represented?

Occasional questions about other Mazda vehicles have always been tolerated on RAMMM, though good answers are more likely to be found on the specialized forums for each model. (Same advice regarding Miatas, actually. We have fun here, but miata.net is a superior technical resource.)

Some folks should paint their Delete keys in a bright color, so they'll be easier to find.