On 05 Oct 2007 11:41:45 GMT, Frank Slootweg
wrote in
<470622f9$0$79687$dbd41001@news.wanadoo.nl> :
>kangaroo16 wrote:
>> On 04 Oct 2007 18:20:33 GMT, Frank Slootweg
>> wrote in
>> <47052ef1$0$45233$dbd45001@news.wanadoo.nl> :
>>
>> >kangaroo16 wrote:
>> >> On Mon, 01 Oct 2007 18:54:15 +1000, Alan S
>> >> wrote in :
>> >[...]
>> >
>> >> >If that's the charter - then those the rules of this group.
>> >>
>> >> Perhaps to you, Alan, perhaps to the possibly
>> >> obsessive/compulsive Texan, but not necessarily to all of us,
>> >> even some readers of this group.
>> >
>> > No, as Alan said, the charter *is* "the rules of this group". But, as
>> >Alan also said, whether one *complies* to those rules in quite an other
>> >matter.
>>
>> I've had many years of experience on Usenet, and have found that
>> most groups pay little attention to their original charter, and
>> seldom even try to enforce it.
>
>[lots of snipping]
>
>> Anyway, do you see the problem with a "charter" on
>> Usenet? In my experience, it doesn't mean much. It
>> is part of a requirement to form a new group in some
>> classifications, but it is seldom enforced on unmoderated
>> newsgroups, nor can it be, in practice.
>
> Indeed. You seem to think that you, Alan and I disagree in some way.
>We don't.
Not even on the question of adhering to a charter? :-)
As to the broader question of "disagreeing in some
way", I would be highly surprised if any three people
agreed in all things, or even any two individuals. A
couple of examples: Ask any married couple, or identical
twins, if they agree on ALL things. :-)
People are individuals, and no two are exactly alike.
Even identical twins don't have the same retinal
patterns, for example.
If you could find ANY two people, if questioned separately,
using the same list of questions, this would astound the
scientific world! It would go a long way towards the
proof that perfect telepathy was possible.
If the human race could manage to agree on important
issues, we would have few, if any, wars.
Getting back the much less important issues, such as
Usenet charters, I've offered some obvious alternatives.
People who don't like my posts are not compelled to read them.
People who use a good mail server can kill file me. The best
solution, of course, is to set up a moderated group
You and/or Alan can volunteer act as " chief censors"
or as they are more commonly called "moderators". :-)
> The only thing I pointed out was the difference between
>something (the charter) *being* the rules and *complying* or not
>complying to those rules.
Point taken
>
>[lots of snipping]
>
>> Now, seriously, Frank, don't you think that both travelers and
>> tourists should be warned of such hazards?
>>
>> Do feel free to make your case for your viewpoint!
>
> You seem to think that I object to your postings or disagree with
>them. I don't. I don't have any problem with you or your postings (with
>the exception that, for me, they are way, way too long, which makes me/
>people lose interest, which I think is a pity and in a way is your
>loss).
This comes back to individual differences, does it not? People
who dislike long posts are not obligated to read them. I write
to provide information, not to try to impress a majority of
readers.
In general, I provide the type of information I would have
liked to have when I migrated to Australia. No generally
available Internet in those days, of course.
I suspect that immigrants to Australia possibly spend more time
on research than tourists do. I don't like to see anyone
suffer serious inconvenience, be injured, or die simply
because of something they didn't know.
For instance, take the case of the Yank who was found carrying
a concealed knife and was denied admission, then sent back to the
USA. When I flew here on Qantas, the cabin crew had
us fill out customs forms about an hour before arrival.
I don't know if he deliberately didn't declare the knife, or if
he simply didn't realise it was a prohibited import. It is
pretty common in the USA to carry concealed weapons such
as guns, knives, Tasers, Mace, capsicum spray, etc.
It isn't common here. These days, of course, with greatly
increased airport security, he probably wouldn't have even
managed to get aboard the plane in the U.S.A.
As travelers should know, laws and regulations differ a lot
in different countries.
If a traveler is visiting some S.E. Asian countries they
may have purchased heroin for personal use. However, if
they have more than around a half ounce, they are
considered as drug traffickers and the penalty is death.
Nor should tourists assume if they get into trouble, their
embassy or consulate can get them out of it. Not
necessarily. Any country can pass any laws they like, whether
others consider them reasonable or unreasonable.
Why mention this at all in a travel group? Well, a lot of people
have used drugs these days, and in some countries, even the
ones with a death penalty for drug trafficking, illegal drugs
are usually much cheaper than in Australia or the USA.
It isn't unknown for a drug seller to not only make more
than his usual profit in selling to tourists, and then make
a bigger profit by having a friend collect a reward by putting
them in to the police.
>
> My only recommendation to you would be to read more/better and write
>less.
Perhaps you don't realise how much I read :-). Whether reading
slowly and carefully is "better" this is debatable. When you
read a book and run across an unfamiliar word, do you skip it,
assume you know the meaning, or consult a dictionary?
As to writing shorter posts, I dislike wasting time to condense
them. I'm afraid I have the attitude that if people don't like
to read for information, they are under no obligation to do
so. I would much rather provide more detailed info than less
detailed.
As an example, have gone into some detail about dangerous
marine species. Would the group prefer I refer to them
with a shorter entry such as "Beware Hapalochlaena,
Conus, & Carukia?" _et al_?
Or "I suggest that travelers read the CSL Antivenom Handbook,
Jellyfish and Other Marine Animals"
http://www.toxinology.com/generic_static_files/cslavh_marine.html
Of course, this just covers marine animals, not land animals such
as snakes, but it is a quick download and has nice photos.
For broader coverage, which does include land animals,
consult the Australian Venom Research Unit online link:
http://www.avru.org/general/general_animals.html
http://www.toxinology.com/generic_static_files/cslavh_marine.html
>
> Welcome to the group
Thanks, but I don't think your opinion would be shared by all
readers.:-)
>
> and have fun!
Not my objective, which is to hopefully try to keep tourists and
visitors out of trouble.
IMHO, Australia is a much safer place to visit or live in than
the USA. It just has different hazards.:-)
Cheers,
kangaroo16 |