Defamy does not stand. We can clear up this mess quickly.
Definition: misinformation + intent = disinformation.
Christopher Sawtell wrote:
For the record:-
We have a motion to the AGM from Rob Fisher, and seconded by me which reads:-
"That the loose grouping of people known as the Canterbury Linux
Rik Tindall wrote:
[snip]
Aside from that, I'm sure that there's nothing a newcomer to Linux wants
to find more than a local Linux-related mailing list that has been all
but overrun with post after post about internal politics.
Which is why it is most constructive to propose "That a CLUG Social
li
For the record:-
We have a motion to the AGM from Rob Fisher, and seconded by me which reads:-
"That the loose grouping of people known as the Canterbury Linux Users Group
remain as such with no rules other than sharing a common interest in using,
supporting and encouraging Linux and Open Sourc
All outstanding replies on this thread have been directed off this "CLUG
Technical" list, to the CLUG committee list, except this one.
Might I say that Matthew's irony always provides a thought-provoking
read, alongside insightful answers.
Matthew Gregan wrote:
At 2004-10-20T15:55:16+1300, Rik
A *very* well thought out post which I agree with 100% - the Wellington
LUG _has_ gone political which is why I no longer have anything to do
with it and I'd hate to see the same thing happen to another LUG,
remember that the key to any LUG is its USERS and it is these that it
should be servici
--- Apologies for gmail header
Rik,
I always saw the CLUG as an online list of people with shared
interests in Linux / OSS software. The meetings are the same:
gatherings of like-minded linux oss geeks. Newbies are welcome because
soon they become compenent users and so on, then we can all he
Thankyou Nick,
for providing code equivalent (repeat) of your "ignore" rule re my views.
(it is funny too :)
On Wed, 20 Oct 2004 16:11:46 +1300, Nick Rout <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Well, you read as the theoretical brains behind it, for sure - the
'minister of propaganda' (? :)
certainly our his
Maybe someone should start up a *new* list called
PoUG. Politics of User Groups.
Lets stop with the rash generlisations aye?
On Wed, 20 Oct 2004 16:34:16 +1300, Fisher, Robert (FXNZ CHC)
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Thanks for your patience,
>
> Rik
>
> [Robert Fisher]
>
> It's running out
Re: ClUG aims and objectives.
As I understand it the groups PRIME purpose is the sharing information
supporting and help fellow Linux Users/Enthusiasts.
IE cooperatively learning about and supporting Linux users
this in my opinion has been the basis of most Linux
user groups I have observed.
It
Thanks for your patience,
Rik
[Robert Fisher]
It's running out though.
I had sort-of hoped that my "motion" and the apparent support it got would
have curtailed this thread.
Rob
At 2004-10-20T15:55:16+1300, Rik Tindall wrote:
> And this also explains why C*LUG is so tied up in itself - myopic,
> one-eyed *nixism can get us nowhere.
Suggesting that all of the members of this list are tied up within
themselves, myopic, and one-eyed is ridiculous and insulting.
Aside from t
On Wed, 20 Oct 2004 12:31:31 +1300, Fisher, Robert (FXNZ CHC)
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Rik's posts simply are not clear enough for me to understand. Perhaps
others fare better.
Cheers,
Carl.
[Robert Fisher]
No Carl, you are not the only one who struggles with Rik's use of the
language sometim
> Well, you read as the theoretical brains behind it, for sure - the
> 'minister of propaganda' (? :)
>
> certainly our history-bearer
>
> ..whereas Nick is the 'ringmaster' of this particular circus
>
> - read that as you must ;)
suggested procmail recipe:
:0:
*^(From)[EMAIL PROTECTED]
/dev/
> >
> > Well, that depends what Rik is trying to do with the CLUG. Frankly, I
> > don't really understand his posts. Nevertheless, he is open to the
> > accusation of trying to reshape the CLUG for his own business interests.
> > (I'm not saying this is his intention. I don't know what his intent
This presents good, philosophical questions.
On Wed, 20 Oct 2004 10:20:40 +1300, Carl Cerecke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Rik Tindall wrote:
..What, and you aren't making money from Linux skills?
If Linux disappeared from the world tomorrow, I would still be writing
Java code. You wouldn't have a
On Wed, 20 Oct 2004 10:08:42 +1300, Carl Cerecke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Zane Gilmore wrote:
Carl Cerecke wrote:
Perhaps Rik's push for the CLUG to be something else (I'm really not
sure what, exactly) is caused by his conflict of interest (he makes
money supporting Linux).
I disagree that
Volker Kuhlmann wrote:
On Wed 20 Oct 2004 09:30:46 NZDT +1300, Zane Gilmore wrote:
We need to encourage people to make a living from Linux.
And that's why you always disliked SuSE, because they were trying to
make money from it???
Volker,
I never disliked it.
I didn't know enough about it to know
Rik Tindall wrote:
..What, and you aren't making money from Linux skills?
If Linux disappeared from the world tomorrow, I would still be writing
Java code. You wouldn't have a job. You rely on Linux, I don't. But
that's beside the point.
If making money from Linux becomes your primary motivation
Rik's posts simply are not clear enough for me to understand. Perhaps
others fare better.
Cheers,
Carl.
[Robert Fisher]
No Carl, you are not the only one who struggles with Rik's use of the
language sometimes.
On Wed 20 Oct 2004 09:30:46 NZDT +1300, Zane Gilmore wrote:
> We need to encourage people to make a living from Linux.
And that's why you always disliked SuSE, because they were trying to
make money from it???
Volker
--
Volker Kuhlmann is possibly list0570 with the domain in he
Zane Gilmore wrote:
Carl Cerecke wrote:
Perhaps Rik's push for the CLUG to be something else (I'm really not
sure what, exactly) is caused by his conflict of interest (he makes
money supporting Linux).
I disagree that Rik's trying to make money from Linux is in any way a
conflict of interest.
Robert Fisher wrote:
Further (clarification) to my motion yesterday, I would like to make the analogy of
CLUG as a family.
I.E.
The rules are unwritten.
We respect each other.
If a brother pisses us off we can politely tell him (but we still love him).
If the family really pisses us off we do not
Carl Cerecke wrote:
Perhaps Rik's push for the CLUG to be something else (I'm really not
sure what, exactly) is caused by his conflict of interest (he makes
money supporting Linux).
I disagree that Rik's trying to make money from Linux is in any way a
conflict of interest.
We need to encourage
Thanks Rob & List,
I've really felt this today - our international movement's central aspect:
"Thanks for fixing my bug for me."
- Fewer * rough edges appreciated,
(* includes me).
You well facilitate Linux as a choice of career.
Cheers, Rik
Robert Fisher wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Car
Hi Jamie,
Jamie Dobbs wrote:
Thanks, Bart. That's a very insightful contribution. I don't have a
problem with the informal nature of CLUG. And, let's face it, geeks tend
to resist unnecessary formalisation anyway (for better or for worse). I
think formalising might push more away than if we remain
Hi Carl,
Carl Cerecke wrote:
Bart Hanson wrote:
As last years President of the Apple Users group of Canterbury Inc. I
have experienced a lot committee talkfests.
Some always want to formalise these things for whatever reason.
Others love the politics more than the cause.
As a "guest" on your st
Hi Bart,
Bart Hanson wrote:
On 18/10/2004, at 8:31 PM, Gareth Williams wrote:
As far as a change in structure goes, "if it ain't broken, don't fix
it".
Perhaps we could have a quick show of hands - who besides Rik thinks
anything
is broken at the moment? "CLUG" seems to be fine to me
As last year
Hi. I'm more than ready to drop this thread, but for some heavy stuff
towards the end.
I shall finish replying on a lighter note, as useful comment may come
from it.
Gareth Williams wrote:
On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 19:38:55 +1300, Robert Fisher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
I would like to table a mot
Christopher Sawtell wrote:
On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 19:38, Robert Fisher wrote:
I would like to table a motion:
I would like to formally second that motion.
XD
*xD*-Picture Card?
Regards, Rik
Good summary Rob - far from the average motion.
Robert Fisher wrote:
On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 18:25, Nick Rout wrote:
Or we just ignore Rik, vote for a committee and move on to the main
course, which is linux support and encouragement.
I would like to table a motion:
"That the loose grouping of people k
I'm surprised, Nick - you, a lawyer, casting slurs?..
Nick Rout wrote:
Let me translate.
Rik has been agitating for change within CLUG.
Some time ago, which I've learnt to do without, as in now..
That is his right, but I
expect he should tell us what he wants.
..which is why you're waiting for
Christopher Sawtell wrote:
On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 19:38, Robert Fisher wrote:
On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 18:25, Nick Rout wrote:
Or we just ignore Rik, vote for a committee and move on to the main
course, which is linux support and encouragement.
I would like to table a motion:
"That the loose grouping of pe
yuri wrote:
WTF? I thought Nick was the resident lawyer.
Please rephrase in laymans' terms.
Gladly, Yuri. Please bear in mind that I am a relative newbie here, and
there may be mistakes in what I write. Where so, I stand to be
corrected, with thanks.
There is an Annual General Meeting (CLUG's fo
>
> Thanks, Bart. That's a very insightful contribution. I don't have a
> problem with the informal nature of CLUG. And, let's face it, geeks tend
> to resist unnecessary formalisation anyway (for better or for worse). I
> think formalising might push more away than if we remain much as we are.
'F
On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 09:59:48 +1300
Michael JasonSmith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 2004-10-19 at 08:48, Carl Cerecke wrote:
> [snip]
> > Let's face it, geeks tend to resist unnecessary formalisation anyway
> > (for better or for worse). I think formalising might push more away
> > than if
On Tue, 2004-10-19 at 08:48, Carl Cerecke wrote:
[snip]
> Let's face it, geeks tend to resist unnecessary formalisation anyway
> (for better or for worse). I think formalising might push more away
> than if we remain much as we are.
I agree, Carl. I like the CLUG the way it is. Slightly anarchic,
f
see you on the 27th I hope :)
thanks for the insight.
On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 22:49:02 +1300
Bart Hanson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> As a "guest" on your stimulating list (I do not know any of the
> personalities involved except Jim.C) I would advise you to resist the
> move to a more formal stru
-Original Message-
From: Carl Cerecke
> A "complete" outsiders advice,
Thanks, Bart. That's a very insightful contribution. I don't have a
problem with the informal nature of CLUG. And, let's face it, geeks tend
to resist unnecessary formalisation anyway (for better or for worse). I
Bart Hanson wrote:
As last years President of the Apple Users group of Canterbury Inc. I
have experienced a lot committee talkfests.
Some always want to formalise these things for whatever reason. Others
love the politics more than the cause.
As a "guest" on your stimulating list (I do not know
On 18/10/2004, at 8:31 PM, Gareth Williams wrote:
As far as a change in structure goes, "if it ain't broken, don't fix
it".
Perhaps we could have a quick show of hands - who besides Rik thinks
anything
is broken at the moment? "CLUG" seems to be fine to me
As last years President of the Apple Use
On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 19:38:55 +1300, Robert Fisher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 18:25, Nick Rout wrote:
>
> > Or we just ignore Rik, vote for a committee and move on to the main
> > course, which is linux support and encouragement.
> >
>
> I would like to table a motion:
>
>
On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 19:38, Robert Fisher wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 18:25, Nick Rout wrote:
> > Or we just ignore Rik, vote for a committee and move on to the main
> > course, which is linux support and encouragement.
>
> I would like to table a motion:
>
> "That the loose grouping of people know
On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 18:25, Nick Rout wrote:
> Or we just ignore Rik, vote for a committee and move on to the main
> course, which is linux support and encouragement.
>
I would like to table a motion:
"That the loose grouping of people known as the Canterbury Linux Users Group
remain as such wit
Let me translate.
Rik has been agitating for change within CLUG. That is his right, but I
expect he should tell us what he wants. Therefore I asked him this
afternoon on the committee list (which he was co-opted onto a while ago)
what motions he wanted to have the meeting consider. I did this so I
WTF? I thought Nick was the resident lawyer.
Please rephrase in laymans' terms.
On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 17:16:30 +1300, Rik Tindall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> As the caller, on 23 September 2004 before the Sydenham public meeting
> of CLUG, of our first Annual General Meeting, to be organised throu
45 matches
Mail list logo
