Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!ukma!husc6!geoff From: geoff@tom.harvard.edu (Geoff Clemm) Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss Subject: Re: Changes to Alternative Newsgroup Hierarchies Message-ID: Date: 27 Jul 89 18:07:29 GMT References: <12348@altos86.Altos.COM> <4439@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu> Sender: news@husc6.harvard.edu Organization: Aiken Computation Lab, Harvard University Lines: 32 In-reply-to: lee@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu's message of 27 Jul 89 15:25:58 GMT In article <4439@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu> lee@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu (Greg Lee) writes: ... If that is really the motive, all political discussions should be off-limits, whether or not they are "contrary to GNU aims and political philosophy". The point that is missed here (and by so many other posters) is that none of the gnu groups are political discussion groups (except for the newly created gnu.misc.discuss) -- they are technical discussion groups. Why then is an occasional posting of FSF politics relevant ? Because FSF politics determines what they will or will not do technically. Rather than have 100's of questions about "is FSF interested in it if I create program xyz", they occasionally post information (yes, politics) that allow the people to answer the question themselves. Why are other people's politics not relevant ? Because this DOES NOT affect what FSF will or will not do technically, and therefore may be of interest to the poster, but not to the technical readership. With this in mind, the only purpose for non-FSF political postings (other than simple rudeness) would be an attempt to change FSF's politics and therefore indirectly affect the technical contents. It has been demonstrated over and over ad nauseam that the FSF view is internally consistent, leaving non-FSF political posting as either "I disagree with your axioms" or the equivalent of a rude noise (with an unfortunate preponderance of the latter). Geoffrey Clemm