Path: utzoo!utgpu!watmath!clyde!bellcore!texbell!killer!ames!vsi1!wyse!mips!sultra!dtynan
From: dtynan@sultra.UUCP (Der Tynan)
Newsgroups: news.misc
Subject: Re: VOTE on politics in soc.culture.celtic
Summary: Huh?
Message-ID: <2665@sultra.UUCP>
Date: 19 Nov 88 02:06:48 GMT
References: <912@etive.ed.ac.uk>
Organization: Tynan Computers, Sunnyvale, CA
Lines: 94

OK, let me first start by saying, that I don't subscribe to s.c.c, so I
can in a sense be considered unbiased.  Furthermore, I was born in Wales
and grew up in Ireland.  However, what you posted stinks of Censorship.
Allow me to elaborate.

In article <912@etive.ed.ac.uk>, jha@lfcs.ed.ac.uk (Jamie Andrews) writes:
> 
>      Recently some people have been voicing some concern about
> the heavy volume of postings in soc.culture.celtic concerning
> politics, particularly the situation in Northern Ireland.

Fine.  No argument here.

>      As Usenet is an anarchistic bulletin board system, the
> standard procedure in cases like this is to have a vote.

First, use of the phrase 'bulletin board system' is incorrect.  Both
technically, and socially.  Furthermore, unless you are proposing an
action (newgroup, rmgroup or some such), a vote is meaningless.

> There can be no enforcement of the results of such a vote, but
> posters are encouraged to follow the wishes of the net for the
> good of the community.  I therefore propose that we have a vote
> on the following statement.

I don't understand what you are trying to achieve here.  A better idea is
to "post to s.c.c", and tell the guilty parties that you want the discussion
moved.  That, perhaps, you don't feel it is appropriate.  This is better than
asking for a vote to silence all concerned.  Even if the vote passed by 10,000
to 1, you still couldn't enforce it.  If you *really* feel the problem has
gotten out of hand, vote for MODERATION.

>        "Posters to soc.culture.celtic should avoid
>         discussing the present political situation in
>         Northern Ireland, due to the high volume of
>         irresolvable debate it generates."

Why do I get the impression that overall, you don't agree with the mainstream
of the above discussion?  Being English, I can understand that (:-).  Debate
is debate.  If you don't agree with it, you should use your power of veto (ie,
the 'n' key).  A far more effective solution might be to ask them (politely)
to move to talk.politics, or some other 'more appropriate' group.

>      I will collect votes on this coming from the UK and Europe
> (YES if you think people should avoid these issues, NO if you
> think they shouldn't).  My address is:

Count my vote as NO.  Avoiding issues has never been proven as a way to solve
problems.  If anything, it makes things worse.  I'm not saying that posting
to USENET will solve problems anywhere, but exposing issues to groups (ON BOTH
SIDES), who are assumed to be well-educated can sometimes have remarkable
effects.  Part of the problem in 'The North' and elsewhere in the world, is
the lack of a complete understanding of the problem.  If some of the ex-
patriots in this country had a better understanding of life today in Ireland,
they might not be so anxious to support organizations like the IRA (see
"Rattle and Hum").  On the other hand, if the British Government was a little
more open to the concerns of Republicans in Northern Ireland, things might be
somewhat better too.  At any rate, censorship doesn't help.

>      jha@lfcs.ed.ac.uk
> [...]  I hope
> that my non-involvement in the debate for so long will convince
> people that I am capable of doing all this neutrally.

But, at some time or other, you have been involved in this debate?  Why now,
have you decided that the debate is worthless?  Am I to assume that it is not
going in your favor anymore?  You are not helping me decide that yours is a
valid cause for alarm.

>      Please, folks, no discussion about this posting or the
> wording of the statement, just vote.

> --Jamie Andrews.

Hmm.  This is probably your biggest downfall.  I can understand your position
to a certain extent.  But, this "I Have Spoken"-type attitude is misplaced.
If this were a 'real' vote, the discussion would be opened for a period of
two weeks.  However, seeing as you are not actually proposing moderation or
something similar, I'm prepared to overlook the absence of a 'discussion'
period.  That is not to say, either, that I think you should ban the issue.
If I am to vote, then I would like to hear both arguments, even if you *can*
be proven to be neutral.  I think I will resubscribe to the soc.* groups, and
monitor this 'fiery debate' for myself.
						- Der
PS:
I dislike the use of Followups: /dev/null.  It is nothing more than annoying.
It just means I have to go back and edit the Newsgroups: line.  This is hardly
a deterrant.  If you really feel that yours is the last word on the matter,
please make your case more believable.
-- 
	dtynan@zorba.Tynan.COM  (Dermot Tynan @ Tynan Computers)
	{apple,mips,pyramid,uunet}!Tynan.COM!dtynan

 ---  If the Law is for the People, then why do we need Lawyers? ---