[The order of quotations has been re-arranged for editorial purposes.] On 5/10/05, Derek Martin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Note that as with most political issues that surface on the list, this > topic IS at least tangentially related -- it's about the politics of > technology.
That particular argument has been had before in this forum. Right or wrong, all the points that are going to be made, for or against, have been made. I refer you to the archives and will not rehash them here. Reply off-list to me if you feel you must discuss them with somebody again. > Many people aren't also interested in ham radio, but that's ok here. To the best of my knowledge, there is no clear majority in favor of banning the discussion of ham radio in this forum. > People are going to do it anyway, and it's NOT about being rude, and it's NOT > about being irresponsible. It's about doing what comes natural in an > environment > that lends itself to having exactly those kinds of discussions, and the > passions > of the people who hang out here. Shitting on the floor is doing what comes naturally. Our ability to overcome our natural desires and behaviors is one of the defining characteristics of being human. I disagree with your assertions that such behavior is not rude, not irresponsible, and is unavoidable. It is rude because it appears the clear majority would rather not have this stuff here, and there are ample forums of equal accessibility where this stuff can be discussed. It doesn't cost anything to not have this stuff here. I find disregarding what others think in that fashion rude, just as interrupting someone when they are talking is rude. Likewise, just as children learn not to speak out-of-turn in elementary school, people can learn not to hijack forums and threads for their own purposes. Being a responsible member of a community means you agree to adhere to the conventions of the community at large, even if that means doing things you don't particularly want to. That's what responsibility is all about. So I view those who refuse to put in their part for the betterment of a community as irresponsible. While I have, as you say, been on plenty of lists where topic was freely ignored, I have also been a member of plenty of forums where topic was adhered to. Most often because there was a formally defined topic which was enforced by a moderator ("moderator" in the general sense, not the Usenet sense of "person who approves all postings prior to dissemination"). I think a bit of a historical digression here may help illuminate where I am coming from. My original background in electronic discussion forums is not Usenet, but Fidonet, the amateur BBS network. Every forum (called an "echo") had a moderator. Fido moderators did not act as Usenet moderators do, but rather, were "in charge of" and "owned" echos. How strict the rules of each echo were, in theory and fact, was up to the moderator. If people did not behave, moderators could get them banned from the echo. If a single person became a nuisance, that person could be banned from all echos. If an individual BBS was lax in policing it's members, that BBS could be cut off from Fidonet. This is a radical paradigm shift from the barely controlled anarchy of Usenet, but it worked pretty well, and still does in parts of the world without good Internet connectivity. NOTE WELL: I am not attempting to argue that Fidonet is/was the best format for a forum in the universe for any given definition of "best". Nor am I saying Usenet and/or this forum should adopt some or all of Fidonet policies. I'm simply using an example to illustrate a point. That point being: I've seen forums stay on topic in a nice, friendly, manner, and I disagree with Derek's assertions that they cannot. _______________________________________________ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss