On Wed, May 11, 2005 at 01:12:01PM -0400, Ben Scott wrote: > [The order of quotations has been re-arranged for editorial purposes.]
> Derek: > > 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. > Ben: > Shitting on the floor is doing what comes naturally. Discussions about the impacts of technology do come about naturally as part of discussions about technology. The "SOTF" point is irrelevant and raising it does no one credit. It is a cheap debaters trick to try to get the reader to think "sotf" and "techno-politics topics" are the same or are similar. Its a form of "ad hominem" attack by proxy or indirection. This is an unworthy device and does not belong here. Rest assured that the people on this list easily and readily see through this type of no-integrity, null-logic rhetoric and, whether they like or don't like having techno-politics topics discussed here, they easily keep their feelings about the two separate from how they feel about "sotf". > Derek: > > Many people aren't also interested in ham radio, but that's ok here. Ben: > To the best of my knowledge, there is no clear majority in favor of > banning the discussion of ham radio in this forum. But clearly only a minority of the list members are ham's , the rest of us just don't care about it being here. Technically, they are off topic but no one objects. Why is that? Because the content of those discussions are not offensive to anyones political viewpoints. The real problem here is that when the the impact of technology is discussed on the list, there are many different viewpoints and some people are deeply disturbed to hear views they don't agree with getting air time here. Ben: > It is rude because it appears the clear majority would rather not > have this stuff here, I must have missed both the polling and the publishing of the results of any poll of the list on this topic. I don't recall there actually being one. I do recall there being lots of discussion about it. People expressing their opinions means we only get the ones who care enough to post. This constitutes nothing since not posting can be construed as apathy to the point of saying "Its OK with me if those topics are discussed here" which, by list headcount would be approving having those discussions here by a large majority. (I won't count them either way. We need a formal, full polling in order to have any reasonably meaningful representation of the list's aggregate opinion) I just reviewed this thread, and, as of this writing, only Ben has expressed being upset that this topic is here. > people can learn not to hijack forums and threads > for their own purposes. Like Ham radio? If techno-politics is a hijacking of this forum, then surely ham radio is the same "brutal" theft. I submit that both are of sufficient interest to this list community. I like hearing about both as long as neither comes to dominate the topics on the list. (And I'm not even a ham [ but I am interested in Linux-ham-wireless!]) Ben: > 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. But first we need to come to a true agreement about what those conventions are. I submit that a discussion about the implications of, and the technology used in, "the Surveillance State" are sufficiently "techno" to be of interest to this list community. Ben: > 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. My take on Derek's point is that he was saying some of these techno-political discussion ARE on topic. And that they occur as a part of our natural interest in how the technology we are building might be used in ways we approve/don't approve of. Amazingly enough, I find myself in full agreement with what I think Derek is saying. ;-) > 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. OK Ben, next time you have nothing to say, don't say it. :-) (not meant to be personal, I just can't resist hypocro-ironic humor ;-) (Its like a being fed the perfect straight line. irresistible! :-) -- Jeff Kinz, Emergent Research, Hudson, MA. _______________________________________________ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss
