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 not irrelevant, although it is certainly vulgar.
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.
No. I've got no objection to political discussion, per se. My objection is to people who cannot practice courtesy and responsible behavior when participating in an online community, and persist in blaming it on "natural tendencies" rather then their own rudeness and/or laziness. The comparison to defecating was to *that*, not political discussion. The use of hyperbole was intentional, although perhaps a bit over the top. The use of a vulgar scatologism was deliberate ironic humor which was apparently missed.
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.
Correct so far.
Why is that? Because the content of those discussions are not offensive to anyones political viewpoints.
That is speculation. You do not speak for others.
I speculate that the real reason is that discussion on ham radio tends to be informative, objective, and useful, and tends to be on unique subject matter each time. In contrast, the political discussions we've seen so far have generally been from the same people, making the same arguments, with the same supporting evidence, in the same way, over and over and over again. If some legitimately new ground was being broken, I suspect it would get ringing endorsement from people. Instead, the discussion that occurs is rather like a positive feedback loop which drowns out all other signal on a channel.
Regardless of the reason, the fact remains that there has been no effort to ban the discussion of ham radio, let alone an informal poll showing that a majority of members would favor such a ban.
... some people are deeply disturbed to hear views they don't agree with getting air time here.
Again, that's pure speculation on your part. You do not speak for the rest of the membership, and I would kindly ask you to stop implying that you know their thoughts. For myself, I have no objection to strong opinions, whether I agree with them or not. I even signed up for the "Linux Cafe" list so that I could join in the discussions there. Alas, that list has been silent.
I do find it interesting that the forum that was created by and for the most vocal in political threads has been silent. I have to wonder why those who like to voice their opinions so often don't do so in the forum created for that purpose.
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.
See the threat with subject "RFC: Make political discussion off-topic by rule", which started here
http://www.mail-archive.com/gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org/msg08375.html
and the responses. In summary, of people who stated a clear position, there were 6 votes in favor of a rule (counting my own) and 1 against it.
Again: This was a self-selected informal poll, and the problems with such are well-known, but it is the only objective data available. That being said, your point that non-response could be construed as implicitly condoning such discussion is a good one.
I like hearing about both [ham raido and politics] as long as neither comes to dominate the topics on the list.
It appears that even you agree with my views on the political discussions -- that such things become a problem only when they overwhelm the other topics. I can only assume that our thresholds for "overwhelm" are different.
My take on Derek's point is that he was saying some of these techno-political discussion ARE on topic ...
As I stated, that particular horse (and, I suspect, this one too) has already been beaten to death. If you really want to have it again, reply to me off-list so we can spare even more noise then we've already caused.
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! :-)
So when I indulge in ironic humor, it is an unworthy, ad hominem attack, but when you do it, it is all in good fun, eh? Speaking of hypocrisy... :)
On a more serious note, the above was not "nothing to say". It was, in essence, a pointer to past discussions which have been had and which I feel do not have to be had again in this forum. I eat my own dogfood; I try to avoid perpetuating discussions in which nothing new will be said.
-- Ben <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> _______________________________________________ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss
