List topics (was Re: Help kill the Surveillance State Bill)

David Ecklein dave at diacad.com
Wed May 11 20:05:01 EDT 2005


I tend to agree with Jeff (and with Derek).  In the swelling sea of Linux
acronyms, one cannot find "SOTF", nor ought one.  But this is not Sunday
School, and occasionally any of us might be provoked to more scientific
means of expression than deemed tasteful in our more relaxed and reflective
moments.  But an explanation is not an excuse.

One who would follow Ben's apparent precedent here might well ask "who the
h-e-double-toothpicks is Ben"?  But everyone on the list knows that Ben can
do, and usually does, better than "SOTF".  In my opinion, the only thing
worse than a political prig is an apolitical prig.  I haven't seen any
permanent evidence of either type on this list, just some temporary
waverings in those directions.

If I had any advice, I would urge people to make their points and not worry
about motivations.  Their own or others.  If technology did not have social
implications, nobody would be interested in it, except as a sort of puzzle
to pass the time.

And meanwhile, just hit the delete key if something is not to your taste.  I
do a lot, but more because something is too specialized or incomprehensible
(I am a Linux newbee) than because it is poor taste or "off topic".  When I
CAN understand what you guys (and now and then a gal) write, I always find
it interesting, whether about Linux or Politux.

Keep up the good work.  Even if on occasion, it makes the lurker (my usual
role) feel like he is drinking from a fire hose!

Dave E.


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Jeff Kinz" <jkinz at kinz.org>
To: "Ben Scott" <dragonhawk at gmail.com>
Cc: <gnhlug-discuss at mail.gnhlug.org>
Sent: Wednesday, May 11, 2005 2:28 PM
Subject: Re: List topics (was Re: Help kill the Surveillance State Bill)


> 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 <invalid at pizzashack.org> 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 at mail.gnhlug.org
> http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss
>





More information about the gnhlug-discuss mailing list