Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!mcsun!ukc!stl!dww From: dww@stl.stc.co.uk (David Wright) Newsgroups: news.admin Subject: Re: The Dynamics of Debate on USENET Message-ID: <2233@stl.stc.co.uk> Date: 30 Sep 89 12:37:10 GMT References: <35033@apple.Apple.COM> <46115@bbn.COM> <35037@apple.Apple.COM> <1989Sep27.151220.8080@MorningStar.COM> Sender: news@stl.stc.co.uk Reply-To: "David Wright"Organization: STC Technology Limited, London Road, Harlow, Essex, UK Lines: 43 In article <1989Sep27.151220.8080@MorningStar.COM> (Bob Sutterfield) writes: #In article <35037@apple.Apple.COM> chuq@Apple.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) writes: # o If it's already been said, don't say it again. # #This is one of the problems with holding a pre-vote discussion. Once #the original points have been made, and the merits and disadvantages #catalogued, the discussion should quickly terminate. ... # [and people think there is no interest in the issue] Which is why a count of for/against postings should never be taken as a statistically valid sample of net opinion. Sensible netters do not repeat arguments others have already made and add to the noise level: this doesn't mean they don't agree. Example: when I proposed a uk.politics group the discussion postings went 3:5 in favour. Come the actual vote, it was 2:77 in favour (I guess one of the 3 had dropped their opposition). (Incidentally, more than half the votes came in within 24 hours, and all but 3 within 7 days, but of course the uk net is only about 400 sites.) This is why the proposed reorganisation discussion should conclude with some sort of voting process (an advisory referendum :-) ). The technique of continuing an argument long after it should have been resolved is a well known but highly disreputable technique of achieving political power. As one UK example, some years ago a group of people calling themselves the "Militants" decided that the Labour Party wasn't socialist enough for them and decided to change it from within. They only represented a small minority of members, but despite this they were able to take over many local branches. One technique they used was to turn meetings into interminable arguements which went on late into the night, and didn't seem to achieve much. Most 'normal' members got fed up with this, and stopped coming to the meetings -- leaving the Militants in the majority at meetings, and thus able to make policy, elect new (Militant supporting) officers, etc. (Eventually, the Militants were 'proscribed' and thrown out of the Party, but not before the whole row had done much damage to the credibility of the Labour Party. Apologies to members of the Labour Party for any gross simplifications in this story.) -- Regards, David Wright STL, London Road, Harlow, Essex CM17 9NA, UK dww@stl.stc.co.uk ...uunet!mcvax!ukc!stl!dww PSI%234237100122::DWW Living in a country without a written constitution means having to trust in the Good Will of the Government and the Generosity of Civil Servants.