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.