From: cbnorman@cayley.uwaterloo.ca ()
Subject: Re: r.g.f.campaign + scenarios
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 21:50:21 GMT

In article <1dsboaINNqcq@MINERVA.CIS.YALE.EDU> randall-joshua@yale.edu (Joshua Randall) writes:
>In article <BxKqE0.9LJ@undergrad.math.waterloo.edu> cbnorman@cayley.uwaterloo.ca () writes:
>>In article <1dnq0dINNp90@charnel.ecst.csuchico.edu> tdunn@ecst.csuchico.edu (Tim Dunn) writes:
>>>Mr. Uy was intending to mean (and what I believe most of
>>>the remainder of the readership of this group have no
>>>disabilities understanding) is that to have ongoing role-
>>>play on the newsgroups would be an unneccessary waste of
>>>overhead.
>>
>>What do you define as "ongoing roleplaying"? If you're talking
>>about players posting moves and conversations publicly to eachother,
>>I agree with you, and they're not allowed to do that.  If not, what
>>*are* you talking about?
>
>Geeze, Bruce (aha, I know his name now!), you didn't learn anything
>from your rhetoric lesson, did you?  We are not arguing over the
>definition of "ongoing roleplaying".  We all know what it is, and we
>all know that it doesn't belong on UseNet.  You slyly agree with your
>attacker, undermining his attack.
>
Now you tell me that everyone knows what "ongoing roleplay" is, just after
telling me in another message the roleplay can not be narrowly defined.
Make up your mind.

Put out an answer, Josh.  If I was wrong in my definition up there,
you explain what ongoing roleplay is then.  More importantly, explain
how 1) why it's bad for the net and 2) how it is allowable under the
current proposal for .campaign.

The definition I gave isn't.

>>>of this simple fact.  InterNet is expensive.  Postings of
>>>interest to only one or two or a handful of people are 
>>>better regulated to email.  
>>
>>Let's try a simple exercise in logic here.
>>   If few people are interested in .campaign then few people will vote
>>fot it.
>>   If few people vote for it, it will not be created.
>>   If many people are interested in .campaign, then many people will vote
>>for it.
>>   If many people do vote for it, then it will be created.
>
>Hah!  Your logic makes me laugh.  The statement was "InterNet is
>expensive."  Your answer is ".campaing will attract a lot of
>interest".  You did not address the statemate; rather, you made one of
>your own which is unrelated.

There were two statements Josh.  1: "Internet is expensive".  2: "Postings
of interest to only one or two or a hanful of people are better regulated
to email".  I was not trying to disprove those two true statements.  I
proved instead that if a CFV was passed, postings in campaign would not
full under the category of "postings of interest to only one or two or a 
handful of people".

Take an elementary logic course.
>
>>Therefor, it can not be that .campaign will be created and few people are
>>interested in it.  So, what's your problem?
>
>My problem (note that I choose to answer a rhetoric question here) is
>that I believe that you, Bruce Norman, will "fix" the voting process
>by getting all you FidoNet buddies to vote yes.  The proposed group is
>REDUNDANT and WITHOUT MERIT.  It does not even deserve to come to
>vote.
>
And I believe you will fix it by getting all of your "Usenet buddies" to vote
no, Josh.  I'm sorry, but "he's got more friends than I do" is not grounds for
aborting a democratic process....

Xref: sparky news.groups:20280 rec.music.synth:17713