From: gln@cs.arizona.edu (Gary L. Newell)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.celtic
Subject: Re: Two Celtic cultures
Date: 14 Apr 92 16:21:42 GMT
Organization: U of Arizona CS Dept, Tucson

In article <1992Apr14.131317.4239@cm.cf.ac.uk>, gedge@cm.cf.ac.uk (Geraint A Edwards) writes:
> } anyway, Chris has as much
> } right to make the request as I have to state that it bothers me,
> Agreed.  However, you were over-zealous in your attempted rebuttal,
> IMO, which is why I offered my support to him.

Well, Chris and I have corresponded through e-mail regarding this issue and I
think it is safe to say that he did not get offended by what I said but rather
thought about it and responded...

> No one is redefining the celtic culture, but we must be able to
> discuss the charter for this group and whether certain articles
> fall into its scope or are more deserving of a different group.

 Nice try. Read what you wrote again - it clearly says "*We* (I don't know just
who "we" are) should be able to decide what is appropriate in this group" - that
it seems to me is defining what qualifies as celtic culture and what does not.
I agree that in many areas the issue is clear - for example, a long discussion
regarding the relative merit of concurrent programming is really not a topic
which belongs here - however, it seems absurd to claim that discussion about
Northern IRELAND do not belong in a celtic culture group.

> (see below).  We just question whether its position is
> relevant.  I subscribe to uk.politics and eunet.politics for
> such things.  Soc.* groups are more social than political in
> nature, as I see it.

Well, as many people have/will point out here, a large number of people feel 
that the idea of separating politics from Irish culture is at best absurd. Also,
the individual who originally called for votes to create this group, posted
an article a couple years back when this problem arose and claimed that the
issue of NI was key to his decision to call for the group. Nobody claimed 
that he was not telling the truth at the time so I assume that it was true. 

> Agreed: It is `tough luck' that I don't like the balance.
> Agreed: I can kill the articles if I want to.
> Agreed: I have no right to dictate to others (topic and frequency).
> Not agreed: "requests or demands that the group change to
>              please a subset of people is absurd"

 Well your right 3/4's of the time anyway. 

> I have already successfully been instrumental in the creation of
> a newsgroup which took discussions from many different newsgroups
> and concentrated them in one place - a new newsgroup.  The same
> could be done for NI-specific stuff if enough people agree.

Has anyone told you yet that this stupid practice was already attempted what?
Three times here in the last 2 years or so. Lost each time. Must we listen
to new folks every year tell us about how "our" group is unbalanced and in
need of change because it bothers some people...

> I am trying to suggest that a better group might be
> talk.politics.N.Ireland or other existing groups which address
> politics more explicitly.

Why? This sounds like some sort of anal-retentive thing to me : "IT must be
in a political group since it deals with politics!!!!" - it is also essential to
celtic culture (Irish in particular) and belongs here. Funny nobody whined about
the continuing Scot debate regarding what can only be described as a political
issue as well.
			gln
Newsgroups: soc.culture.celtic