From: mick@maxine.wpi.edu (Ravi Narayan)
Subject: Re: rec.moto.harley
Keywords: metadiscussion flame
Organization: Worcester Polytechnic Institute
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 18:33:17 GMT

Somewhere, Sometime, Thus Spake karish@pangea.Stanford.EDU (Chuck Karish):
:- >
:- >	fortunately or unfortunately i or any other person who is not on
:- >	the mailing list has nothing to do with its costs. if you take
:- >	on the job of managing the mailing list it increases your work
:- >	load. your arguement is entirely baseless since for
:- >	joe-administrator the probability of even having an user on the
:- >	list is infinitesimal. the list to 99% of the world causes no
:- >	strain in terms of "administrative attention". such is not the
:- >	case with a newsgroup.
:- 
:- Usenet would not work if news managers were as selfish
:- as Ravi suggests they should be.  Groups get worldwide
:- propagation only because people pass on all sorts of
:- stuff that they may not be directly interested in.

	nice twist of words there. lets go over this: the person i was
	responding to said that newsgroups require more administrative
	attention than the mailing list, for which i replied as above.
	i also say "if there is a legitimate reason for the formation of
	the group, all this doesn't matter". its not a matter of whether
	a news admin is selfish or not. if you are talking about
	administrative attention, it seems to me that the newsgroup
	would require more of it. if you are looking at it from a news
	admins point of view he would carry it (i think) if it was worth
	the time and effort, and from the point of view of a voter he
	would vote for it if he were convinced of the necessity for the
	group. as a voter, apart from three people i have noticed no
	response on this matter from pro-r.m.h people (maybe because the
	RFD is past). the charter does not explain to me in what manner
	h-d motorcycling is different from the rest. whether a news
	admin is selfish or not, the newsgroup is more work possibly for
	him, than the mailing list. hence this doesnt seem to be a valid
	reason to me. which is what my response stated.

:- >	this is not a case of war against
:- >	rec.moto, which everyone seems to have forgotten,
:- 
:- Including Ravi.  Why else would he be talking about
:- "the pro-rec.moto person" (see below)?
:- 

	i use the term pro-rec.moto to mean "harley riders stick with
	rec.moto". proof by contradiction is a little bit more rigorous
	to establish.

:- >	the group other than of the form "they want it. what do you have
:- >	against it?" (something that assumes 1. i have something against
:- >	it,
:- 
:- Come on, Ravi.  Quit waffling and address real
:- issues.  If you didn't have reason to oppose the
:- group, you wouldn't be posting articles in opposition
:- to its creation.

	chuck (and others responding to me) i have not opposed the
	creation of the group. i entered this thing late and i accept
	blame for missing out (if there was) posts from people on the
	list and other h-d riders outlining why they need the group. the
	real issue to me (and this would be a nice time to settle it) is
	"flaming and stuff like that is common all over usenet. this is
	no reason for you to put up with it. but don't h-d riders
	consider themselves part of the riding community like any
	jap biker, and their issues relevant to rec.moto?". when the
	votes are counted and the list of voters published you are
	welcome to look it up and if you find my name among those that
	voted no you are welcome to form such a conclusion.

:- >   2. that such an arguement is reason for voting for the
:- >	group).
:- No, that it's a reason for not voting against the group.

	i have no intentions (nor have i encouraged such) of voting
	against the group.

:- >	wars against apparent anti-harley bigots. thru this the need to
:- >	clearly state the purpose of the group and the justification for
:- >	its creation has been side-stepped.
:- 
:- Bullshit.  The proposed charter clearly states the
:- expected scope of the new group.  If your news system
:- has even a few days of news.groups in its spool, you

	the charter states what the group is for, but i still feel that
	rec.moto is a forum that encompasses that need. maybe coupled
	with the statement of the charter, the "persecution of harley
	riders" on rec.moto is viewed as sufficient reason for the group
	by those for it. for me, the harley-flames (and jap flames) are
	at worst an inconvenience to overlook, and h-d motorcycling is
	related to general motorcycling...

:- can look at plenty of good rationale.  If all you
:- want to do is to chop logic without adopting any relevant
:- values, go ahead; just don't expect to be taken seriously.

	you presuppose that i am being taken seriously, while i strongly
	doubt that you hardly comprehend what i am addressing and prefer
	to indulge instead in personal vendetta. read below!!

:- Ravi, please take the finger you insist we point at one
:- faction or another and bury it in one of your bodily
:- orifices.  Your choice.
:- 
:- There is no need to hold a kangaroo court here to
:- decide who to blame for past flames.

	i have been trying to draw this discussion away from the very
	topic that you claim i am trying to focus on. note that my words
	are in reesponse to a post that mentions the flames and things
	that happened a year and a half ago. what i say is that, that is
	not of any importance. for the creation of the newsgroup all
	that is needed and is sufficient is to establish that h-d
	motorcycling is different form general motorcycling. for me that
	is the only criteria that justifies the creation of the group. i
	fully sympathize with the h-d riders (not that they need my
	sympathies or that it makes a difference) on the issue of flames
	but that is not something i can base my vote upon.

:- I'm curious.  What "anti-rec.moto arguement" do you have in
:- mind, Ravi?  A new group is proposed because some have
:- observed that rec.moto does not provide all things
:- to all people.  How is this threatening?

	the anti-rec.moto arguement is the one that goes "harley riders
	have been driven out of rec.moto by constant flaming"... this is
	sad (and not threatening) because its not entirely true. i (and
	quite a lot of other rec.moto readers i am sure) still have a
	lot of respect for h-d motorcycles and their riders. that of
	course is not binding upon the h-d riders. i am however not
	convinced that rec.moto does not provide a forum of discussion
	of motorcycles of which harley-davidson is one.

:- >	as a voter (after all i need not prove the existence of such
:- >	posts to myself, coz i *did* read them).
:- 
:- More BS.  By bringing the issue up in this discussion
:- Ravi uses it to try to influence other voters.  To
:- the best of my knowledge, it's bogus: there have not
:- been a significant number of postings to rec.motorcycles
:- by Harley enthusiasts who oppose the new group.

	saying "lets stick with rec.moto" is not the same as opposing
	the new group. i did not also mention that there were
	significant number of postings to that effect. (i said why do
	such posting appear now and then... i do remember noticing at
	least two over the past few months). i have been called a liar
	and i am unable to produce evidence to prove my statement... the
	intelligent reader is welcome to her/his conclusions. keep in
	mind, however that i have no case to state... i do not wish to
	influence other voters, but as a voter i would like more
	information than is present in the charter, which is what all my
	posts have been about.

:- >	driven out??? could you explain further the parallel between
:- >	blacks being driven out of your town and harley riders
:- >	*apparently* leaving rec.moto?
:- 
:- Ravi, take your "apparently" and hide it with your finger.

	i say apparent becuase there are people who hold that there are
	other reasons for people leaving the group and i personally have
	no knowledge of the numbers about harley riders leaving
	rec.moto.

:- To answer your question, the absence of Harley-related
:- flames in rec.motorcycles this year is because there
:- are few unsophisticated Harley diehards to act as
:- flame bait, not because there is no problem with
:- flamers.  Just as there were few racial incidents in
:- my home town, since there was little racial
:- diversity.

	that still doesnt answer my question, which is included above. i
	still do not understand how "blacks being driven out of a town"
	compares to people leaving a newsgroup (out of their choice)
	because of the inconvenience of flaming, unless i attribute it
	to rhetoric exaggeration. refer instead to my parallel and see
	if that makes sense and helps you understand better (if you wish
	to) my position in this matter.

	i would hope that quite a lot of the vilification addressed
	towards me by you was in jest (though i notice no smilies) or in
	the heat of debate. if not so, i remain content to be
	misunderstood.

	happy riding,

	- ravi


'''---```---^^^^^^-----#-----~~~~~----'''------~~~~-----````~~~---------=\ /=
.sig (n): a piece of mail with a fool at one  :  Ravi Narayan, CS, WPI   (0)
          end and flames at the other. (C).   :  DoD# tan90-SuzukiGS500E  H
   o     _          _           _           _ :         _           _     H
 _/\_> =| |========| |=========| |=========| |=========| |=========| |=======
0,> /0,=|w|,,=====,|,|.,===,,==| |,,===.,==|.|..======w| |..,,.====| |====,,=