From: ahmed-shakil@cs.yale.edu (Shakil Waiz Ahmed)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.bangladesh
Subject: Re: My objections to the survey...
Date: 6 Nov 1992 22:56:54 -0500
Organization: Yale University Computer Science Dept., New Haven, CT 06520-2158
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: curie.systemsy.cs.yale.edu


In article <1992Nov6.223920.8179@vela.acs.oakland.edu>, mkaziz@vela.acs.oakland.edu (KHALED AZIZ) writes:
> 
> > ahmed-shakil@cs.yale.edu (Shakil Waiz Ahmed) writes:

> >Interesting that you should say that considering that you took the
> >liberty of quoting from personal mail without first asking me.
> 
> Excuse me Shakil, if you can take the liberty of telling the whole world
> what discussion we had without asking me, I don't see anything
> wrong with quoting from your mail without asking you.

The nitpicking syndrome strikes again! :)  All I said was that you had
requested me to post my opinion in public.  Without that, the sudden
posting wouldn't have made much sense.  I did not quote from any
personal messages because that is generally not considered good
etiquette...

> >  Regarding what you say about
> >SCB being more than an electronic bulletin board is technically just
> >plain wrong.  It is a newsgroup just like every other.  The fact that
> >you make your social life out of it is clearly a problem that *you* have
> >to deal with.  If you want to know about the people on the net, the
> >best way to do so would be to request people to get in touch with you
> >informally.
> 
> I see some contradiction here.  If SCB is just an electronic bulletin
> board and nothing more, according to your suggestion I should not
> ask people to get in touch with me informally either, should I? 

Why not?  It's a bulletin board, you can put whatever you want on it.
I never said you couldn't put a survey on the net, I just said that I
don't see the point.

> I should not try to use it to make my social life out of it, period!
> And I should also get rid of my feelings, emotions and all the attributes
> that make me a human being and only after that should I read SCB, right?
> And while I read or post, I should act like a computer and interpret
> everything as either 1 or 0, right?  Life is not simply a combination
> of "technically" right and wrong things. You are more concerned about
> the technical definition of SCB, not the real life definition.  And
> this is where we differ from each other.

So tell me, what *is* the real life definition of SCB?  And who are
you to define it?  SCB *is* an unmoderated newsgroup on USENET.  That
much is a technical fact.  Beyond that, it is merely a matter of
opinion, not definition.

> >An official survey of the nature you posted is unlikely
> >to reveal anything interesting about the *people* on the net you want
> >to know about. 
> 
> Your interpretation shouldn't apply only to this particular survey but
> to all surveys.  And no person or organization should conduct surveys
> since they are unlikely to reveal anything interesting.  So according
> to you, we should get rid of this widely used statistical tool, right?
> If not, please explain how the nature of our survey is different from 
> any other.

Every survey has a reason to it.  Consumer surveys are conducted to
either improve products or plan marketing strategies.  Course surveys
are given out to get feedback on courses to improve them.
Pre-election surveys are used to predict election results and to
design campaigns.  This poll looks like a cross between a consumer
survey and a census.  A census is carried out by a government to
collect information on its citizens for economic and social purposes
to help formulate policies to solve the problems.  This appears to be
very similar to your line of thinking.  There's one difference: you're
not the government of SCB.

> >I'm sure a lot of readers *do* share your view.  I never claimed otherwise.
> >I merely stated *my* opinion, I don't claim to speak for anyone else.
> 
> Sounds like saying sorry to somebody after punching in the nose. If you
> want to discuss this issue please don't add statements like this. 
> Otherwise lets stop the discussion right here.

I'm not saying sorry at all.  I still stand by what I said above.  I
don't particularly care whether everyone else responds to your survey
or not.  I am merely defending my reasons for not wishing to
participate.  I never claimed to speak for anyone else.  In my
original article I said:

    But it is precisely because SCB is a free-for-all forum that they have
    every right to conduct such a survey!  That doesn't mean that I have
    to participate.  :) Again, I was simply going to refrain from
    participating and keep my mouth shut, but since I was asked to voice
    my objections...

I do believe this is very consistent with what I said above...

> >> More importantly, conducting a survey where one can specify ones
> >> gripes and likes gives off the illusion that there is an authority to
> >> whom one can direct such comments.  There isn't, and that wouldn't be
> >> in the spirit of an unmoderated newsgroup.  I basically object to any
> >> kind of bureaucratization of SCB.
> >> 
> >>         Why do you have to make things complicated for no reason?  
> >
> >Excuse me, but I think I just gave a reason.
> 
> You didn't give a reason.  You gave an opinion.  I fail to understand
> from your statement how the survey is contributing to bureaucratization
> of SCB.  The statement is not backed up by explanations and therefore
> I consider it to be null.  Thus you are complicating a simple idea
> for no reason.

Well excuse me, but to me, my opinion *is* a reason for *my* not
wishing to participate in this survey.  Is your reasoning process free
of your opinions?  Again, I list my reason above, and your declaring
it to be null doesn't help this discussion much.

> >>         The primary purpose of any survey is to reveal facts, 
> >>         not improving something.
> >
> >So what facts do you hope to gather from this that aren't otherwise 
> >available? 
> 
> What facts are otherwise available to us and how?  

If you would care to read news.lists, you will find all kinds of
wonderful stats on the readership of scb.

> >And the same people with this "degree" of common sense will also know
> >that an unmoderated newsgroup means anyone can post anything to the
> >group.  Yup, that means I could post an article about underwater
> >basketweaving in the Bahamas if I wanted to.  That's just the way
> >USENET is structured.  That's why you get articles by people like
> >dave@ttd.teradyne.com.  Do you think he has an interest in Bangladesh?
> >Now tell me, what is it about your survey that is going to reveal this
> >unique identity of SCB readership? 

> This is a completely unrealistic view.  If this was the case, there
> was no need to for 2000 newsgroups in the USENET.  One group would have
> easily serve the purpose.  Sure you can post anything you like but you're
> unlikely to do so if you are not somebody unusual (like dave).  If this is
> not the case, why didn't you post an article about underwater 
> basketweaving in the Bahamas?  dave is an exception and the example
> is meaningless.  

I think you're missing my point.  Obviously, the group was started
with Bangladesh in mind, and I can show you the original charter which
says so.  But since it *is* an unmoderated newsgroup, people have the
technical right to post what they want.  And it is because of this
that I question the possibility of revealing a "true identity" of SCB,
especially when the articles make it so obvious that the crowd is
very diverse!

> >> Yet the people who are conducting the survey cannot implement 
> >> any changes based on the result.  
> >> 
> >>         And they don't have any intention to change anything!
> >
> >Two problems with this:
> >
> >1) Then what's the point?
> 
> The point is an instinct that makes us human beings, the desire to
> learn.

That is fine.  And I hope you learn something from it.  I personally
think it is pointless, and hence choose to abstain.

> >2) It still gives off the illusion of an SCB authority

> I still fail to see how.

Maybe that's part of the problem.

-- Shakil
Newsgroups: soc.culture.bangladesh