From: kvt@druwa.ATT.COM (KVT)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.vietnamese
Subject: Re: alt.politics.vietnamese (was [POL] Re: DIALOG(Thua^.t hoa`i))
Date: 24 Dec 92 00:21:07 GMT
Reply-To: kvt@druwa.ATT.COM (KVT)

In article <1992Dec23.043827.13926@smsc.sony.com> tin@smsc.sony.com (Le Tin) writes:
# In article <22967@drutx.ATT.COM> kvt@druwa.ATT.COM (KVT) writes:
# >In article <1992Dec18.225958.12730@smsc.sony.com> tin@smsc.sony.com (Le Tin) writes:
# ># ....
# >#   In the following months, we can see how well A.P.V. does.  Let the
# ># netters decide whether it is worth keeping or not.  It helps if everyone
# ># enforce the rules that _extended_ political discussions should move to
# ># APV.  My guideline is that the initial discussion can start on SCV.  But
# ># once it has started, _ALL_ followups should move to APV.  That way people
# ># can see whether the subject interest them or not, and whether they wish
# ># to join.
# ># 
# ># Regards,
# ># Tin Le
# >
# >As Quang Le pointed out, not all sites carry alt.* or guarantee to
# >carry alt.politics.vietnamese, forcing people to move politics stuff
# >to APV is not very "friendly".
# >
# >Kim
# 
#   Sigh, I posted the full information and still some people get
# confused.
# 
#   I am not forcing anyone to do anything.  I am _asking_ people to
# voluntarily follow some simple guidelines.  This is in the interest
# of keeping SCV free of the flamage that some people seem to enjoy.
# We have gone through this discussion many times before on whether
# politics should be discussed on SCV or not, and how to make sure
# people who are interested in the discussion can continue.
# 
#   If you may remember, I originally opposed creating another
# newsgroup for politics only.  That was earlier this year.  After
# more discussions, a number of people have convinced me to at least
# find out what the potential interest are.  Ergo, the
# alt.politics.vietnamese group is created.
# 
#   Yes, I realize that not all sites carry alt.*, and the ones that
# do may not carry all alt.* groups.  That is why I have _also_
# created a news to mail gateway, similar to the SCV relay mailing
# list.  With these two methods, that should cover everyone (news
# and mailing list).  That leaves only the people who enjoy flaming
# in public and be a complete a*hole and public nuisance.  _Those_
# people I leave to the SCV netters to deal with.
# 
#   I hope that is clear enough explanation.  Please let me know if
# you need more.
# 
# Regards,
# Tin Le
# -- 

I hope Tin Le didn't think he is becoming the one who DICTATES WHAT IS
GOOD AND WHAT IS BAD FOR THE SCV. By saying "asking", not "forcing",
and then labelling who would not do as he asks (moving followups to
APV) as "a*hole", there is only difference between "asking" and
"forcing" that he alone can understand. Whether Tin Le opposed or
agreed with this alt group does not mean SCVers automatically need 
to do the same.  Whether Tin Le creates one mail gateway (or a 
thousand for that matter), that fact does not mean people have to do 
what Tin Le "asks" people to do.

Furthermore, this is a PUBLIC forum which is open to EVERYONE and the 
SCV charter DOES ALLOW POLITICS DISCUSSIONS. Unless the charter 
changes to indicate that extended politics discussions are not allowed,
the matter remains in ALL and EVERY SCVer's CHOICE. As Tin Le
regconized above, the issue MUST BE DISCUSSED AND AGREED UPON BY ALL
THOSE INTERESTED BEFORE IT BECOMES A GUIDELINE (not even a rule).
Not just because Tin Le said so, everybody has to follow 
"the leader" or be risked labeled an "A*WHOLE" (guess this term is 
acceptable as "courteous","high-level" now.) 

Probably, in his overpowering wisdom, Tin Le didn't see that a USENET 
group has many nice features over a mailing list: no need to subscribe
or unsubscribe, no need to watch for your mail space for flooding 
(no need to worry about mails when you're on vacation for example),
kill file to delete unwanted articles, don't have to depend on 
somebody's generosity for services,.... even another USENET is created
for this purpose, this alternative needs to be thoroughly discussed
by all interested SCVers before it becomes a "non-a*hole" way.

Kim

P.S. Probably I need more explanation in why Tin Le was so sure in
his wisdom that everything he said needs no further questions or
explanation. Was it so clear and well written that only "dummy"
would want to question further?

To Tin Le only:

1. The matter has not been decided and I did not request to be on APV 
mailing list, please take my name off.

2. If you care to know, your reply to my simple question seems to 
carry enough hatred and condescendence to almost side-track the issue.