From: car377@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (charles.a.rogers)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: rec.moto.harley
Summary: "flaws"
Date: 22 Jul 92 21:06:59 GMT
Organization: AT&T

In article <l6r8euINN3pf@jethro.Corp.Sun.COM>, duane@thismoment.Corp.Sun.COM (Duane Day) writes:
> In article <1992Jul22.171143.19888@cbnewsj.cb.att.com>,
> car377@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (charles.a.rogers) writes:
> >In article <25127@sophia.inria.fr>, 
> >weigl@sibelius.inria.fr (Konrad Weigl) writes:
> >> Hm...Let me see if I got this right: [...] you want
> >> to _FORCE_ Harley riders _AS A GROUP_ to stay on rec.moto?
> 
> >Say, Konrad, have you studied American History in your education?  
> >Specifically, are you familiar with the attempt of the Confederacy
> >to secede from the United States and the pro/con arguments of the
> >time?  No doubt the Southerners believed the US risked nothing by
> >allowing or endorsing the secession. The Union obviously felt otherwise,
> >and with considerable justification, as history has shown.
> 
> The flaw in this analogy is that Harley riders will still be motorcyclists
> after r.m.h is created, and as such will be free to choose to continue to 
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> participate in r.m.  At the time of secession, Southerners became citizens
                              ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> of the CSA and were no longer citizens of the USA.

You distort the analogy artifically to produce the "flaw".
The "time of secession" is the vote period.  "After r.m.h is created"
corresponds to the post-war (or post-secession had there been no war)
period, (i.e., encumbrances to its creation or continued existence would
no longer exist).  In that time, the two countries would have established 
normal diplomatic relations like Canada and Mexico have with the US, and 
travel between them would be virtually unrestricted, i.e., your desire not 
to go there would be more effective at preventing your visit than any 
politically-imposed barrier.  The Union folks of the time viewed this 
scenario as undesirable compared to the continuation of the integrated 
Union, and with good reason, although the Confederates viewed it as an 
unfair, dastardly, and tyrannical oppression, also with good reason.

The notion of different "citizenship" actually improves the match, since 
brand affiliation brings with it the issues of lifestyle, culture, and 
social norms in much the same way that nationalism evokes these same 
concerns.

> Anti-r.m.h people:  why do you continue to base your arguments on the
> premise that once r.m.h exists, Harley riders will no longer participate 
> in r.m?  

Perhaps it is because the pro-r.m.h folks keep asserting that
all or most of the Harley folks have left because there is "nothing 
in r.m for them".  Only one or the other of these two "premises" can be 
true at any given time.  It seems unreasonable to expect us to accept
mutually exclusive assertions simultaneously.   

Of course, there are a few hardy HD-enthusiasts who still participate 
in r.m (like me), and who are an existence proof that the "noise" is not 
so bad that *everyone* has left.  However, I perceive (and pro-r.m.h-ers
claim) that the HD presence is much diminished since the last RFD.  This
claim seems to be in dispute only when we attempt to use it as evidence
that segregating mechanisms do, in fact, segregate.

> I have'nt seen anyone make a convincing case for that premise.  

The HD-list is a convincing case, as is the repeated claim that r.m.h
will bring the list members "back" while r.m. will not.

> The only thing I can see that r.m will lose if r.m.h is created is
> Harley-specific discussion.  

What you perceive as loss and what I perceive as loss are different
things.  Some things that I value highly are valueless to you and
the reverse is doubtless true as well.  You cannot convince me that
the things I value about r.m which will vanish or diminish greatly 
with the creation of r.m.h do not exist or are not important simply 
because in *your* system of priorities they have no significance.  
I *can* see losses other than the "only" loss you can perceive, 
because I *see* differently than you do.

> There is no reason to assume that r.m will
> will lose all of its Harley-loving participants; in fact, there have been
> Harley-lovers who have said they would continue to participate in r.m 
> even after r.m.h is created.

I do not dispute this claim.  I am one of "them" myself.   I can
also name a newbie whom I enthusiastically welcomed to r.m with
help and advice, who gave every sign of being another Seth or Diana
or Tom or Jerry, and who departed almost immediately for the list
and hasn't been heard from in r.m since, even though he wasn't
the target of any anti-HD abuse at the time.  The social dynamic
of a preference-based segregating wall works by making one environment 
attractive and the other unattractive to prospective participants.
It is *designed* to do that, all the arguments for it *claim* it
will do that, and I can't really think of any good reasons why it
shouldn't work exactly that way.  At this point, someone usually
asserts that the "noise" in r.m has had the same effect, i.e. it
has imposed defacto segregation, and any chance for integration is
thus lost.  I agree that this is *currently* the case, but I still
find it undesirable to enshrine this situation by erecting mechanisms
that will effectively perpetuate it.

> >Since you (and others on *both* sides) seem to have an inordinately 
> >difficult time seeing the opposition's perspective (whether you agree 
> >or not), perhaps the similarities between that earlier Civil War
> >and this one might enlighten?
> 
> I think the differences between the two "wars" are more enlightening than
> the similarities.  However, perhaps most enlightening of all is the fact
> that the U.S. Civil War would be seen by r.m.h opponents as analogous to
> the r.m.h proposal.

OK, let's talk about those differences, or the reasons why, as
an "r.m.h opponent", my choice of this analogy is "enlightening".  

Chuck Rogers
car377@druhi.att.com