From: paulchem@tigger.cs.Colorado.EDU (Atharvan)
Subject: Clarifications to Amendment to charter.
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 22:25:09 GMT

In article <harikuma.726168606@enterprise.ifp.uiuc.edu> harikuma@enterprise.ifp.uiuc.edu (G. Harikumar) writes:
>
>
>It is not that simple. While I have no hassles about
>this being a propaganda-free newsgroup, I am very much 
>concerned about what exactly constitutes propaganda. 
>"Propaganda" is a word loaded with negative connotations,
>and it can mean completely different things to different
>people. In short, what I am saying "no" to may not
>be what nettor X says "no" to. 
>

1] The problem with defining what constitutes propaganda is the very 
   subjective nature you refer to. The definition of propaganda 
   as you have proposed leaves out many aspects of propaganda.

   When in doubt about the meanings of words I think its best to look at
   what the dictionary says.

   Heres what webster says (unedited) : 

pro.pa.gan.da \.pra:p-*-'gan-d*, .pro--p*-\ n [NL, fr. Congregatio de 
   propaganda fide Congregation for propagating the]faith, organization 
   established by Pope Gregory XV cap  1: a congregation of the Roman curia 
   having jurisdiction over missionary territories and related institutions 2: 
   the spreading of ideas, information, or rumor for the purpose of helping or 
   injuring an institution, a cause, or a person 3: ideas, facts, or 
   allegations spread deliberately to further one's cause or to damage an 
   opposing cause; also : a public action having such an effect

   While it is ideally desirable to have perfect definitions of what we are
   talking about, it is often neccessary to refer to a nebulous concept,
   depending on the individual users to define the word to himself or herself.

2] A simple examination of how the charter is going to be implemented will
   explain why I did not look for general agreement on what constitutes
   propaganda.

   Since we are not a moderated group there is no concept of one central 
   authority enforcing rules. On the contrary it is the individual acker
   who will respond to the offending post by e-mail for the most part and
   occasionally by posting to the newsgroup.

   Instead of moving the discussion of what constitutes propaganda to a 
   centralised forum I think it is preferable to move it to the domain of
   the individual acker, while we agree or disagree that propaganda whatever
   that term means to teh individual acker, is to be either allowed or 
   not allowed. This automatically implies that some degree of maturity is
   expected of ackers, but then I have faith in the ackers ability to 
   distinguish between propaganda and perefectly acceptable post with 
   refernce to religion.  

   The point of the change is to provide a document approved by the 
   majority that condemns propaganda, so that it can be quoted and used
   by individual ackers.

   The vote is now in an advanced stage, and it would be improper to 
   interrupt the process, for a discussion.
   This saturday I will release the results which will decide whether
   we are to allow propaganda or not. The exact definition of propaganda 
   I think can be left to the ackers to decide when and if such postings
   occur.

   They have made pretty good judgements before, when notices for 
   religious events were allowed without reaction etc.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
.    ~ ~                                                                     .
.    o o      signito ergo sum.              paul chemmanoor.                .
.     |    i sign therefore i am.            Computer Science department.    .
.     =                                      Univ. of Colorado, Boulder.     .
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
.    ~ ~                                                                     .
.    o o      signito ergo sum.              paul chemmanoor.                .
.     |    i sign therefore i am.            Computer Science department.    .
.     =                                      Univ. of Colorado, Boulder.     .
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: alt.culture.kerala