From: rnk@cbnews.cb.att.com (ram.n.kumar)
Subject: Re: Improprieties (soc.culture.indian.american and soc.culture.tamil 
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 21:57:22 GMT

In article <1992Aug31.220216.26754@cbnewsi.cb.att.com> alok@cbnewsi.cb.att.com
(alok.vijayvargia) writes:

[Stuff deleted]
>
>I don't think any canvassing at all should be done after the issue of CFV.
>Whether it is negative or positive or whether it is by the vote taker or
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>anyone, it is not good to have it.
^^^^^^^
^^^^^^^
>
I disagree. 
I used to read SCI a long time ago and gave up for the same reason 
many others have done so (wars, postings filled with hate, insulting notes 
(remember the one about "angry" tamils with last names "Air" and "Anger"?)
etc). When I was told by a friend that a vote was being taken
on soc.culture.tamil, I was glad and I voted YES. I do now read
soc.culture.tamil regularly. If my friend had not informed me about the
vote, I'd never have known and may be (just may be) the proposal would
have been defeated without my ONE vote! who knows?

In addition, I believe that he line between "informing" or 'canvassing"
is very thin. Most of the times, in issues like this people do not just
"inform" they tend to "selectively inform". Take my friend for example
(he was not one of the few you named in your posting).
My friend voted YES, he got another YES vote because he informed me.
He did not of course inform every non-Tamilian in the neighborhood
some of whom would probably have voted NO.
Does that mean he was canvassing or influencing the
decision by informing those who were more likely to vote YES?
In a way he was being "selective" about whom he informed, and in a way
he was "canvassing" unintentionally.
Are you saying that you only object to "intentional" canvassing?
If not, why is "unintentional" canvassing more acceptable,  given that
both influence the outcome the same way?

The "none can canvass"  part in your message is fatally flawed.
In a country where TV commericals are run to encourage people to drink 
milk, a little canvassing by someone is not bad at all. I see
nothing wrong with it.

With your no-canvassing approach, only a subset of active SCI readers (active
at the time the vote is taken) would have had a chance to vote. What about
the other former SCI readers, a new generation of potential/future
readers and so on? Who will tell them ?


>
>The vote taker's behaviour in case of soc.culture.tamil violated the
>appearance of the vote taker to be unbiased. After making such biased
>and improper remarks, he went on to issue the CFV and selected himself
                                                ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>to be the vote taker.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>

I don't know the history. All I know is that I voted yes, and enjoy reading 
soc.culture.tamil. State what you believe to be the correct process to select
a vote taker. If "he" had asked someone else to be the "vote-taker", you 
would have said he appointed a "friend" as a vote-taker. Who should then
appoint the vote taker? God? President Bush? Dan Quayle? You? Do you
think you should have been the the "vote-taker"? What are your
qualifications? Should we have had another fair democratic vote on
who the vote-taker should be (perhaps one non-Tamilian and a Tamilian
running against each other)? Who'll be the vote taker for that particular
poll?? Gets both interesting and VERY VERY RECURSIVE....

It is easy to talk and blame. The fact of the matter is in the corporate 
world, having a dream and following it through would be called as
leadership and initiaive. That is what the people who started the
soc.culture.tamil initiative did. Right now, all you can do is, see how many
are reading soc.culture.tamil and see if that justifies its existence.
If you are a Tamil and find that what is being written there to be far worse
than what is posted on SCI (or against the Tamil culture that it is
supposed to promote) start a campaign to get rid of it. If you
do so, please be careful and do not appoint yourself as vote-taker.
Also, like you said, do NOT campaign. And ask only Tamils to vote
and not the "Air-And-Anger" type intellectuals.

	[Air-And-Anger comes from a mean-spirited joke posted on SCI.
	Question:	Why are Tamils Angry?
	Answer:		Because they have family names like Air and Anger.
			(references to Iyer and Iyengar. The guy who
			posted the joke did not even know that much about
			Tamils.)]

Intellectuals like you never posted a follow-up note condemning
such sick and insulting jokes on SCI. And still you seem to play Mr. NiceGuy
and fume so much over canvassing and vote-taker appointment.

Here is a challenge for you. Take it upon yourself to perfect a process
for future votes (say soc.culture.xyz) and have it ready. Remeber to
make sure that all netters agree with your proposal. Put proposals, invite
suggestions and see how someone else comes after you, charging you with
improper actions, etc. At least then, you may know what the few individuals
who led the effort on the recent votes actually feel about your comments.

Quit talking about the past. Do some some thinking and find out what is it
you want to do now? What is YOUR Goal, at this point? I am confused.
Will you please be explicit.

(1) Do you want to get rid of soc.culture.tamil and the likes?
	State that explicitly and start a campaign! See how much
	support you get.  That is the right thing to do!

(2) Are you simply trying to perfect the process for future votes?
	State that explicitly and make a proposal and invite comments
	It makes sense to say something like "let us learn from the
	examples of soc.culture.tamil ... and let us not repeat the
	same mistakes". I have no problem with that. But just crying foul
	and taking your frustrations out on a small set of individuals
	is meaningless.

(3) Are you tring to discourage people from initiating future votes?
	You may just have succeeded. On the other hand, you may never.

(4) Just write and vent out your frustrations?
	I do not want to waste my time on you.
	I enjoy reading soc.culture.tamil. I'd rather do that while it is
	still around.

(5) Punish the individuals you've named and/or fine them a million dollars?
	File a federal complaint or sue them. Do not waste everyone's time

(6) Throw mud at individuals?
	Help yourself.

Bye.
Newsgroups: news.groups