HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: nz.general
Subject: Re: Manipulation of Referendum Results
From: derek@nezsdc.icl.co.nz (Derek Tearne)
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 92 21:08:35 GMT
Organization: Fujitsu New Zealand

In article <BvGrIL.AL0@comp.vuw.ac.nz> chris@toru.isor.vuw.ac.nz (Chris Johnston) writes:
>
>Has anyone seen the summary results for the referendum? 

Yes,  many of us have seen the results summary.

>It is interesting to note that those in the rich urban seats tended 
>to vote for STV as the preferred alternative. (I also voted for this).

My Dad's richer than your Dad nyah, nyah, nyah.  The rhetoric of the 
playground - ah well this is the net.

>As a personal observation I have noticed amongst the people I know that the people
>who voted for STV were the ones that like to cast a critical and thoughtful eye
>over a problem before making a decision. Those that voted for MMP were the ones
>who stated they just went with the flow or hadn't looked into the other options
>very much. 

Before studying the options I would have chosen STV.  I still believe it is 
the most democratic way of _choosing_ individual candidates.  MMP is a much 
better way of forming a representative government.  STV is great for 
introvertive closed systems like university politics but less so for national
governments.  If we could have an MMP type system with a party list to get 
PR but using STV to select the local members we would have an ideal system.

>90% of the people I have spoken to voted STV. This is probably a product of the
>circles I move in but an interesting point to note is that no one discussed the
>issue beforehand!!! ie Everyone made up their own mind independently!!!

I think this shows how narrow the circles you move in are!  They certainly 
aren't representative of the population as a whole!  

Here in the real world (not some elite rich suburb) there was much active 
discussion of the issues and ramifications of STV and MMP (the others largely
ignored).  There was also a lot of discussion in the virtual world we all 
inhabit (the net).  

Discussion is how people who do not have their heads in the sand do things.  

I think someone has to say this (so it might as well be me). 

To you and all your introverted rich friends.

"Get a life"  "Why don't you try dating"  

"Set your column width to less than 78 characters".

 
 Cheers,

     Derek Tearne
      

-- 
Derek Tearne. -- derek@nezsdc.icl.co.nz --  Fujitsu/ICL New Zealand -- 
Some of the more aware dinosaurs were worried about the environmental
consequences of an accident with the new Iridium enriched fusion reactor.  
"If it goes off only the cockroaches and mammals will survive..." they said.
From: hamish@waikato.ac.nz
Newsgroups: nz.general
Subject: Re: Manipulation of Referendum Results
Date: 5 Oct 92 12:35:34 +1300
Organization: University of Waikato, Hamilton, New Zealand

In article <BvGyF7.Iut@comp.vuw.ac.nz>, Ewan.Tempero@comp.vuw.ac.nz (Ewan Tempero) writes:
> 
> In article <BvGrIL.AL0@comp.vuw.ac.nz>, chris@toru.isor.vuw.ac.nz (Chris Johnston) writes:
> |> WRONG, WRONG, WRONG !!!!!!
> |> 
> |> I do believe that 88% of the 48% who voted is 42% of the VOTING population (NOT
> |> the NZ pop)!
> [more completely valid comments about statistics manipulation deleted]
> 
> Answer 1: Those who didn't vote don't deserve (and certainly shouldn't
> expect) to be counted.
>

Fair enough. BUT!

The real question is what was the vote about. That is why the results are
meaningless for whether the country wants proportional voting or not. The vote
we had was to decide whether we wanted to vote for PR or not. Granted 80% of
the vote said "Yes", in big round letters. But that doesn't mean people would
have voted the same way if the vote was actually about whether to change to PR
or not. If the vote had been for that, I may not have voted the same way, and
many other poeple as well. You would also have got the people who wanted the
status quo to remain in force voting instead of staying at home and not
bothering.
 
> Answer 2: The politicians do this kind of statistics manipulation
> all the time (witness Bolgers claim of "a mandate from the people")
> so why can't we?
> 
> (not that I'd argue with a statistician or anything :-)
> 
> --ewan
> -- 
> e-mail:	ewan@comp.vuw.ac.nz	Post: Department of Computer Science
> Phone:	+64 4 471 5328 x8069	      Victoria University of Wellington
> Fax:	+64 4 495 5232		      P.O. Box 600, Wellington, New Zealand
> Conjecture: 1+1=1 (plus a small constant)
-- 
==============================================================================
|  Hamish Marson   <h.marson@waikato.ac.nz>                             OS/2 |
|  Programmer (n/5), School of Computing and Mathematical Sciences           | 
|  University of Waikato,                                                    |
|  Hamilton, New Zealand.                                                    |
|Disclaimer:  Anything said in this message is the personal opinion of the   |
|             finger hitting the keyboard & doesn't represent my employers   |
|             opinion in any way. (ie we probably don't agree)               |
==============================================================================
  Q. If Nuclear Tests are so safe, why don't the French do them under Paris?
Newsgroups: nz.general,nz.netstatus
From: kilroy@acme.gen.nz (earthbound misfit, I)
Subject: nz.waffle?? (was Re: Hello....hello...is anybody home)
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 92 06:58:25 GMT
Organization: ACME BBS - Public Access Usenet, Palmerston North, New Zealand
Followup-To: nz.netstatus

This appeared in my junk group, as well as some others last week.

> Article 3483 of junk:
> Path: acmebbs!cc-server4.massey.ac.nz!comp.vuw.ac.nz!waikato.ac.nz!aukuni.ac.nz!kcbbs!status!nacjack!pinn!wmcdouga
> Newsgroups: nz.waffle
> Subject: Re: Hello....hello...is anybody home
> Message-ID: <BZaqRB3w165w@pinn.nacjack.gen.nz>
> From: wmcdouga@pinn.nacjack.gen.nz (Wayne McDougall)
> Date: Sat, 26 Sep 92 23:00:22 +1200
> References: <yPHmRB3w165w@pinn.nacjack.gen.nz>
> Organization: The Pinnacle Club BBS, Auckland, New Zealand. +64-9-615-382
> Lines: 23

Can we please try and refrain from just creating nz.* groups on an ad-hoc
basis? Note that you're doing your users a disservice by treating this
newsgroup as valid because it probably appears (outside of junk) at about
2 sites nationwide (and is a nz.waffle newsgroup really necessary
anyway?).

						- k
-- 
Craig Harding            kilroy@acme.gen.nz             ACME BBS +64 6 3551342
"Jub'f Xvob?"
From: ldo@waikato.ac.nz (Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Waikato University)
Newsgroups: nz.general
Subject: Re: Manipulation of Referendum Results
Date: 2 Oct 92 17:54:43 +1200
Organization: University of Waikato, Hamilton, New Zealand

In article <MIKE.92Oct2155826@raygun.inform.co.nz>, mike@inform.co.nz (Mike Williams) writes:

>   In a perfect world, STV would be the way to go.

I'm not so sure. I was intrigued by the description of STV, and it certainly
was the only other reasonable choice in the referendum. I'll admit my main
information about how it works in practice came from that Counterpoint TV
special. The Irish senator was quite candid about its drawbacks, even though
he was adamant that he preferred the system to the Anglo-Saxon
First-Past-the-Post any day.

Based on his description of STV, I personally concluded that MMP was a better
system.

Naturally I agreed with him about FPP...

Lawrence D'Oliveiro                       fone: +64-7-856-2889
Computer Services Dept                     fax: +64-7-838-4066
University of Waikato            electric mail: ldo@waikato.ac.nz
Hamilton, New Zealand    37^ 47' 26" S, 175^ 19' 7" E, GMT+12:00
"May you live in uninteresting times"--now THERE's a curse.
Newsgroups: nz.general
Subject: Re: Bogus newsgroups 
From: jonc@status.gen.nz (Jon Clarke)
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 92 22:26:57 GMT
Organization: The Z*NET Global News Gateway. Parnell New Zealand
Keywords: Who is this alias dogbowl @ dogbox does it have a name?

dogbowl@dogbox.acme.gen.nz (dogbowl) writes:


> BTW : It's quite amusing to read the complaints about alt.znet.* in
>       the news.sysadmin areas :-)
> 
 
 I have a problem.  I have hunted high and low in news.admin and news.
 sysadmin (as you mentioned) and can only see TWO such messages and one 
 of those is my reply.
 
 Please read  news.newsgroups FAQ on the ALT groups and then maybe 
 get off your high horse and do something a litle constructive instead
 on jumping on the band wagon ie suggesting that maybe only a few
 messages in the SAMPLE news feed which has not had a control create
 sent (thus just a SAMPLE news group as per the FAQ) instead of the
 amount that has been been sent to sample news group.
 
 I guess reading this message and other you have a problem with 
 some of us here in Auckland and prehaps something best kept to
 email rather than nz.general do you not think?
 
 An apology in nz.general would no astray after you re read the FAQ
 concerned,  re your subject title of your orginal post. 

 regards
 from the creater of the alt.znet groups.

                                                  _
 Jon Clarke                                     o( )       
 jonc@status.gen.nz                            /  /\        GE: J.CLARKE6
 The Z*NET Global News Gateway in Auckland New Zealand      HSBC NZM  EBD
From: dogbowl@dogbox.acme.gen.nz
Newsgroups: nz.general
Subject: Re: Bogus newsgroups 
Summary: Groan!
Keywords: Who is this alias dogbowl @ dogbox does it have a name?
Date: Fri, 02 Oct 92 03:11:59 +1200
Organization: The Dawghaus BBS, Palmerston North, New Zealand (+64 6 357 9245)

> > BTW : It's quite amusing to read the complaints about alt.znet.* in
> >       the news.sysadmin areas :-)
> > 
>  
>  Please read  news.newsgroups FAQ on the ALT groups and then maybe 
>  get off your high horse and do something a litle constructive instead
>  on jumping on the band wagon ie suggesting that maybe only a few
>  messages in the SAMPLE news feed which has not had a control create
>  sent (thus just a SAMPLE news group as per the FAQ) instead of the
>  amount that has been been sent to sample news group.
>  

Amusing. 1: "...from a site somewhere in Australia"
         2: "...mostly adolescent content..."

I gathered from the original posting of the call for znet groups
that you wanted to create a heirarchy that would be read world-wide.

Unfortunately, the discussion only ended up in comp.sys.atari,
alt.config and nz general, when it should have been posted in
the news.announce.newgroups. Therefore any discusion about it
was necessarily limited to a small audience.

This heirarchy ideally should be sitting in comp.org or something
similar. You are doing yourself a disservice even creating an alt
group, as 1: They have a habit of never going away.
      and 2: Alt has limited propagation worldwide.

I have not seen any further discussion of a znet hierarchy in
news.announce.newgroups, or in any other group for that matter.
I recall from the announcement when you created the groups,
that 1: You had newgrouped them.
     2: There was no mention of these groups being samples.

If the alt groups are samples, why hasn't a RFD been posted to
news.announce.newgroups? Was it simply a matter of you deciding to
circumvent the 2 month waiting period for the creation of a `real'
group?

Znet has been in existence for long enough that an extra 2 month
wait before it appeared in usenet is immaterial.



dogbowl at The Dawghaus BBS, Palmerston North, New Zealand (+64 6 357 9245)
dogbowl@dogbox.acme.gen.nz
Newsgroups: nz.general
Subject: X400
From: jonc@status.gen.nz (Jon Clarke)
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 92 20:07:13 PDT
Organization: The Z*NET Global News Gateway. Parnell New Zealand

Hello,
 
Can someone tell me if there is an X400 gateway here in New Zealand we
can access via usenet email?
 
I have in the past received mail via one of the many machines in Auckland Uni 
but no one can tell me the address of that machine or where to send it to
(and yes I deleted the email thinking I would never need it. That is always the
case).

regards,

                                                  _
 Jon Clarke                                     o( )       
 jonc@status.gen.nz                            /  /\        GE: J.CLARKE6
 The Z*NET Global News Gateway in Auckland New Zealand      HSBC NZM  EBD
  
Newsgroups: nz.general
From: gnat@kauri.vuw.ac.nz (Nathan Torkington)
Subject: Re: nz.waffle?? (was Re: Hello....hello...is anybody home)
Organization: Contract to CSC, Victoria Uni, Wellington, New Zealand
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 06:10:38 GMT

In article <BsR5RB2w165w@status.gen.nz> jonc@status.gen.nz (Jon Clarke) writes:

> Craig,
>
> As the system administrator of your site I am a little upset to see not
> once but twice in two different messages use of this sort of language.
> As sysadmin YOU should KNOW better than to do this. 
>
>    [pratty pomposity deleted]

Awww fuuuuck up!

Nat. :-) :-)
Newsgroups: nz.general
Subject: Re: nz.waffle?? (was Re: Hello....hello...is anybody home)
From: jonc@status.gen.nz (Jon Clarke)
Date: Wed, 07 Oct 92 01:16:39 GMT
Organization: The Z*NET Global News Gateway. Parnell New Zealand

gnat@kauri.vuw.ac.nz (Nathan Torkington) writes:

> In article <BsR5RB2w165w@status.gen.nz> jonc@status.gen.nz (Jon Clarke) write
> 
> > Craig,
> >
> > As the system administrator of your site I am a little upset to see not
> > once but twice in two different messages use of this sort of language.
> > As sysadmin YOU should KNOW better than to do this. 
> >
> >    [pratty pomposity deleted]
> 
> Awww fuuuuck up!
> 
> Nat. :-) :-)

 
 Nathan,
 
 Is this the same nathan that is the archiver.
 
 May I suggest that during this past month the tone of this news group 
 has lowered itself past that of alt.evil .
 
 So much for the so called net.polite and net.wise UNI users in this 
 newsgroup.  I can imagine you all using this in every day speach but 
 should the NZ education system turn out such horrible delights in
 public I shudder to think to your department in reality should you
 take this tone. In fact I for one resent such language and as a 
 tax payer of your ORGANISATION take offence to it very DEEPLY!
 
 (oh dear I took the bait....... but sorry I mean it!)

                                                  _
 Jon Clarke                                     o( )       
 jonc@status.gen.nz                            /  /\        GE: J.CLARKE6
 The Z*NET Global News Gateway in Auckland New Zealand      HSBC NZM  EBD
  
Xref: sparky nz.general:1340 nz.netstatus:231
Newsgroups: nz.general,nz.netstatus
Subject: Re: nz.waffle?? (was Re: Hello....hello...is anybody home)
From: ford@pinn.nacjack.gen.nz (Jamie Walker)
Date: Thu, 01 Oct 92 07:40:05 +1200
Organization: The Pinnacle Club BBS, Auckland, New Zealand. +64-9-615-382

kilroy@acme.gen.nz (earthbound misfit, I) writes:

> Can we please try and refrain from just creating nz.* groups on an ad-hoc
> basis? Note that you're doing your users a disservice by treating this
> newsgroup as valid because it probably appears (outside of junk) at about
> 2 sites nationwide (and is a nz.waffle newsgroup really necessary
> anyway?).

There is absolutely nothing stopping two or more sites from exchanging 
their own newsgroup privately between them. Nothing at all. Why do you 
suggest otherwise?
Newsgroups: nz.general
From: Steve.Withers@bbs.actrix.gen.nz
Subject: Re: Winston Peters
Organization: Actrix Information Exchange
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 19:36:14 GMT

In article <1992Oct1.151945.1@csc.canterbury.ac.nz> psyc285@csc.canterbury.ac.nz writes:
> So, exactly where does this decision to oust Winston Peters leave the National
> Party. Surely it means they have turned their backs on the people of his
> Tauranga electorate, who endorse his representation and expect him to remain a
> part of caucus.
> 
> I donUt endorse everything he says, but IUd defend his right to say it. If I
> was
> a member of his electorate, IUd be ticked off that the National Party was
> reducing his powers in this way.
> 
> Suprised.

The Nats don't like people who refuse to join "the club". Usually, these
people are weeded out long before they ever get nominated as candidates. But
Tauranga has a tradition - at least in recent times - of holding different
views on democracy as compared to the rest of New Zealand. Tauranga has many
supporters of Citizens Initiated Referenda (CIR). More so than elsewhere. They
also believe that Winston Peters is there to represent them.
 
The other Nat MPs - with a few exceptions - talk about representation: then
follow the rules of "the club". Winton Peters does more than talk.
 
He has his flaws, but would he risk his own self-destruction if there was
absolutely nothing in this BNZ affair? The best way to destroy Winston Peters
is to have the public inquiry he is asking (in accordance with Nat election
policy) for. If there is no basis in his claims.......he will have no
credibility forever and a day.
 
But......perhaps the staunch refusal to hold the inquiry is because there IS
something to his claims and they would rather suffer the innuendo than have the
truth revealed.......
 
My 2 cents worth.

-- 
Steve Withers - Wellington, New Zealand | On Sept. 19th, 88% of NZ voters opted
Steve.Withers@bbs.actrix.gen.nz         | for proportional representation. It
withers_s@kosmos.wcc.govt.nz            | looks like we may get a more  
**** Happy user of OS/2 v2!! ****       | democratic system "real soon now".
Newsgroups: nz.general
From: chris@isor.vuw.ac.nz (Chris Johnston)
Subject: Re: Manipulation of Referendum Results
Originator: chris@tahi.isor.vuw.ac.nz
Organization: Institute of Statistics and Operations Research, VUW, Wellington, NZ
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 1992 23:37:54 GMT


Well it is pleasing to see some dicussion of an issue I was afraid would be swept
under the carpet and forgotten. I'm sure everyone realises the contribution was
meant to be a bit provocative but I do think MMP voters should be made aware of
the substantial section of those who voted for STV for very sound and considered
reasons.

The main reasons I voted for STV are:
1)	I don't like the idea of party lists. This is because it starts to divorce
some MP's from the people they serve. Most MP's I have heard comment on the system
in the times before PR became an issue claimed it was very effective in keeping
them in touch with the concerns of the 'people'. Some claim this has not helped
them keep their promises btu I argue no system will do this. After all the basis
of any political campaign is that people have short memories and this has been
borne out time after time and term after term. There is a limit but its not a
tight one. 
	Those on the party lists will lose touch and be more inclined to pursue
policies they believe are best in the face of public opinion. Most people who
voted for change did so to mitigate this curent tendency in NZ politics.

2)	I believe multimember electorates have benefits. Parties can select a
wider range of candidates rather than the single more conservative candidate that
appeals to the majority. People are also being encouraged to think outside party
dogma because they have to rank more than one candidate. 

MMP to a certain extent achieves 2) but not 1).

STV as a way to fustrate reform: This is a silly one trotted out by MMPists.
Assume that 80% of those who voted voted for change and the subsequent vote was
tied between STV and MMP. Obviously the situation then requires more discussion
and thrashing out. I have no quible with this. There are no god given deadlines
that require everything to be resolved now. One step at a time.

I do acknowledge that there were people who voted for MMP who did so in a
considered manner who just had different criteria. My concern is that I perceive
there was a blinker effect working where MMP was touted as THE WAY, THE TRUTH, THE
LIGHT. That leaves me uneasy.

Chris
Newsgroups: nz.general
Subject: Re: Manipulation of Referendum Results
From: mdh@gaya.gp.co.nz (Martin D. Hunt)
Date: 4 Oct 92 15:23:03 +1300
Organization: Wellington, New Zealand

In article <1992Oct2.113115.26896@actrix.gen.nz>, Steve.Withers@bbs.actrix.gen.nz writes:
> 
> Show me *one* election since 1840 where non-voters were counted and i might
> listen to your argument. 

I think when the local body amalgamations of three years ago were put 
forward, some areas had the opportunity to vote for or against (before the 
government said they were going to do it anyway) with abstentions being 
taken as a vote for. I am not saying that this is the correct way of doing 
things - this would be like all non-voters at a general election being 
taken to have voted for the opposition.

-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Martin D. Hunt	The opinions expressed above are mine, and mine alone, and
Wellington	do not imply any endorsement by anyone I work for or know.
New Zealand	USEnet at home : martinh@gaya.gp.co.nz
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Xref: sparky nz.general:1318 nz.netstatus:227
Newsgroups: nz.general,nz.netstatus
Subject: nz.waffle?? (was Re: Hello....hello...is anybody home)
From: dgd@kcbbs.gen.nz (David Dix)
Date: 30 Sep 92 16:48:28 GMT
Organization: Kappa Crucis Unix BBS, Auckland, NZ

kilroy@acme.gen.nz (earthbound misfit, I) says:
>This appeared in my junk group, as well as some others last week.
>
>> Article 3483 of junk:
>> Path: acmebbs!cc-server4.massey.ac.nz!comp.vuw.ac.nz!waikato.ac.nz!aukuni.ac.nz!kcbbs!status!nacjack!pinn!wmcdouga
>> Newsgroups: nz.waffle
>> Subject: Re: Hello....hello...is anybody home
>> Message-ID: <BZaqRB3w165w@pinn.nacjack.gen.nz>
>> From: wmcdouga@pinn.nacjack.gen.nz (Wayne McDougall)
>> Date: Sat, 26 Sep 92 23:00:22 +1200
>> References: <yPHmRB3w165w@pinn.nacjack.gen.nz>
>> Organization: The Pinnacle Club BBS, Auckland, New Zealand. +64-9-615-382
>> Lines: 23
>
>Can we please try and refrain from just creating nz.* groups on an ad-hoc
>basis? Note that you're doing your users a disservice by treating this
>newsgroup as valid because it probably appears (outside of junk) at about
>2 sites nationwide (and is a nz.waffle newsgroup really necessary
>anyway?).

I noticed this message in my junk directory when it first arrived at kc.
At first I must admit to thinking as you have said but then what does it
matter that someone wants to create more nz.newsgroups?

I'm aware of the existing 'procedures' in nz for the creation of nz.newsgroups
but these seem rather bothersome to adhere to since there always seems to be
more existing net.users not interested in anything new. Although it takes
only 25(?) people to vote yes (or is it 25 more yes votes than nos?) I have
watched the failure of quite a few attempts at new nz newsgroups.
More than once I have seen a dozen or more people all fired up and keen to
get into action in a new newsgroup and then not getting that 25 just dampens
their enthusiasm and in many cases they just don't bother with nz newsgroups
again.
Nearly all of the existing nz newsgroups are just about dead and some have
not seen messages for months if not years.
So if there are some people out there in nz.netland that want to say something
and say it in a new newsgroup then I can see no reason to discourage them.
Let them create new ad-hoc nz.newsgroups and lets see what they have to say.

God forbid it may actually be something interesting for a change :-)
From: ldo@waikato.ac.nz (Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Waikato University)
Newsgroups: nz.general
Subject: Re: Copyright Laws in New Zealand
Date: 29 Sep 92 16:06:53 +1200
Organization: University of Waikato, Hamilton, New Zealand

In article <BvBBpC.4IM@comp.vuw.ac.nz>, thetroll@rata.vuw.ac.nz (The Troll) writes:
> Indeed
> accepting free advice from *anyone* where money is at stake is a very bad
> practice.

Good advice...
Newsgroups: nz.general