From: karish@pangea.Stanford.EDU (Chuck Karish)
Subject: Re: rec.moto.harley
Keywords: metadiscussion flame
Organization: Stanford University, California, USA
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 01:43:19 GMT

In article <1992Jul23.150852.27279@wpi.WPI.EDU> mick@maxine.wpi.edu
(Ravi Narayan) writes:
>:- If you've never managed a big mailing list, try it some
>:- time.  It's a lot more work than just editing a subscriber
>:- list once a week.
>
>	fortunately or unfortunately i or any other person who is not on
>	the mailing list has nothing to do with its costs. if you take
>	on the job of managing the mailing list it increases your work
>	load. your arguement is entirely baseless since for
>	joe-administrator the probability of even having an user on the
>	list is infinitesimal. the list to 99% of the world causes no
>	strain in terms of "administrative attention". such is not the
>	case with a newsgroup.

Usenet would not work if news managers were as selfish
as Ravi suggests they should be.  Groups get worldwide
propagation only because people pass on all sorts of
stuff that they may not be directly interested in.

>	this is not a case of war against
>	rec.moto, which everyone seems to have forgotten,

Including Ravi.  Why else would he be talking about
"the pro-rec.moto person" (see below)?

>   is just a
>	newsgroup. that leaves the pro-rec.moto person with two reasons:
>	1. he considers harleys motorcycles and h-d issues relevant to
>	rec.moto (or) 2. he hates harleys for some reason.

>   i would
>	believe that the first stated is the reason in an overwhelming
>	majority. i have not heard any arguements for the formation of
>	the group other than of the form "they want it. what do you have
>	against it?" (something that assumes 1. i have something against
>	it,

Come on, Ravi.  Quit waffling and address real
issues.  If you didn't have reason to oppose the
group, you wouldn't be posting articles in opposition
to its creation.

>   2. that such an arguement is reason for voting for the
>	group).

No, that it's a reason for not voting against the group.

>   the entire debate has been misdirected by this one
>	question by turning the roles around in such a way that the
>	arguements for creation of the group has directly become verbal
>	wars against apparent anti-harley bigots. thru this the need to
>	clearly state the purpose of the group and the justification for
>	its creation has been side-stepped.

Bullshit.  The proposed charter clearly states the
expected scope of the new group.  If your news system
has even a few days of news.groups in its spool, you
can look at plenty of good rationale.  If all you
want to do is to chop logic without adopting any relevant
values, go ahead; just don't expect to be taken seriously.

>:- It's not as much an immediate issue now as it was a year
>:- and a half ago, because the Harley folks aren't around
>:- in rec.motorcycles to provoke flames or to return them.
>
>	well then, we really do not know about now do we? anti-harley
>	threads a year and a half ago could well have been prompted by
>	equally anti-jap posts etc.

Ravi, please take the finger you insist we point at one
faction or another and bury it in one of your bodily
orifices.  Your choice.

There is no need to hold a kangaroo court here to
decide who to blame for past flames.  Creating the
new group will very likely reduce the number of
flames.  That's all that matters.

>	hence it is time to drop the anti-rec.moto arguement and come
>	out with arguements in favour of r.m.h which for all we know
>	might go the same way.

I'm curious.  What "anti-rec.moto arguement" do you have in
mind, Ravi?  A new group is proposed because some have
observed that rec.moto does not provide all things
to all people.  How is this threatening?

>	i sadly do not remember the name of the person who did recently
>	post about staying with rec.moto. i mention that not to make out
>	a case, but just to point out the influence of such posts on me
>	as a voter (after all i need not prove the existence of such
>	posts to myself, coz i *did* read them).

More BS.  By bringing the issue up in this discussion
Ravi uses it to try to influence other voters.  To
the best of my knowledge, it's bogus: there have not
been a significant number of postings to rec.motorcycles
by Harley enthusiasts who oppose the new group.

>:- So what?  There was almost no overt racism visible in
>:- the town I grew up in.  There were also no blacks;
>:- they'd been driven out years before.
>
>	driven out??? could you explain further the parallel between
>	blacks being driven out of your town and harley riders
>	*apparently* leaving rec.moto?

Ravi, take your "apparently" and hide it with your finger.
I can name plenty of names of people who used to
contribute to rec.motorcycles but who no longer do.
The most visible example is Konrad Weigl, who is
particpating in this discussion and has told
us that he left rec.moto to escape the low
signal-to-noise ratio on the topics in which he
is interested.

To answer your question, the absence of Harley-related
flames in rec.motorcycles this year is because there
are few unsophisticated Harley diehards to act as
flame bait, not because there is no problem with
flamers.  Just as there were few racial incidents in
my home town, since there was little racial
diversity.
--

    Chuck Karish          karish@mindcraft.com
    (415) 323-9000 x117   karish@forel.stanford.edu