From: dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov (Dave Hayes)
Subject: Re: All of you guidelines thumpers (was Re: BENDING THE GUIDELINES IS
Reply-To: dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov
Organization: Jet Propulsion Lab - Pasadena, CA
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 05:50:08 GMT

JLM@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU writes:
>suspend them for ALL proposed groups. What makes your proposal
>so deserving of having the guidelines suspended or altered
>yet makes another group not deserving of the same treatment ?

Because my proposal has groups which are logically connected
to each other and meaningless if they are separate.

> One could raise very ugly accusations about what is going on.
>For instance, one could say that for the last few months a man
>with an Indian name has been publicly chastised for violating the
>spirit of the guidelines, yet here we have a man with an Anglo-Saxon
>name being allowed to twist the spirit of the guidelines. Do you
>see how ugly things can get ?

How could I stop such insanity? It's not mine to control. The possibility
of such is not going to control me either...

> I agree that the guidelines are not set in stone, but they should
>be observed and apply equally to everyone. OTHERWISE, why even
>bother having them. 

Then you don't agree that the guidelines are not set in stone. I 
don't feel that they should apply to everyone (just most everyone)
and that's why I feel they should not be set in stone.

>If we change them to please one group and
>enforce them against another, then they are nothing more than a
>joke, not worth the bytes it takes to write them.

The classic "either all or nothing" straw man, huh? I think that 
suspension of a few here and there is not going to mean throwing 
them out altogether. 

>>Now that's a loophole that you have no say so in. Do you see the attitude
>>that you are giving me in your statements? Isn't this productive?
>  If that's your attitude then maybe you shouldn't even post the CFV
>at all. Get out of it and let someone else do a better job.

Thank you for evaluating the job I am doing. 

>  I have seen a proposal by Rawdon (?) which may be better. Why
>won't you listen to him ?

I have. I even said I'd support his RFD/CFV and I'd vote yes for
it (soc.personals.misc). 

>>My INTENT is to create either four groups or no groups. I don't care
>>how it is done...                                       ^^^^^^^^^^^^
> This is what I find objectionable about what you are doing. You don't
>care about the consequences of your actions.

Oh, but I do...and I seriously doubt that you understand that. I truly
do not care how (in the context of the Guidelines) these groups are
created...either they all are or they all aren't. The guidelines are
fine when it is clear that one can see the intent behind such rules
(e.g. 30 days of discussion, printing email addresses after a vote)
but when one finds oneself doing a difficult dance for no good reason
other than that the rules say so...it starts getting a bit bueraucratic
and unnecessary. 

Just because the rules say so isn't a reason to do something 
counter-productive.

> I oppose the catastrophy you are trying to unleash on the net.

I'm beginning to think this catastrophy is just an illusion. 

> And yes I am willing to work with you in any way possible to try
>to solve this problem.

Thank you! 8)

> Personally I think you overestimate the so called "homophobic" vote.
>As some one else pointed out in another post, most of the people on
>the net are sensible and sensitive and adult enough not to vote against
>the groups. 

Yeah, that's what I keep telling the gay community on the net...but
they don't seem to agree. I figure that since they are "in it" more 
than I am, they would know. More importantly, I'm giving them the
benefit of the doubt...and trying to see if it is so or it isn't so.
I think this vote will enlighten ALL of us...as long as we stay away
from petty guidelines arguments. I'm still willing to go by the guidelines
and hold four separate votes but...

>You shouldn't appoint yourself as the Net Big Brother and
>try to keep the rest of us from doing "bad things" by deciding for us
>how we should behave.

I, for one, have no idea how the net *IS* going to vote. That's why
I want a safety valve (i.e. failing the entire proposal) 'just in
case'. I'm not keeping anyone from doing anything other than creating
newsgroups. 

> You tell me that you are a reasonable person and I believe you. Let's
>just try to work this out so that the net doesn't get more screwed up
>than it already is.

I still don't agree that the net will get screwed up from me saying I'll
fail the entire proposal (or even from me withdrawing all support). 
Someone out there said that there was already a precedent for this.
If there is, then what?
-- 
Dave Hayes - Network & Communications Engineering - JPL / NASA - Pasadena CA
dave@elxr.jpl.nasa.gov       dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov         ...usc!elroy!dxh

Wisdom (n.) - 1. Something you can learn without knowing it.