At 01:43 PM 6/24/01 -0600 Michael Harney wrote:
>I simply said that I think we should
>refrain from discussing politics because it makes no progress, and damages
>the quality of discussion on the list, driving people away from the list.
I wholeheartedly disagree with this viewpoint as well.
I think that the discussion here most certainly *do* make progress.
Indeed, I *know* that the discussions here make progress simply by
monitoring the evolution of my own viewpoints over the years that I have
been on this List.
Additionally, the quality of discussion on the List for the past few
months, in my humble opinion, has been extraordinary. I don't know that
the List has ever kept a single topic so interesting for months on end, as
we kept the most recent topic. Indeed, I was involved with what I thought
was a fascinating discussion with Charlie on human rights, when he
mysteriously decided to drop out.
Yes, *one* person has left the List. I honestly can't explain why - but
the core of it seems to be that he did not appreciate vigorous disagreement
with his opinions, for whatever reason, That is certainly his right, and
it may well be something that he needs to sort out on his own, but I do not
think that his leaving is sufficient basis to call into question the
inherent good of vigorous political discussion or the inherent goodness of
the founding intentions of this List. Lest we all forget, Dr. Brin
specifically requested that this List be a free forum for discussion on any
subject regarding human civilization - from science fiction to science and
from politics to exchanging chili recipes.
>My point is that the discussion of politics at this point in time is *not*
>making the list better, it is only serving to further divide it. The
>difference between your friends and the people on this list is that I am
>sure that you and your friends discuss things other than politics the
>majority of the time.
Well, in at least one case that is not totally true, unless you count the
fact that he is a Jets Fan and that I am a Bills Fan gives us football to
talk about in addition to politics.
>Please recongize John, that this list is not USA-L, and it is not
>Politics-L, it is the Brin-L.
Actually, the only issue recently discussed that was of interest only to
Americans was the Impeachment thread, and that was only a minor sidebar.
All of the other discussions regarding global warming, America's place in
the world, and human rights are inherently global in nature. Yes, those
topics may also be political in nature - but I think that they are all
central questions to human civilization.
>Discussion about Brin's books and related
>works should be the primary focus, not Politics.
This list exists as a pure democracy. I, alone, cannot possible dictate
the discussion of this List. Discussion only occur when at least two List
Members have an interest in a topic.
If you would like to discuss something else, *start a conversation*! For
example, I recently undertook to lead a discussion on _Glory Season_ on the
List. I apologize for letting the discussion lapse for two weeks, but I
found the discussion on America's place in the world so interesting that it
diverted my attentions. That's how the List works. (And just in case you
are wondering, I am halfway through Chapter 7, which will be completed by
this evening.)
Finally, and most importantly, you still haven't answered how one is
supposed to be able to discuss _Earth_, _The Transparent Society_, or
most importantly, Brin's own essays to this List, without discussin
politics. In fact, half of Brin's writing over the past few years has
regarded pure politics, from Impeachement to the current Election to the
history of American Political Parties to his nominee for Person of the
Century. Would David Brin be banned from the List under your proposal?
And if so, what possible sense would that make?
>Well, since you have such high respect for democracy, I hope you will
>recognize and respect of the final decission made by the list. There is no
>law enforcement system here, so we cannot force you to agree with the final
>decission (the listowners could probably enforce the decission, but I don't
>think that they will), but I hope your respect for the system which made the
>decission will influence you to respect the decision.
I do have a high respect for democracy. I have a higher respect for
Constitutional Republics. I think the fact that the List Owners would be
unwilling to enforce your edicts demonstrates the essential
unconstitutionality* of your proposal. If you want to change the List's
Constitution, the best way to do that is to found your own List, rather
than tear apart a system that has thrived for five years. If the
Listowners want to change the List's Constitution, then that is another
matter entirely - but so far I have seen no evidence that I would need to
address that scenario. In the meantime, your solo initiative does not
have any legitimacy in my eyes. I again refuse to cast a vote.
JDG
* - As I hope the following sentences made clear, this word does *not*
refer in any way, shape or form to the Constitution of the United States of
America, nor the 1st Amendment to that document.
__________________________________________________________
John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - ICQ #3527685
We are products of the same history, reaching from Jerusalem and
Athens to Warsaw and Washington. We share more than an alliance.
We share a civilization. - George W. Bush, Warsaw, 06/15/01
