Once you have had time to cool down I hope you will take a look
again at my posts. I tried as best I could to make it clear that
I was not engaging in any police activity. Several had complained
about your posting practices and I wanted to find out what the
group as a whole thought. I thought that if the group as a whole
thought your practice was abusive then you might change voluntarily.
Now consider for a moment your statement above "How embarrassing for
Brian". You are correct that it is embarrassing for me. Since I had
previously said that I would not be posting a summary, the most
convenient thing for me to have done was to do exactly that. In
posting the summary I knowingly and willingly left myself wide open
for the type of response you gave here.
>BH>also, in giving the following excerpt:
>>
>>====================================================
>>The group will be self-policing with respect to propriety of
>>discussion topics and the spirit in which discussions are
>>conducted. Only in extreme cases will the list manager step in.
>>=====================================================
>
>>I did not mean to imply in any way that the list manager should
>>step in in this case. I believe in the present case that this would
>>only make matters worse.
>
>SJ>Hmmm. I wonder what the "list manager" thought of Brian's
>self-appointment to the role of "net policeman"?
>
I know what he thought since he told me.
>SJ>In any event, there is nothing in the above policy that my posts
>don't comply with. I try to conduct all my posts with "propriety"
>and a right "spirit". Besides, Brian's own "straw poll" is arguably
>itself not a proper discussion topic.
>
Yes, you are right. One could certainly make a reasonable argument that
it is not. In fact, I wish I had never brought it up. ;-)
>On Fri, 31 Jan 1997 20:35:07 -0500, Brian D. Harper wrote:
>
>BH>In view of concerns expressed to me privately I want to clarify
>>another point. I obviously cannot speak for everyone who is
>>concerned about the mail bomber but I can say that I have
>>absolutely no intention of trying to drive Steve off the group with
>>this. I think this would be very deleterious to this group.
>
>SJ>I find this difficult to believe Brian would not exactly be distraught if
>I was driven off the group with his little show of cyberspace
>`democracy'.
>
I would hate to shock you Steve, but in many ways I've grown rather
fond of you. I certainly admire your dedication and conviction and
appreciate your hard work. You are certainly a worthy opponent.
Now, I might tend to forget all this when in the heat of battle.
Feel free to remind me.
>BH>My hope was that if there is some type of consensus, especially
>>among lurkers or others who Steve would not consider an adversary,
>>then perhaps Steve would change his practice voluntarily. If he
>>chooses not to, that's fine. He can continue on his merry way.
>
>SJ>As it turned out there was no "consensus" and it could be argued
>that the majority actually like (or at least don't object to) my
>comprehensive posts. But I will change my practice voluntarily and
>post more frequently, if for no other reason than to give Brian and
>Co. one less thing to complain about. And the pigs flew off into the
>sunset....!
>
>On Tue, 04 Feb 1997 20:17:42 -0500, Brian D. Harper wrote:
>
>BH>In a previous post I had indicated that I was not going to make
>>public the results of the poll, sending them instead to Steve
>>privately. I had also come to the decision at that time that I
>>would post them publicly in the event that there was no consensus
>>view emerging. This is, I believe, fairest to Steve since the
>>accusations were made publicly. I couldn't really let on that I
>>was going to do this as people could easily put two and two
>>together (i.e. that things went against Steve) if no results were
>>posted.
>>
>>The result of the poll was very close to 50-50. Thus I will
>>conclude that there is no consensus from the group that Steve's
>>posting practices are abusive.
>
>SJ>This is most unsatisfactory:
>
>1. Brian calls an `election' that I knew nothing about thus denying
>me the natural-justice opportunity to put my case.
>
>2. He posts his one-party State `election material' putting only his
>case.
>
>3. He appoints himself as the `returning officer', promising he will
>make the results public.
>
>4. When the result doesn't go quite the way he "anticipated" he
>announces that "The result of the poll was very close to 50-50"
>
>Now "people could easily put two and two together (i.e. that things
>went..." strongly *for* "...Steve) if no results were posted". I
>therefore call upon Brian to do the right thing and post the actual
>results: a) number of people who finally voted; b) number who voted
>`yes' and number who voted `no'. So that electoral justice can be
>not only done, but seen to be done, ideally the votes should be
>counted by an impartial scrutineer, preferably one who did not
>participate. But I won't insist on it.
>
a) 19
b) 11 yes, abusive; 8 no, not abusive.
Brian Harper
Associate Professor
Applied Mechanics
Ohio State University
"Aw, Wilbur" -- Mr. Ed