Organization Poll on the KCLUG Forums

[Julie]

Monty J. Harder wrote:
   
  "Some people who oppose greater formal organization may consider
participating in the poll to be implicitly endorsing such organization.
Therefore, all people who don't respond should be considered to be "no"
votes."
   
 __THANK YOU!!!__, Monty.
   
  In reference to whether one has the "right" to complain or not I have a problem with that. I've been trying to register with the Forum so that I can vote a "NO!" vote on the censorship of posting here in the 'news letter'. However, the system keeps knocking me out for some reason. grrrrrr!!!!!!!! (I _have_ contacted Steve about this since HE is the ONE pushing it the MOST.)
   
  But, I feel like there should be times when meetings could possibly have a bit more structure to them. When I first started attending, I was amazed at the disorganization, but quickly adjusted and learned how to go with the flow that existed. I admit that I expected a bit more formality at the meetings in that Linux topics would be discussed by and/or taught to the group as a whole instead of the cliquish subgroups that always seem to form. 
   
  I attended the meetings to learn about Linux. I STILL want to learn about Linux, but since I can not afford to buy a laptop capable of running my chosen Distro (PCLinuxOS) I feel handicapped because I can't bring my own equipment with my own software on it to learn on and have suspended my attendance until I can procure such a laptop by whatever means I find possible.
   
  I also completely agree with Adrian when he says:
   
  "I've never bought into the argument
that those who don't vote (whatever they election in question) have no right to
complain.  This claim is always completely without merit or foundation.  We all have a
constitutional right to complain but no constitutional duty to vote.  Wishing people
would vote and dreaming up a punishment of a restricted right to speak for those who
don't yield to our wishes is just plain silly.

And second, we have an existing list and a subset of people on that
list who want to impose a duty to cooperate with this vote on everyone on the list.
Where does the authority to impose this duty come from?  Do we have rules in
place about this? The fact that some of the people on this list wish we would become more
formal doesn't automatically create a duty for all of us to become more formal
while we discuss whether or not to be more formal.

What if we only had two people voting for moderation and one voting
against it?  Wouldn't we reasonably have to conclude that we really didn't have much
interest in the idea? We apparently have had more than three people voting, but how do we
decide how much is enough to show some real interest?  What principle are we using to
decide if the vote is meaningful?

We had a proposal for a moderated list in addition to an unmoderated
list.  Surely such a proposal gives those who want moderation something without imposing
additional restrictions on everyone else."
   
  I watched the 'Off Topic' Religious debate, got tired of it and simply used my Delete Button... _Effortlessly ENOUGH!!!_  
   
  Just because of ONE instance of a heated discussion someone now wants to effect Censorship. Is Censorship what the group as a _whole_ REALLY wants??? What I have silently watched up until now is a small minority trying to effect its will upon the majority here in the 'new letter', the "Poll" set aside. What is wrong with this picture? ...AND does it remind you, personally, of another Greater Entity in this Country? 
   
  Suggestion: Why don't ya'll just drop it like adults instead of squabbling like grade schoolers or 'rumbling' like street gangs simply carry on learning from this/these "debates" that one should live to be responsible for ones own actions, etc instead of having impositions/restrictions legislated upon everone???
   
  There's my two cents worth ... ... ...for whatever it is worth to you. 

  Sincerely,
 Julie Allen


       
---------------------------------
Never miss a thing.   Make Yahoo your homepage.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://kclug.org/pipermail/kclug/attachments/20080319/e67ad2a6/attachment.htm