Re: cr> Re: Online PR: consensus


Sender: •••@••.••• (Marilyn Davis)

> Sender: Arun Mehta <•••@••.•••>
> I'm sure all of us on the list would love to have consensus: we just
> don't want it pushed down our throats. Marilyn, the point has been made

Thank you Arun.  I see what you're saying.  I agree.  It's not fair to
assume consensus unless we came together with that in mind.  Thank
you.  I get it.  It's like forcing you to pray when you came for a
ball game.

Richard, DicedPupys and others?  Are you ok with giving up the
consensus idea for now, or finding some modification?

I hope you folks feel, as I do, that we have come to some important
understandings in this process.  We are birds, flocking.  We'll fly
Marilyn                               *
Marilyn Davis, Ph.D.-------------- * ---- eVote - online voting software
|                                 *       To participate in the beta
3790 El Camino Real, #147  *     *        write •••@••.•••
Palo Alto, CA 94306 USA     *   *
(415) 493-3631 ------------- * * -------- •••@••.••• -------

Sender: "Gordon A. Lew" <•••@••.•••>

I've been following (lurking) this thread for some time, and I haven't
seen anything approaching a "consensus" on this list as regards
Marilyn's position.

I've seen about 4 or 5 rather vocal supporters and a somewhat larger
number taking issue with her stand (as proposed).

I might suggest an earnest solicitation of the yeas and nays (along
with the "who gives a damn") to see just what the temperature of the
political water is.  With 500(?) members on the list, certainly we
can't consider even 10 yeas as a consensus, even if there are no
nays.  (A simple poll would suffice - we don't need elaborate
electronic voting!)

I'd second Andy's suggestion that those that feel so strongly about
this that they feel they absolutely must issue a public statement (which I
feel will totally underwhelm the press), then by all means form some
group with an appropriate name, and have at it.
Gordon A. Lew


Sender: •••@••.•••
Subject: go away, craig


to craig : 
quit it NOW!  i have heard enough of your high-handed bitching about every
fucking thing marilyn suggests.  i actually want to get somewhere on this
list, and in our discussions thereof, but it appears that you instead feel
that any idea that someone may have is a direct threat to you.  marilyn may
have been completely off when she stated intent to expel someone, but this is
not a threat, simply because it is not possible to do so without direct
access to the mailing process.  what are you so FUCKING afraid of that you
wish to expel someone for wanting to discuss opinions?  if you have such a
large problem with conversing in an organized manner, and from the discussion
then stating our thoughts to the entire nation, then you are not wanted.

if you have something to say which does not involve a haughty round of
personal attacks, then you are welcome to say it.  if all you are capable of
is demostrating your weakness of character and lack of any intelligent
thoughts of your own, then GET OUT!  although i cannot remove you myself, i
would ask that andy restrict mailings to letters which do not involve
personal threats and bald attempts to halt our discussion, whomever the
jackass may be.

your only possible value that can be seen from where i am is to hire yourself
out to someone wishing to interupt free conversation of ideas they FEAR!
 unless you did not read my proposal, i fail to see what scares you so.  i
will clearly state that however many out of however many agreed that the fcc
has no jurisdiction over private calls, no matter the size of the network,
and so on.  those who disagree will not be masquaraded in a press release,
nor will those who, such as you, post only facist attempts to suffocate that
on which we agree.  and i AM going to get opinions out!



 Posted by Andrew Oram  - •••@••.••• - Moderator: CYBER-RIGHTS (CPSR)
   CyberJournal:  (WWW or FTP) -->
 Materials may be reposted in their _entirety_ for non-commercial use.