Call for Discussion: Talk.Politics.Ireland

1 view
Skip to first unread message

Gary Newell

unread,
Nov 26, 1990, 11:24:06 AM11/26/90
to
In article <46...@apple.Apple.COM>, c...@apple.com (Christopher Pettus) writes:
> This is a formal Call for Discussion for the creation of the new
> newsgroup Talk.Politics.Ireland, an unmoderated newsgroup chartered

This wouldn't happen to be the reason that Jamie mysteriously 'dropped'
his attempt to create such a group two months ago would it? Perhpas
the idea is to have a 'discussion' period and vote during the semester
break??

> Yes, I know this was discussed, and thought to be undesirable, just a
> few months ago. Let's look at the proposal, which I believe to be a
> good one, again.

Why should we!??!! We have looked at it twice in one year and found it
'undesirable' both times. Why should we once again be forced into this
debate because *you* believe the proposal to be good?

> The discussion of the question of Northern Ireland, the British
> presence there, and the arguments pro and con Irish reunification are
> all complex, emotional, and not about to be solved right away. The
> point of this newsgroup is NOT (NOT NOT NOT) to prevent anyone from
> talking about any of these issues; rather, it is to give them a home of
> their own, just as with the issues in the other talk.* groups.

Sort of like - not being unfair to blacks - just giving them their own
part of the bus or their own part of the lunch counter. "A home of
their own" - how bloody cute.....

> It is not my contention that these discussions "do not belong" in
> soc.culture.celtic or any other newsgroup; rather, the volume of the
> discussion is such that a separate newsgroup is warranted. Each of the

Excuse me??!!!??? This is simply a lie! How dare you distort the facts and
claim that the volume of discussion is too high - it is not now, and has
never been high! It is notorious for going in cycles and every single
time it rolls around we have to listen to individuals like you distort
the truth in an effort to save us all....

> Nor is it my intent to prevent anyone from talking about these issues
> (creating a newgroup is a pretty poor way of keeping someone from
> posting, in any event!). If it is created, I'll subscribe.

Bullshit! It is a very effective way of eliminating opinions counter
to your own. You are attempting to dictate to the readers of this
group what is and what is not proper content for the group. This is
clearly an attempt to prevent those of us who believe that politics
plays an important part in Irish culture from posting
our views and ideas in s.c.c - who are you to decide? Why should we
have to deal with this every three months?

> This opens the official Call for Discussion period, which lasts until a
> consensus either way is reached or 12/19/90, whichever comes first.
> Followups to news.groups.

Sorry - follow-ups to BOTH soc.culture.celtic AND news.groups!!! At least
allow those few who read only s.c.c to observe the argument..


The fact that this attempt at altering the content of this group came
up twice in a year and was clearly shot down both times makes this
attempt extremely insulting. The claim that volume is now the factor
is simply a lie - this group has no where near enough traffic to
warrent creation of such a group. Once again, it is an attempt by
those who are so small-minded and so domineering that they must
not only eliminate the discussions that they dislike, but must also
decide for us all exactly what we may read......

gln

Craig Cockburn

unread,
Nov 26, 1990, 1:14:34 PM11/26/90
to
|>The fact that this attempt at altering the content of this group came
|>up twice in a year and was clearly shot down both times makes this
|>attempt extremely insulting. The claim that volume is now the factor
|>is simply a lie - this group has no where near enough traffic to
|>warrent creation of such a group. Once again, it is an attempt by
|>those who are so small-minded and so domineering that they must
|>not only eliminate the discussions that they dislike, but must also
|>decide for us all exactly what we may read......
|>

Clearly you haven't read my posting to new.groups earlier today
which proves by example that you don't need a lot of traffic to
warrant the creation of a new group. New groups create traffic.

Craig

Article 2521 of news.groups:
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: cock...@craigy.enet.dec.com (Craig Cockburn)
Subject: Re: Call for Discussion: Talk.Politics.Ireland
Reply-To: cock...@marvin.enet.dec.com

|>
|>This is a formal Call for Discussion for the creation of the new
|>newsgroup Talk.Politics.Ireland, an unmoderated newsgroup chartered

|>with being a forum for the discussion of issues relating to Irish
|>politics, the British presence in Northern Ireland, the actions of the
|>IRA, arguments pro- and con- Irish reunification, and related topics.


|>
|>Yes, I know this was discussed, and thought to be undesirable, just a
|>few months ago. Let's look at the proposal, which I believe to be a
|>good one, again.
|>

|>The discussion of the question of Northern Ireland, the British
|>presence there, and the arguments pro and con Irish reunification are
|>all complex, emotional, and not about to be solved right away. The
|>point of this newsgroup is NOT (NOT NOT NOT) to prevent anyone from
|>talking about any of these issues; rather, it is to give them a home of
|>their own, just as with the issues in the other talk.* groups.
|>

|>It is not my contention that these discussions "do not belong" in
|>soc.culture.celtic or any other newsgroup; rather, the volume of the
|>discussion is such that a separate newsgroup is warranted. Each of the

|>discussions in the Talk.* hierarchy could be conduced in another
|>newsgroup, but that's not the point of the hierarchy or the individual
|>groups.


|>
|>Nor is it my intent to prevent anyone from talking about these issues
|>(creating a newgroup is a pretty poor way of keeping someone from
|>posting, in any event!). If it is created, I'll subscribe.
|>

I would like to say that I wholeheartedly agree with the above. Whilst
it is valid to talk about the IRA etc, I feel that the number of postings
on this subject is dominating the group and putting others off who aren't
interested in such discussions. I know of people who are fed up with
these discussions and although they invariably end up KILL'ing most of
the IRA discussions, they have inadvertently skipped over postings (about
positive aspects of culture) in the process.

I am interested in promoting the positive aspects of Celtic culture rather
than persisting with arguments which seem to lead nowhere.

We went through a similar situation on Digital's easynet about a year ago.
We have notesfiles, rather than newsgroups. Anyway, there is a notesfile
based on Celtic culture here. while the IRA is not debated, I felt the
newsgroup had too much of an expat-Irish-living-in-the-US slant rather
than dealing with the real issues as seen by the people living there.
Scotland in particular, hardly got a look in.

As a result, I created the Scotland notesfile. Nearly a year after the
conference was started, we have amassed nearly 2,600 notes purely
concerned with Scotland and Scottish things. This ranges from politics
and history through to jokes and details of ceilidhs. I'm even posting
notes there to help people who want to learn Gaelic find out more. I,
and many others, have learnt much from this notesfile about all aspects
of Scottish life.

Before this notesfile was created, there was much less talk of Scottish
affairs. The creation of the notesfile has tapped the demand for such
a forum. I feel that soc.culture.celtic is the same argument. While
the volume of non-IRA related notes may not seem to justify a group to
some, the proof from my experience is that once the appropriate forum
is created, then the demand to use it rises.

As I say, many people are put off soc.culture.celtic and others only
skim through it because of the large number of Northen Irish related
issues there. This can only be to the detriment of celtic culture as
a whole. Whilst talking about the IRA and NI related issues is important,
I feel *both* camps would prosper from having a newsgroup dedicated to
each of their needs.

Craig.
--
/---------------------------------------------------------------------------\
|Craig Cockburn |
|Digital Equipment Co. Ltd. | ARPAnet: cock...@marvin.enet.dec.com |
|REO2-G/H9 | EASYnet: marvin::cockburn |
|Reading, UK | UUCP:..!decwrl!marvin.enet.dec.com!cockburn|
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|Disclaimer: Views expressed herein are my own and do not necessarily |
| reflect those of my employer. |
\---------------------------------------------------------------------------/

Ran Atkinson

unread,
Nov 26, 1990, 2:18:50 PM11/26/90
to
GLN's claims that the creation of talk.politics.ireland are largely
ad hominem towards the proposer. I will ignore those comments of his.

The expressed concern that the creation of talk.politics.ireland is going
to somehow restrict the discussion in soc.culture.celtic is misplaced.
Clearly cross-posting between two unmoderated groups (scc and the
proposed tpi) cannot be restricted by anyone. Nothing will prevent
GLN and others from posting to both places or from reading both places.
There is no free speech issue here, if anything it means that more forums
will be available.

In the past when this question has come up, some people who are not well
informed claimed that the effort would restrict participation by those
in Europe. This _was_ true before the talk.politics.* heirarchy was widely
distributed in Europe but is no longer the case. At present, the entire
talk.* heirarchy is available throughout Europe and Asia.

I would prefer that it be named talk.politics.irish rather than talk.politics.
ireland in the hope that it would not be restricted to the matter of Ireland's
administration, but instead also permit other aspects of Irish politics
to be explored in the same context.

Christopher Pettus

unread,
Nov 26, 1990, 1:43:16 AM11/26/90
to
This is a formal Call for Discussion for the creation of the new
newsgroup Talk.Politics.Ireland, an unmoderated newsgroup chartered
with being a forum for the discussion of issues relating to Irish
politics, the British presence in Northern Ireland, the actions of the
IRA, arguments pro- and con- Irish reunification, and related topics.

Yes, I know this was discussed, and thought to be undesirable, just a
few months ago. Let's look at the proposal, which I believe to be a
good one, again.

The discussion of the question of Northern Ireland, the British
presence there, and the arguments pro and con Irish reunification are
all complex, emotional, and not about to be solved right away. The
point of this newsgroup is NOT (NOT NOT NOT) to prevent anyone from
talking about any of these issues; rather, it is to give them a home of
their own, just as with the issues in the other talk.* groups.

It is not my contention that these discussions "do not belong" in
soc.culture.celtic or any other newsgroup; rather, the volume of the
discussion is such that a separate newsgroup is warranted. Each of the
discussions in the Talk.* hierarchy could be conduced in another
newsgroup, but that's not the point of the hierarchy or the individual
groups.

Nor is it my intent to prevent anyone from talking about these issues
(creating a newgroup is a pretty poor way of keeping someone from
posting, in any event!). If it is created, I'll subscribe.

This opens the official Call for Discussion period, which lasts until a


consensus either way is reached or 12/19/90, whichever comes first.
Followups to news.groups.

--
Christopher Pettus - "You know, the AppleTalk group." - Apple Computer, Inc.
MS 35-K -- (408) 974-0004 -- sun!apple!cep -- c...@apple.com -- Link PETTUS.C
- "If you live in fear of death, why were you born?" -- The Mahabharata -

Bill Donahue

unread,
Nov 27, 1990, 8:09:07 AM11/27/90
to
In article <46...@apple.Apple.COM> c...@Apple.COM (Christopher Pettus)
counter-attacks:
>In article <27...@megaron.cs.arizona.edu> g...@cs.arizona.edu (Gary
>Newell) writes an, ahem, spirited rejoiner to my proposal for the
>creation of Talk.Politics.Ireland:

>> This wouldn't happen to be the reason that Jamie mysteriously 'dropped'
>>his attempt to create such a group two months ago would it? Perhpas
>>the idea is to have a 'discussion' period and vote during the semester
>>break??

>Let's not start the Grand Conspiracy Theory bandwagon too early. I'll
>be glad to continue the discussion until after the semester break, if
>that will allow more people to contribute to it.

>>Why should we!??!! We have looked at it twice in one year and found it
>>'undesirable' both times. Why should we once again be forced into this
>>debate because *you* believe the proposal to be good?

>If there's no discussion, or a consensus that this isn't desirable,
>I'll shut up. No problem.


And on and on...

Pushing for such a "talk.politics.occupied.ulster" seems very counter-
productive to me because all too often the spark causing the flames
is a genuine question about culture, i.e. when was such-and-such a
folksong originated or how does the Irish voting system work. All of
a sudden people are backed into their own corners thinking their favorite
group has been insulted. All we would end up with such a "talk.politics"
would be the flames going to two groups instead of one.

Another problem seems that soc.culture.celtic frequently becomes bogged
down in attacks on net.personalities i.e. Gary Newell and Matthew
Huntsbach, among others, completely losing any content related to either
culture or politics. If people really feel moved to attack such
net.personalities maybe they should be encouraged to post to alt.flame
instead and that might cut down on the (possibly imagined) volume.

Lastly the problems in occupied Ulster remain a central issue in any
discussions about Celtic culture. It won't go away and arguments back
and forth will continue to go on. Too often those who propose "silencing"
discussions about the Troubles give the impression (to me anyway) that
they feel soc.culture.celtic should simply be devoted to talk about
preparing tea and where to buy tin whistles and how to cook soda bread,
ignoring any modern (and real) cultural problems.

Of course the real solution would be if the occupiers of the North were
to leave, but that's another story.... :-<

Anyhow that's my vote against such a "talk.politics..."

Glenn R. Stone

unread,
Nov 27, 1990, 10:30:32 AM11/27/90
to
In the referenced article w...@cellar.uucp (Bill Donahue) writes:

[much quoted flamage deleted]

>And on and on...

>Pushing for such a "talk.politics.occupied.ulster" seems very counter-
>productive to me because all too often the spark causing the flames
>is a genuine question about culture, i.e. when was such-and-such a
>folksong originated or how does the Irish voting system work.

So crosspost.

>they feel soc.culture.celtic should simply be devoted to talk about
>preparing tea and where to buy tin whistles and how to cook soda bread,
>ignoring any modern (and real) cultural problems.

Yeah, but *what about* those who want to do just that? You can't make
them change the way they think.... pushing the Troubles in their faces
will only set them against you. Better that they ignore you and leave
you to make your case to people who will listen, than they rise up
against you.

Give the fighters a place to go and fight, and leave the tin whistleblowers
in peace. Goodness knows there's been a lack of that...

"It's long mem'ries and short tempers,
that've cursed poor Ireland..."
-- Peter Yarrow, 1990

-- Glenn R. Stone (gs...@prism.gatech.edu)

Christopher Pettus

unread,
Nov 26, 1990, 5:44:58 PM11/26/90
to
In article <27...@megaron.cs.arizona.edu> g...@cs.arizona.edu (Gary
Newell) writes an, ahem, spirited rejoiner to my proposal for the
creation of Talk.Politics.Ireland:

> This wouldn't happen to be the reason that Jamie mysteriously 'dropped'


>his attempt to create such a group two months ago would it? Perhpas
>the idea is to have a 'discussion' period and vote during the semester
>break??

Let's not start the Grand Conspiracy Theory bandwagon too early. I'll


be glad to continue the discussion until after the semester break, if
that will allow more people to contribute to it.

>Why should we!??!! We have looked at it twice in one year and found it


>'undesirable' both times. Why should we once again be forced into this
>debate because *you* believe the proposal to be good?

If there's no discussion, or a consensus that this isn't desirable,


I'll shut up. No problem.

>> It is not my contention that these discussions "do not belong" in


>> soc.culture.celtic or any other newsgroup; rather, the volume of the
>> discussion is such that a separate newsgroup is warranted. Each of the
>
>Excuse me??!!!??? This is simply a lie! How dare you distort the facts and
>claim that the volume of discussion is too high - it is not now, and has
>never been high! It is notorious for going in cycles and every single
>time it rolls around we have to listen to individuals like you distort
>the truth in an effort to save us all....

Obviously, the definition of "too high" is subjective; clearly it is to
your taste, but perhaps it is not to everyones. I've seen newsgroups
created was far less interest in a particular topic. An honest
difference of opinion isn't a lie, sir.

>> Nor is it my intent to prevent anyone from talking about these issues
>> (creating a newgroup is a pretty poor way of keeping someone from
>> posting, in any event!). If it is created, I'll subscribe.
>
>Bullshit! It is a very effective way of eliminating opinions counter
>to your own. You are attempting to dictate to the readers of this
>group what is and what is not proper content for the group. This is
>clearly an attempt to prevent those of us who believe that politics
>plays an important part in Irish culture from posting
>our views and ideas in s.c.c - who are you to decide? Why should we
>have to deal with this every three months?

I'm not deciding anything; that's the reason for the newsgroup creation
guidelines. To the best of my knowledge, I've not posted an opinion on
any of the various arguments, so I can hardly be certain that it would
eliminate any arguments counter to my own. Since s.c.c isn't
moderated, nor would t.p.i be so, I couldn't prevent anyone from doing
anything.

Perhaps, if this question keeps getting raised every three months,
it should be examined rather than dismissed.

>> This opens the official Call for Discussion period, which lasts until a
>> consensus either way is reached or 12/19/90, whichever comes first.
>> Followups to news.groups.
>
>Sorry - follow-ups to BOTH soc.culture.celtic AND news.groups!!! At least
>allow those few who read only s.c.c to observe the argument..

Sure, whatever.

>The fact that this attempt at altering the content of this group came
>up twice in a year and was clearly shot down both times makes this
>attempt extremely insulting. The claim that volume is now the factor
>is simply a lie - this group has no where near enough traffic to
>warrent creation of such a group. Once again, it is an attempt by
>those who are so small-minded and so domineering that they must
>not only eliminate the discussions that they dislike, but must also
>decide for us all exactly what we may read......

Perhaps I'm missing something, but this argument (and the ferocity of
its delivery) completely mystifies me. Without any firm standard for
what "enough" traffic is, it's a matter of opinion whether or not there
is or is not to warrant the creation of a new newsgroup. I believe
there is, and Mr. Newell believes there is not. I'm interested as to
what other opinions there are.

As to there being a hidden agenda, I have none.

If I wanted to control discussion, I'd propose a moderated group with
myself as moderator; I have no interest in such a group. I suspect
that the same people would say the same things in t.p.i as they now say
in s.c.c, and that would be just fine with me.

I'm very sorry that Mr. Newell feels insulted by my proposal, but he
certainly wouldn't want to prevent me from talking about it, would he?

David Harrington

unread,
Nov 26, 1990, 4:13:53 PM11/26/90
to
In article <27...@megaron.cs.arizona.edu>, g...@cs.arizona.edu (Gary

Newell) writes:
>
> In article <46...@apple.Apple.COM>, c...@apple.com (Christopher Pettus)
writes:
> > This is a formal Call for Discussion for the creation of the new
> > newsgroup Talk.Politics.Ireland, an unmoderated newsgroup chartered
>
> This wouldn't happen to be the reason that Jamie mysteriously
'dropped'
> his attempt to create such a group two months ago would it? Perhpas
> the idea is to have a 'discussion' period and vote during the
semester
> break??
>

What is the "reason" you are referring to? I am not clear what you are
saying.

> > Yes, I know this was discussed, and thought to be undesirable, just
a
> > few months ago. Let's look at the proposal, which I believe to be
a
> > good one, again.
>
> Why should we!??!! We have looked at it twice in one year and found
it
> 'undesirable' both times. Why should we once again be forced into
this
> debate because *you* believe the proposal to be good?

I believe he goes on in the following paragraph to state his reasons for
looking at it again.
What are you so upset about?

>
> > The discussion of the question of Northern Ireland, the British
> > presence there, and the arguments pro and con Irish reunification
are
> > all complex, emotional, and not about to be solved right away. The
> > point of this newsgroup is NOT (NOT NOT NOT) to prevent anyone from
> > talking about any of these issues; rather, it is to give them a home
of
> > their own, just as with the issues in the other talk.* groups.
>
> Sort of like - not being unfair to blacks - just giving them their
own
> part of the bus or their own part of the lunch counter. "A home of
> their own" - how bloody cute.....

Putting aside your rather stretched analogy, what is your objection to a
t.p.i. newsgroup?
You have yet to actually say what it is.

>
> > It is not my contention that these discussions "do not belong" in
> > soc.culture.celtic or any other newsgroup; rather, the volume of
the
> > discussion is such that a separate newsgroup is warranted. Each of
the
>
> Excuse me??!!!??? This is simply a lie! How dare you distort the facts
and
> claim that the volume of discussion is too high - it is not now, and
has
> never been high! It is notorious for going in cycles and every single
> time it rolls around we have to listen to individuals like you
distort
> the truth in an effort to save us all....
>

How can anyone claim that the volume of postings about any topic is
"high" or "low" without
a commonly agreed upon number of postings that constitutes these terms?

How many articles constitutes "high" volume? It seees to me that you
are getting pretty
hot about a pretty small point, and not offering an objective way to
measure "high" or
"low" either.

> > Nor is it my intent to prevent anyone from talking about these
issues
> > (creating a newgroup is a pretty poor way of keeping someone from
> > posting, in any event!). If it is created, I'll subscribe.
>
> Bullshit! It is a very effective way of eliminating opinions counter
> to your own. You are attempting to dictate to the readers of this
> group what is and what is not proper content for the group. This is
> clearly an attempt to prevent those of us who believe that politics
> plays an important part in Irish culture from posting
> our views and ideas in s.c.c - who are you to decide? Why should we
> have to deal with this every three months?
>

How can anyone prevent postings or eliminate opinions in an unmoderated
newsgroup?

> > This opens the official Call for Discussion period, which lasts
until a
> > consensus either way is reached or 12/19/90, whichever comes first.
> > Followups to news.groups.
>
> Sorry - follow-ups to BOTH soc.culture.celtic AND news.groups!!! At
least
> allow those few who read only s.c.c to observe the argument..
>
>
> The fact that this attempt at altering the content of this group came
> up twice in a year and was clearly shot down both times makes this
> attempt extremely insulting. The claim that volume is now the factor
> is simply a lie - this group has no where near enough traffic to
> warrent creation of such a group. Once again, it is an attempt by
> those who are so small-minded and so domineering that they must
> not only eliminate the discussions that they dislike, but must also
> decide for us all exactly what we may read......
>
> gln

I don't see how someone can "lie" about something that is an opinion.

Who's dictating what we may read? Can't you subscribe to the talk*
hierarchy? I can.
--
David Harrington internet:
d...@eire.unify.COM
Unify Corporation
...!{csusac,pyramid}!unify!eire!dgh
3870 Rosin Court voice: +1 916
920-9092
Sacramento, CA 95834 fax: +1 916
921-5340

Aubrey McIntosh

unread,
Nov 26, 1990, 8:31:07 PM11/26/90
to
You know, I actually supported gln in several
postings about Derry records. I'd not be embarassed
to post similar articles today.

I think your call for votes was a fine posting;
myself, I'd probably vote against it, unless the
current flames get too high. But it *is* the stuff
that net business is made of, and made fine reading.

I'm embarassed that gln responded as he did. If this
flame war goes as did the Derry one, I'll be *reluctant*
to post in support of him again, just to avoid the
association. That's sad, since I agree with the
substance of several of his postings.

I'd like to say to gln that my life
experience says that when you start cussing the
opposition you generally lose, not matter what the
merits of what you say.

Please go have a cup of coffee before you release
your reply to the next post.
--
Aubrey McIntosh / Chemistry / University of Texas / Austin, TX 78712

Most people on USENET will know you only by what you say and how well you
say it. --- ch...@sun.COM (Chuq Von Rospach)

Gary Newell

unread,
Nov 26, 1990, 9:26:54 PM11/26/90
to
In article <40...@ut-emx.uucp>, aub...@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Aubrey McIntosh) writes:
> I'm embarassed that gln responded as he did. If this
> flame war goes as did the Derry one, I'll be *reluctant*
> to post in support of him again, just to avoid the

Great - a man of convictions.... my response was one of disgust - plain
and simple. You will find no apologies here. My language is just that - mine.
I speak with the terms and constructs of my upbringing and social class -
again I make no apologies from coming from a working-class low-income
family, where the content of the argument was key - *not* the form.

> I'd like to say to gln that my life
> experience says that when you start cussing the
> opposition you generally lose, not matter what the
> merits of what you say.

"cussing"??? I called him a liar - and I stand by that statement unless
he is willing to explain how the current traffic of s.c.c qulifies
as high. I can only assume that he purposely chose to distort the
truth, or he simply has no idea how busy the group has been and should
not even be attempting to split the group (which *is* in my opinion
what he is attempting).

As to the use of "bullshit" - again, no apology here - it is a term
used by many individuals to classify arguments such as the one
I responded to. You may choose to call it "trash" or whatever other
term you like - I do not. I have frequently faced this issue in s.c.c
in the past - I have often been truly surprised at the reaction to
my selection of words or phrases - but after long thought - I don't
care. I will speak as I speak - I will not attempt to participate
in words that are not my own - however it is ignorance in the
listener that misleads him as to my intent (no I rarely post while
drooling and kicking my dog, although it may sound like it to some),
there are lots and lots of people "out there" who would read my postings
and not find the use of "bullshit" troublesome, the fact that many or
most of those people are unlikely to have access to this medium makes
my choice of words no less legitimate.

> Please go have a cup of coffee before you release
> your reply to the next post.

I would expect coffee to be the last thing I'd need if in fact I was
raging - but I am not. I have this nasty habit of giving my opinion
in as straight-up a fashion as possible. If you don't like it - then
I really don't know what to say except that I will not attempt to
role-play to meet the aesthetic expectations of netnews readers.

> Aubrey McIntosh / Chemistry / University of Texas / Austin, TX 78712

Gary Newell

Matthew Huntbach

unread,
Nov 27, 1990, 6:04:26 PM11/27/90
to
What would go into "talk.politics.ireland"?

If it is to be largely about the Northern Ireland situation,
then I really can't see the point of the group unless someone
is going to put the Unionist point of view. If that person is
to be me, please forget it. I keep hoping that some real NI
Unionists, preferably Paisleyites, would contribute to this
discussion to give some enlightenment on how Unionist opinion
really is. My postings are simply intended as a reminder that
these people exist. My personal opinions fall some way between the
Alliance Party and the SDLP - thus I am more Republican than the
political centre-of-gravity in NI. Thus all the discussions on NI in
s.c.c. have been completely one-sided. It is rather like a
discussion on politics between Communists and Socialists - fine
but it is not a balanced discussion if there are no Capitalists
involved, and it is a bit unfair on the Socialist if it is
always left to him to put the Capitalist point of view in the
absence of any real Capitalists (and then to get flamed by
those accusing him of all the evils of Capitalism).

Ignoring NI, are there sufficient supporters of all the main
political parties in the Republic, or non-committed people
knowledgeable enough to comment intelligently to get the
newsgroup going? I don't think so.

Matthew Huntbach

Chuck McCaffrey

unread,
Nov 27, 1998, 11:27:58 AM11/27/98
to
In article <46...@apple.Apple.COM> c...@apple.com (Christopher Pettus) writes:

This is a formal Call for Discussion for the creation of the new
newsgroup Talk.Politics.Ireland, an unmoderated newsgroup chartered
with being a forum for the discussion of issues relating to Irish
politics, the British presence in Northern Ireland, the actions of the
IRA, arguments pro- and con- Irish reunification, and related topics.

<<Stuff removed.>>

This opens the official Call for Discussion period, which lasts until a
consensus either way is reached or 12/19/90, whichever comes first.
Followups to news.groups.
--
Christopher Pettus - "You know, the AppleTalk group." - Apple Computer, Inc.

I don't see the need for this. The volume is not prohibitively
high. Politics are an essential part of Irish culture, things being what
they are, and so politics can easily be discussed here.

Why are you trying to quash discussion by directing followups to
news.groups? This seems to me unwise and a deliberate attempt to
manipulate the outcome, so I have redirected the followups on my
posting.
--
\Chuck McCaffrey cmc...@urbana.mcd.mot.com 1101 E University Urbana IL 61801
\ Flashing for the warriors whose strength is not to fight, [my words]
\ Flashing for the refugees on the unarmed road of flight, [my opinions]
/ \ And for each and every underdog soldier in the night,
/ \ And we gazed upon the chimes of freedom flashing.

Stephen Graham

unread,
Nov 27, 1990, 11:23:55 AM11/27/90
to
I believe my arguments from the last go-round are still valid.
talk.politics.ireland shound NOT be created.

Steve Graham
gra...@isis.ee.washington.edu

Finbar Gallagher

unread,
Nov 28, 1990, 9:26:45 AM11/28/90
to
In article <11...@milton.u.washington.edu>,

gra...@milton.u.washington.edu (Stephen Graham) writes:
> I believe my arguments from the last go-round are still valid.
> talk.politics.ireland shound NOT be created.

Seconded !!!

Finbar Gallagher.
Fin...@hpwaps.hp.com

Ran Atkinson

unread,
Nov 28, 1990, 4:20:21 PM11/28/90
to

>I don't see the need for this. The volume is not prohibitively
>high. Politics are an essential part of Irish culture, things being what
>they are, and so politics can easily be discussed here.

Of course having a separate newsgroup for talk.politics.irish could also
be a really good thing in that it would be obvious to new subscribers that
such is a current active thread of discussion and it has no negative effects
because both the current soc.culture.celtic and the proposed
talk.politics.irish would be open UNMODERATED groups. If folks wanted to
cross-post nothing would prevent this. NO CHARTER CHANGE to the existing
group is proposed either.

All things considered, the proposal seems reasonable.

>Why are you trying to quash discussion by directing followups to
>news.groups? This seems to me unwise and a deliberate attempt to
>manipulate the outcome, so I have redirected the followups on my
>posting.

The current published group creation guidelines explicitly require that
the formal discussion take place in news.groups and so the original poster
was merely following the guidelines. Let`s not criticise him for following
the net.guidelines.

Ulick Stafford

unread,
Nov 28, 1990, 9:21:21 PM11/28/90
to
>In article <46...@apple.Apple.COM> c...@apple.com (Christopher Pettus) writes:
>
> This is a formal Call for Discussion for the creation of the new
> newsgroup Talk.Politics.Ireland, an unmoderated newsgroup chartered
> with being a forum for the discussion of issues relating to Irish
> politics, the British presence in Northern Ireland, the actions of the
> IRA, arguments pro- and con- Irish reunification, and related topics.
>
> <<Stuff removed.>>
>
> This opens the official Call for Discussion period, which lasts until a
> consensus either way is reached or 12/19/90, whichever comes first.
> Followups to news.groups.
> --
> Christopher Pettus - "You know, the AppleTalk group." - Apple Computer, Inc.
>

I am very much in favor of this group, and mustn't have been around for
the last discussion. My inputs here have mainly been political and feel
strange posting in a group whose use is primarily for other issues. The
volume of discussion on irish politics recently definitely justifies the
talk politics group, and I feel that a group for such disscussions would
broaden the base.

Come on all other political inputers. Why not have a group for such
discussions. It may get more people in on the act. I have noticed
most opponents of such a group have been those who would use it the
most. I wonder could the announcements of such a discussion go
to soc.culture.british as well. I am sure that many potential readers
and possible posters to such a group may be found there.


+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+ 'The owls are not what they seem' + Ulick Stafford, Dept. of Chemical +
+ + engineering, Notre Dame, IN 46556 +
+ Go Vikes! Go Irish!(ND and Jack's boys)+ email: ul...@ndcheg.cheg.nd.edu +
+ Go Cubs! Liverpool...never walk alone + tel: (219) 239-5699 +
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Christopher Pettus

unread,
Nov 28, 1990, 1:51:30 PM11/28/90
to
>Why are you trying to quash discussion by directing followups to
>news.groups? This seems to me unwise and a deliberate attempt to
>manipulate the outcome, so I have redirected the followups on my
>posting.

Considering that I announced in the body of the message that I was
redirecting discussion to news.groups, and posted the initial message
to both news.groups and soc.culture.celtic, I'm a bit surprised at the
"deliberate attempt to manipulate the outcome" accusation. I think
that the average reader of s.c.c is smart enough to follow it in
news.groups; I'm certain you don't disagree with that. If you'd like
it crossposted to s.c.c, sure, whatever; news.groups is the place that
new groups are discussed, however.


--
Christopher Pettus - "You know, the AppleTalk group." - Apple Computer, Inc.

Greg Bullough

unread,
Nov 29, 1990, 1:41:37 PM11/29/90
to
In article <1990Nov29.0...@news.nd.edu> ul...@picasso.helios.nd.edu (Ulick Stafford) writes:
>>In article <46...@apple.Apple.COM> c...@apple.com (Christopher Pettus) writes:
>>
>> This is a formal Call for Discussion for the creation of the new
>>
>> <<Stuff removed.>>
>>
>> This opens the official Call for Discussion period, which lasts until a
>> consensus either way is reached or 12/19/90, whichever comes first.
*********
Dreams are good :-)


>
>I am very much in favor of this group...

Though in the past I have opposed the idea, I must now agree that it
is a good one. The political discussions have eclipsed the other
aspects of celtic culture in soc.culture.celtic. The shrill tone
and incessant posturing have made the climate of the present group
terribly oppressive. I would now like to see the never-ending
and repetitious debate moved elsewhere, as it is accomplishing
nothing but to make soc.culture.celtic a miserable place to be.

Although kill files have been suggested, the combatants manage to
change the subject lines so frequently (and I am reluctant to place
any PERSON in a kill file), that it is very difficult to avoid them.
That is, without having a kill file of monumental proportions.

Of course, anyone's welcome to respond with a flame or with
fussing and posturing. Which will make my point better than
I ever could.

Greg

David Harrington

unread,
Nov 29, 1990, 8:56:08 PM11/29/90
to
In article <1990Nov29.0...@news.nd.edu>, ul...@picasso.helios.nd.edu
(Ulick Stafford) writes:

>
> I am very much in favor of this group, and mustn't have been around for
> the last discussion. My inputs here have mainly been political and feel
> strange posting in a group whose use is primarily for other issues. The
> volume of discussion on irish politics recently definitely justifies the
> talk politics group, and I feel that a group for such disscussions would
> broaden the base.
>
> Come on all other political inputers. Why not have a group for such
> discussions. It may get more people in on the act. I have noticed
> most opponents of such a group have been those who would use it the
> most. I wonder could the announcements of such a discussion go
> to soc.culture.british as well. I am sure that many potential readers
> and possible posters to such a group may be found there.
>

I totally agree with Ulick.

Paul O'Kane

unread,
Nov 29, 1990, 7:16:31 AM11/29/90
to

In article <11...@milton.u.washington.edu>, gra...@milton.u.washington.edu (Stephen Graham) writes:
|> I believe my arguments from the last go-round are still valid.
|> talk.politics.ireland shound NOT be created.


I agree talk.politics.ireland shound NOT be created

Edward Fitzgerald

unread,
Dec 2, 1990, 5:03:11 AM12/2/90
to

We both think that any attempt to remove politics from Celtic culture is an
oxymoron of sorts. Celtic "culture" has been bound up with politics as long as
there have been Celts, if you believe the Romans. The bards made some of their
best poetry about political causes, if the legends are correct. Many a pipe
tune refers to a political incident. How can you possibly seperate the two and
have anything?

Now, I'll agree that the flaming over the Troubles gets exceeding tedious at
times, but I can't see what good creating another group is supposed to do, nor
how you can decide what has "political overtones" and what doesn't have enough
political content to be moved.

Besides, how can you enforce it in an unmoderated group anyway?

Our vote(s) are "No...silly idea."

Suze and Ed....together one THIS one!

mck...@ul.ie

unread,
Dec 2, 1990, 5:52:58 PM12/2/90
to
--
I have already voted NO to the formation of talk.politics.ireland
in the prescribed place, news.groups, so don't count this again!
(Vote early and vote often! was the slogan of F*.* once upon a time)
I have cross-posted this to soc.culture.british just in case.
I like these two groups very much, just as they are, including
the rather shrill tones which have become audible recently.
The groups are comfortable, they fit me nicely, I am at home.
Don't send the political disputees off to another club somewhere
else, I can ignore them if I want to, and carry on talking about
marmalade, or Glasgow Rangers, or 50hz/220v. Sometimes they say
something quite interesting, and I am glad they are still around.
I actually care deeply about the same things that they do, God
bless them!
-------------------------------------------------------------------
John McKeon, Material Science Dept. University of Limerick, Ireland
also Sysop of STYX RBBS Limerick +353-61-332229 FidoNet 2:253/171

phs...@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au

unread,
Dec 3, 1990, 5:13:23 PM12/3/90
to

I vote no.

Tony Hartin

Robert Murphy

unread,
Dec 4, 1990, 9:30:20 PM12/4/90
to

I'm very much in favor of the creation of talk.politics.ireland. Some
days, I'm up for reading discussions of Celtic "culture", but very much
NOT in the mood for reading the interminable flames about the Troubles.
On such days, I make liberal use of ^K to kill the thread... but then
it's gone the next day when I want to go back and read it. It would be
much better to have such discussions in a newsgroup which I could ignore
or read at will, orthogonal to my interests in Celtic music and dance.

David Harrington

unread,
Jan 14, 1991, 8:58:50 PM1/14/91
to
In article <CMCCAFF.98...@thrumble.urbana.mcd.mot.com>,
cmc...@urbana.mcd.mot.com (Chuck McCaffrey) writes:
> Xref: unify news.groups:17512 soc.culture.celtic:2494
> Path:
unify!csusac!ucdavis!csus.edu!wuarchive!usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!ames!sun-barr!new
wstop!sun!quintus!unix!Teknowledge.COM!uw-beaver!milton!ogicse!ucsd!sdd.hp.com!z
zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rpi!bu.edu!att!att!mcdchg!mcdphx!udc!cmccaff
> From: cmc...@urbana.mcd.mot.com (Chuck McCaffrey)
> Newsgroups: news.groups,soc.culture.celtic

> Subject: Re: Call for Discussion: Talk.Politics.Ireland
> Message-ID: <CMCCAFF.98...@thrumble.urbana.mcd.mot.com>
> Date: 27 Nov 98 16:27:58 GMT
> References: <46...@apple.Apple.COM>
> Sender: net...@urbana.mcd.mot.com
> Followup-To: news.groups, soc.culture.celtic
> Organization: Motorola MCD, Urbana Design Center
> Lines: 30
> In-reply-to: c...@apple.com's message of 26 Nov 90 06:43:16 GMT

>
> In article <46...@apple.Apple.COM> c...@apple.com (Christopher Pettus) writes:
>

Take a look at that path! It took *8* weeks for this posting to reach
soc.culture.celtic, on my machine at least!

This must be some kind of a record.

Daan Sandee

unread,
Jan 15, 1991, 11:46:44 AM1/15/91
to
In article <1991Jan1...@Unify.com= d...@Unify.com (David Harrington) writes:
=In article <CMCCAFF.98...@thrumble.urbana.mcd.mot.com=,
=cmc...@urbana.mcd.mot.com (Chuck McCaffrey) writes:
== Xref: unify news.groups:17512 soc.culture.celtic:2494
== Path:
=unify!csusac!ucdavis!csus.edu!wuarchive!usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!ames!sun-barr!new
=wstop!sun!quintus!unix!Teknowledge.COM!uw-beaver!milton!ogicse!ucsd!sdd.hp.com!z
=zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rpi!bu.edu!att!att!mcdchg!mcdphx!udc!cmccaff
== From: cmc...@urbana.mcd.mot.com (Chuck McCaffrey)
== Newsgroups: news.groups,soc.culture.celtic
== Subject: Re: Call for Discussion: Talk.Politics.Ireland
== Message-ID: <CMCCAFF.98...@thrumble.urbana.mcd.mot.com=
== Date: 27 Nov 98 16:27:58 GMT
== References: <46...@apple.Apple.COM=
== Sender: net...@urbana.mcd.mot.com
== Followup-To: news.groups, soc.culture.celtic
== Organization: Motorola MCD, Urbana Design Center
== Lines: 30
== In-reply-to: c...@apple.com's message of 26 Nov 90 06:43:16 GMT
==
== In article <46...@apple.Apple.COM= c...@apple.com (Christopher Pettus) writes:
==
=
=Take a look at that path! It took *8* weeks for this posting to reach
=soc.culture.celtic, on my machine at least!
=
=This must be some kind of a record.
=
=--
=David Harrington internet: d...@eire.unify.COM
=Unify Corporation ...!{csusac,pyramid}!unify!eire!dgh
=3870 Rosin Court voice: +1 916 920-9092
=Sacramento, CA 95834 fax: +1 916 921-5340

8 *weeks*? Look again.
The original date is given as 27 Nov 98. Therefore :
1) it was sent in 1898, and took 92 years to get there ; or,
2) it was sent in 1998, and we are experiencing a time warp ; or,
3) somebody has been tinkering with message headers, in which case there
is no base for David's amazement.
This last possibility is the reason why I quote this message in its entirety,
so nobody can accuse *me* of tinkering.

On a more sane level, it is clear that thrumble.urbana.mcd.mot.com (boy,
what a name) had a system date problem, and so I wouldn't trust the other
date (of 26 Nov 90) either.

Daan Sandee san...@sun16.scri.fsu.edu
Supercomputer Computations Research Institute
Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL 32306-4052 (904) 644-7045

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages