On Sun, Aug 12, 2007 at 05:35:53PM +0200, Rado S wrote:
> =- James Cameron wrote on Wed 18.Jul'07 at 20:11:16 +1000 -=
> > On Mon, Jul 16, 2007 at 08:41:27PM +0200, Rado S wrote:
> > >  Allowing authors also to bless leaves it up to whom to decide what
> > > "legal" netrek is? Based on what? The loudest "borg" shouters?
> > 
> > Back when RSA was in heavy use, the loudest shouters were indeed
> > those who set the policy. Which in the absence of a social
> > mechanism or leadership, or deliberative assembly, is how any
> > group behaves. Only if such a social mechanism works can the
> > technical mechanism have any significant effect.
> Right.
> That's why I asked for this social organization.
> If it exists, to take action.
> If it doesn't, to create it.
> To which you said "let's have it", but later "I won't do it nor
> surrender to/ support it".
>  Which is fine, you're not obliged nor required as long as you let
> others try, but you considered it as attack against you:
>  won't do yourself, but neither let others?

I agree.

> And the other people "in charge" didn't even react at all for a long
> time (some still haven't).

Shrug.  Not my problem.  I generally react when the issue interests me
or when things are said about me that are wrong.

> Which way to go? Or just stay where we are?

Shrug.  It's not an important problem to me.

> I'm tired of the "borg" shouters crossfire and general "my game is
> the only that counts, do away with everything else" attitude while
> nobody declares what this one game is and takes action to quiet the
> noise.
> I prefer to have "noise" (in the sense of public official
> announcements) by a well defined leadership rather than by some
> random, small, occasionally irrational mob.

Chuckle.  This is a mailing list, not a parliamentary senate.

James Cameron    mailto:quozl at us.netrek.org     http://quozl.netrek.org/