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/