Subject:
|
Model UN's/rants/ideas--was Re: IGNORANT views fuel oppression?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 11 Dec 2002 19:33:11 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2230 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Koudys writes:
>
> > I propose an OT-D Resolution 001--
> >
> > In which all party(s) concerned, concurrently and without delay withdraw
> > from specifically discussing the Israel/Palestine issue for a term of at
> > least, but not limited to, one (1) month.
> >
> > This resolution is proposed for the following reasons:
> >
> > - This debate has caused much contention and flaming anytime it 'reared its
> > uglay head'.
> >
> > - This debate does not seem to settle on any solution which satisfies any or
> > all party(s) involved in the debate.
> >
> > - this debate has been ongoing for a long time with no end in sight.
> >
> > I propose this resolution in the hopes that other debates will occur without
> > the overriding Israel/Palestine debate war which often takes over this
> > channel when it appears.
> >
> > If this resolution is not passed, it will in no way affect this participants
> > participation in the O.T.-D newsgroup.
>
> Two comments
>
> 1. what's the "scope of the Israel/Palestine issue"... if some party(1) says
> that something(2) is related, is it? If someone says something isn't, is it? (3)
>
> 2. what is the enforcement mechanism? Sent to bed without dessert? Shunning?
> 40 lashes with a wet noodle? Forcing someone to analyse in depth a
> particularly hard to analyse post and report to the group on what it
> purportedly says? No mechanism means no teeth means meaningless resolution (4)
>
> But ya, I'm with Bruce. Ignore a certain party (even when he posts
> interesting things, DAVID K... as I told you offline to do) and things get a
> lot quieter.
>
> 1 - Saddam / Osama Bin Laden / a participant here
> 2 - Kuwait / the Twin Towers / pictures of spaceships, northern Ireland, or
> discussion of what things were like (at the time of Jesus) in the holy land (5)
> 3 - This seems ripe for abuse if not defined... all someone has to do to
> quash something is allege it's related. All someone has to do to open
> something up is allege it's NOT related
> 4 - unless you were just going for humor value, which is OK but I sometimes
> miss that level of subtlety
> 5 - to pick three topics that have in the past been at least tangentially
> linked to I/P here in this very forum by participants
>
> ++Lar (former Model UN participant, who played the Pakistani ambassador :-) )
How did that model UN work with you as Pakistan's ambassador?
The resolution was not necessarily set up to be humourous, nor was it to be
perfectly serious--it was to raise a concern of mine in which, if the
majority concurs, we could quash a thread/debate if the majority sees no
movememt/resolution/it's just a flame war/whatever.
In this fashion, we could still appreciate the input by folks in other
debates, instead of a carte blanc ignore on an individual, no matter which
debate he or she speaks up in.
Here's a hypothetical scenario--I may have a problem with someone signing
off their postings with 'Padre Jones' if it is discovered that this Jones is
not a Padre at all, and is only using said sign-off for his or her own
ulterior motives. I may bring up this hypothetical problem again and again
and again, until everyone in OT-D is quite sick of me bringing it up.
Do you ignore my input on all the other debates, or just 'tune out' the
'Padre' rant.
If no one 'comes out to play' on my Padre rant, then I'll shut up about it,
and continue trying to be a good debater on other issues. If, however, I'm
ignored across the board, that may be perceived as a personal attack and,
well, that just isn't kosher in my books to do to *anyone*. Ignoring a
*person*, in the final analysis, is essentially bigotted--"You do not matter
to us at all."
Anyway, my little ideas as to 'how to play nice'.
Dave K
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: IGNORANT views fuel oppression?
|
| (...) Two comments 1. what's the "scope of the Israel/Palestine issue"... if some party(1) says that something(2) is related, is it? If someone says something isn't, is it? (3) 2. what is the enforcement mechanism? Sent to bed without dessert? (...) (22 years ago, 11-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
205 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
