From: joe@sfbooks.com 
  
 In article , 
 Jim Riley   wrote: 
  
 > On Tue, 23 Sep 2003 01:10:29 +0000 (UTC), Joe Bernstein 
 >  wrote: 
 > 
 > >some cases I'm reasonably sure I'm missing relevant data (I certainly 
 > >don't have all the talk.religion.bahai failures, for example, nor do 
 > >I have the failure of the stupid us.* proposal), but for what it's 
 > >worth: 
 > 
 > There were only 2 failures of the Bahai group.  The us.* proposal is 
 > under other_articles in the ISC archive. 
  
 OK.  I used Google for this, of course, since it was the only quasi- 
 rational way to do it fast, and I didn't consider it urgently necessary 
 to get all possible data, since it was kind of an offhand list.  (This 
 is also why I didn't tag the subject line with [History].)  The story of 
 political voting isn't actually one of the topics I'm *most* interested 
 in researching, Heaven knows... 
  
 But I was almost certain that talk.religion.bahai had been proposed 
 six or seven times.  Did it only go to a vote thrice? 
  
 > >soc.religion.christian.home-church 137:68, February, 2000 
 > > 
 > >(note that the group didn't meet the 150-vote recommendation, though 
 > >it did meet the 120-vote one; note that it would have been moderated; 
 > >note that a previous vote on this group had been invalidated for 
 > >campaigning violations, although it's actually pretty damn hard to get 
 > >a vote invalidated on those grounds...) 
 > 
 > This was a case of people voting NO because they didn't believe the 
 > support for the group was there, forcing the group to have more 
 > support than was needed.  I think that there may also be a bit of 
 > prejudice at work. 
  
 It's in the list precisely because I expected prejudice to be involved. 
 I vaguely remember warring with traffic cops at some point in this 
 proposal's tortuous history, but memories that vague tend to be 
 memories I can't rely on, so I didn't. 
  
 > >talk.religion.bahai 109:65, February, 1998 
 > > 
 > >(basically, various Baha'is, including sometimes moderators of 
 > >soc.religion.bahai, thought that the existence of an unmoderated 
 > >forum for discussion of their faith was contrary to the principles 
 > >of their faith.  Over time, they gradually concluded that instead, 
 > >stifling free discussion was what was contrary to those principles. 
 > >Or some such; I didn't follow each discussion in detail.  This was 
 > >the next-to-last vote of several.  Um, also, the proponent was a jerk.) 
 > 
 > The last point is the key.  The proposal was eventually passed after 
 > bringing on other proponents, and convincing Frederick Glaysher to 
 > refrain from most of the discussion.  It should be noted that he was 
 > not able to participate in the first week of discussion of the first 
 > try (the above is the result of the 2nd) which led to a certain 
 > skepticism of whether this was a stealth group or what. 
  
 Obviously jerk proponents are a common thread here.  But frankly, I'm 
 beginning to think certain kinds of worthwhile group perhaps can only 
 *be* created by jerks; I'm starting to think that nobody else has the 
 fire in the belly it takes, these days, to pass a group.  So I'm 
 beginning to think this is a problem, and probably not a solvable one. 
  
 > I think the 
 > opposition had more to do with concern about the motives of the 
 > proponent, than necessarily a desire to suppress open discussion of 
 > their faith. 
  
 If you put it in those terms, and you sound sane, then no.  But I 
 think that really is what it started out as. 
  
 I don't remember whether there's some sort of secret-words matter 
 involved, as for the Mormons.  But the moderators were all over the 
 first debate citing chapter and verse of various writings of their 
 religion's founders, to show that it would be Wrong to support the 
 group.  As best I understand it, the logic of their change of heart 
 was that they got a better grasp of how Usenet normally works, and 
 this persuaded them that a talk.* group was a normal thing, not some 
 kind of special creation, or some such; basically, it sounded like 
 their faith is concerned both with free speech and with respectful 
 speech, and something about Usenet's norms tipped the balance between 
 these conflicting ideals.  It didn't tip it for everyone; during the 
 vote that finally passed the group, a woman whom *I* knew as the 
 respected moderator of a mailing list unrelated to this religion 
 was out there campaigning against it by e-mail.  But that time, 
 people other than Frederick Glaysher were countering her. 
  
 So it's particularly notable in this case that 
  
 1) you had to be *kind* of a jerk to propose the group in the first 
    place, given that the moderators were apparently reasonable and 
    sensible people; 
  
 2) you had to be a *real* jerk to get it passed, given that it was 
    only through repeated exposure to news.groups norms, via repeated 
    RFDs, that the moderators changed their view not only on whether 
    they personally opposed the proposal but on whether it was 
    incumbent on Baha'is *in general* to oppose it.  (Wasn't there 
    something at the Official Baha'i Website urging a NO vote, first 
    time around?) 
  
 > >soc.org.cisv 124:43, March, 1997 
 > > 
 > >(again, a low YES total; again, I'm not at all sure any NO votes were 
 > >political - one of them came from the then-moderator of 
 > >news.announce.newgroups - but am including the group in case.  This 
 > >was the group's second vote; the first one failed for lack of 100 
 > >YES votes.) 
 > 
 > Russ Allbery in response to a comment that the proponents should have 
 > considered a more meaningful name wrote: 
 > 
 >    Be nice if they'd do that, yes.  That advice has been given to them 
 >    twice now, and the previous time they tried to bring this proposal 
 >    forward, it failed in exactly the same way.  I'm hoping that 
 >    eventually the point will sink in. 
 > 
 >    soc.org.cisv may as well be asd.gads.qwer; both names mean about as 
 >    much to the uninitiated. 
  
 Well, boo.  rec.org.sca, rec.org.mensa, comp.org.isoc.interest for 
 Heaven's sake... 
  
 I'll grant that soc.org.* is conceptually a *MUCH* bigger space than 
 comp.org.* or rec.org.*, but still. 
  
 > >rec.arts.tv.barney.criticism 148:69, February, 1997 
 > >rec.arts.tv.barney.creative 142:74, February, 1997 
 > > 
 > >(again, I suspect there were good reasons for many of the NO votes, 
 > >but list the groups in case; see below for why I don't list more of 
 > >this kind of group) 
 > 
 > I think there was a belief that the group was intended for parodies, 
 > of a somewhat malicious nature.  It might be considered political to 
 > vote No. 
  
 Well, yeah, that's what I meant.  The context here is whether votes 
 from people who think cat breeding is Inherently Evil and that in fact 
 no more cats should be born on this planet ever, will drown out votes 
 from potential users of the group.  This is essentially the same *kind* 
 of problem as Armenians or Greeks vs. their neighbours, but these less 
  
 [continued in next message] 
  
 --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05 
  * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)