[PLUG] PLUG vs. PLUG

[Jeme A Brelin]

On Mon, 19 Jan 2004, Cliff Wells wrote:
> Oh, is that from your experience as a member there?

I don't join that kind of organization.

As soon as I heard about threads being squashed and people being removed
from the list, I dismissed any thoughts of joining the list.

> >It is true that the organization has a few keyholders who make binding
> >decisions for the organization and must be swayed in order to make
> >anything happen under that organization's banner.  Their control is
> >total.
>
> Control of what?  Coffee shop meetings?  IRC discussions of video games?

Control of the mailing list and the discussions contained therein.

> >If you don't LIKE those words and you think that's a BAD THING, that's a
> >different story.
> >
> >It ain't slander if it's true.
> >
> But it isn't true, hence slander.

Really?  It's not entirely up to Matt and Robby (and whatever other
minority they've delegated) whether or not a person gets kicked off their
mailing list?  It can be done without their permission?  Someone can be
kept on the list if those people don't want that person on the list?

> >>But it's funny, because PLUG is rarely, if ever, discussed on PDXLUG
> >>(unless this argument happens to somehow spill over from this group).
> >
> >Anybody that disagrees with the keyholders has been silenced.  Of course
> >there's no discussion.
> >
> Disagrees about WHAT?

About PLUG, the name, or the nature of the organizations.

> >But I don't think anybody's claiming that wsa ever the intent.  The intent
> >is to disrupt, not usurp.
>
> This is utter paranoia.

Your contention is that the naming of the organization was somewhat
coincidental -- a by-product of the traditional LUG naming conventions.
But how does that explain the initial decision to hold the group meetings
on the same night as PLUG's?  And what about the quoted sniggering about
the confusion caused with O'Reilly and Linux Journal?

> You clearly overestimate the importance of a user group.

I don't understand what the importance of a user group has to do with my
statement.

> I used Linux for over 10 years before I ever subscribed to PLUG's
> mailing list and then unsubscribed shortly afterwards because people
> there seemed so uptight ("discussions of postgresql vs access are OT"
> was the cry).

At least they are allowed to cry about whatever they like without being
silenced by the authorities.

> User groups are useful and nice, but to think that anyone would want to
> disrupt one for some sort of personal gain is just so
> methamphetamine-driven as to be a cause of concern for one's mental
> state.

First, I didn't write anything about personal gain (the gain would be a
vindication of personal philosophy, which is an affirmation of one's world
view and important enough to some to start entire world wars).  Second, I
don't know what you could possibly mean by "methamphetamine-driven".
Third, this is just another ad hominem attack without any substantial
response to the argument at all.

> >Anyway, from where I'm sitting, PDXLUG appears to be the vanity project
> >of a few people who think things are best run from the top down.
> >Anarchism is anathema to people like that and so anything that makes it
> >harder for the community to function without authoritarian controls is
> >good for them. Bringing this down to a legal argument where the state
> >must intervene is supportive of the authoritarian philosophy and
> >furthers their cause even if the final decision of the state is
> >rendered in favor of the open community.
>
> Well-stated, but based on false axioms which of course makes it worth
> less than the pixels used to display it.

An axiom can't be false, only inconsistent with other logical systems.

Which axiom is inconsistent with your worldview?

J.
-- 
   -----------------
     Jeme A Brelin
    jeme at brelin.net
   -----------------
 [cc] counter-copyright
 http://www.openlaw.org