In  on 04 Nov 2009 14:57:11
+0000, Matthew Vernon  wrote:

>Dick Gaughan  writes:
>
>> I should have made it clearer that my comparison with my RL
>> experience was intended to be with the _method_  - i.e., the
>> canvassing outside of uk.* in the chiark-only IRC - and not with
>> those who have been reading unnm, had access to the debate and
>> statements of all the candidates and will therefore be voting with
>> informed views.
>
>You assume that people on chiark IRC have not been pointed to the CFV
>and discussion in unnm. AFAII, that is not the case.

Thank you for telling me what I assume. Do you actually have "A"
level telepathy or is this just another of those "exaggerations"
you're so fond of?

When discussion of the election is taking place in a private
medium, participated in by the four of the candidates who are
members of that private medium and are acting as a bloc in pursuit
of a shared agenda, but excluding the other candidates, then
regardless of how harmless it might seem to those involved, in the
absence of anything to go on others are likely to interpret it as,
at best, very dodgy.

-- 
DG

On Thu, 05 Nov 2009 14:51:50 +0000, Owen Dunn
 wrote:

>> When discussion of the election is taking place in a private medium,
>> participated in by the four of the candidates who are members of
>> that private medium and are acting as a bloc in pursuit of a shared
>> agenda, but excluding the other candidates, then regardless of how
>> harmless it might seem to those involved, in the absence of anything
>> to go on others are likely to interpret it as, at best, very dodgy.
>
>Would anything persuade you otherwise?

I wouldn't dare speak for Dick, but my own opinion, whether there is
or not anything 'dodgy', is simply that the manner with which the
Chibal stood is more likely to be interpreted, at best, as very dodgy.

In  on Thu, 05 Nov 2009
14:51:50 +0000, Owen Dunn  wrote:

>Dick Gaughan  writes:
>
>> When discussion of the election is taking place in a private medium,
>> participated in by the four of the candidates who are members of
>> that private medium and are acting as a bloc in pursuit of a shared
>> agenda, but excluding the other candidates, then regardless of how
>> harmless it might seem to those involved, in the absence of anything
>> to go on others are likely to interpret it as, at best, very dodgy.
>
>Would anything persuade you otherwise?

I don't need persuaded of anything. 

I'm not sure there's much point in repeating all this again as it
doesn't seem to get through however it's worded. But one last try.

I have no idea if there was anything dodgy going on and I don't
care whether there was. That is not the issue. What your
candidates are unanimously stubbornly refusing to consider, in
spite of it repeatedly being pointed out, is *perception*. 

Even it was completely innocent, as it may well have been, it
*looks* dodgy. As anyone who has even a tangential acquaintance
with electoral politics learns in their political infancy,
perception is everything. Why do political parties spend so much
flaming money on spin? Why was a sewer rat tabloid hack like
Alastair Campbell able to rise to the heights of the political
establishment?

Perception. Regardless of the reality, what matters is the
perception of the people who are being asked to vote.

I don't think anything that could be done or said now is capable
of rescuing a bad situation. A bad situation made infinitely worse
by the stupefying arrogance, intransigence and sheer downright
stupidity of the way those involved have handled it. Their
infantile tantrums and posturing have turned what started out as
simply something requiring clarification into the central election
issue by raising questions about their competence and honesty,
questions which could have been completely avoided by the
application of a molecule of common savvy. 

If it was a RL election, I'd be on my knees begging my opposition
to adopt this lot as candidates. And campaigning for a sainthood
for whoever was advising them. And if they actually embarked on
this student-politics-type escapade without listening to anyone
else's advice, they're even bigger fools than I had them down as.

-- 
DG

In  on Thu, 05 Nov 2009
17:17:09 +0000, Owen Dunn  wrote:

>Dick Gaughan  writes:
>
>> In  on Thu, 05 Nov 2009
>> 14:51:50 +0000, Owen Dunn  wrote:
>>
>>>Would anything persuade you otherwise?
>>
>> I don't need persuaded of anything. 
>
>No, but I was wondering if it was worth continuing to try :-)

Like most people here, my fuse lengthens almost to infinity when
engaged in discussion which is aiming to reach sensible
conclusions rather than score points or boost egos.

>I've probably done them no favours by willingly answering people's
>questions about discussions on IRC and news, but I'm an awkward sort
>who likes to provide information when I have it, which is why I was
>also keen to point out that as far as I could see there'd been no
>canvassing.

If there had actually been a chiark conspiracy, it would have
stood a much better chance of success had you, Eleanor and Cris
been candidates. You have all shown a willingness to discuss
differences of viewpoint instead of noisily depramming toys.

And if "depram" is not a verb already, I claim it :)

-- 
DG

On Thu, 05 Nov 2009 18:02:56 +0000, Dick Gaughan put finger to
keyboard and typed:

>And if "depram" is not a verb already, I claim it :)

In the capitalised noun form, it's a brand name:

http://www.druginfosys.com/Brand.aspx?Code=12898

Mark
-- 
Blog: http://mark.goodge.co.uk
Stuff: http://www.good-stuff.co.uk