www.talkcyprus.org

[thebrix]

Has anyone else received this? It appeared in my gmail.com account (and evaded the spam filters, which is unusual as gmail is the best of the lot at catching spam):

Quote: Dear friends,

Right now a tragedy is unfolding in the Middle East. Thousands of innocent
civilians have been killed or wounded in the bombings in Lebanon, Palestine
and Israel and the death toll is rising every day. If the US, Syria or Iran
get involved, there is a chance of a catastrophic larger war. UN Secretary
General Kofi Annan has called for an immediate ceasefire and the deployment
of international troops to the Israel-Lebanon border, and been strongly
supported by almost every world leader. This is the best proposal yet to
stop the violence, but the US, the UK, and Israel have refused to accept it.
I have just signed a petition calling on US President Bush, UK Prime
Minister Blair, and Israeli Prime Minister Olmert to support Kofi Annan's
proposal. If millions of people join this call, and we advertise our views
in newspapers in the US, UK, and Israel, we can help pressure these leaders
to stop the fighting.

Please Go to the link below and sign up now!
http://www.ceasefirecampaign.org

The Web site has some not uninteresting alterations from that text ("thousands" has been changed to "hundreds", and mention of Syria and Iran has been removed) ... but why do people persist in presenting petitions?

Petitions, particularly Web petitions, are useless!

[cannedmoose]

thebrix wrote: but why do people persist in presenting petitions?

Petitions, particularly Web petitions, are useless!

Frustration at not being listened to by our leaders would be one reason. I do, sadly, agree that most petitions are thrown straight in the round file and mean absolutely nothing (I did sign it though ;))

[thebrix]

cannedmoose wrote: thebrix wrote: but why do people persist in presenting petitions?

Petitions, particularly Web petitions, are useless!

Frustration at not being listened to by our leaders would be one reason. I do, sadly, agree that most petitions are thrown straight in the round file and mean absolutely nothing (I did sign it though ;))

But "we" never were!

I dislike being a prophet without honour, but I predicted this several years ago ... that a serious danger of the Internet would be that it would give an inflated impression of what people could do and raise false expectations on the influence individuals and groups would have on politics.

While "the same old bastards in charge" sailed merrily on regardless :twisted:

[100%cypriot]

thebrix wrote: cannedmoose wrote: thebrix wrote: but why do people persist in presenting petitions?

Petitions, particularly Web petitions, are useless!

Frustration at not being listened to by our leaders would be one reason. I do, sadly, agree that most petitions are thrown straight in the round file and mean absolutely nothing (I did sign it though ;))

But "we" never were!

I dislike being a prophet without honour, but I predicted this several years ago ... that a serious danger of the Internet would be that it would give an inflated impression of what people could do and raise false expectations on the influence individuals and groups would have on politics.

While "the same old bastards in charge" sailed merrily on regardless :twisted:

If they thought it might have an adverse effect ( the Powerfull Leader's ) on their ability to run their countries and the ability to dictate to the people , DO you realy think they would have allowed the Internet to flourish?

[thebrix]

100%cypriot wrote: thebrix wrote: cannedmoose wrote: thebrix wrote: but why do people persist in presenting petitions?

Petitions, particularly Web petitions, are useless!

Frustration at not being listened to by our leaders would be one reason. I do, sadly, agree that most petitions are thrown straight in the round file and mean absolutely nothing (I did sign it though ;))

But "we" never were!

I dislike being a prophet without honour, but I predicted this several years ago ... that a serious danger of the Internet would be that it would give an inflated impression of what people could do and raise false expectations on the influence individuals and groups would have on politics.

While "the same old bastards in charge" sailed merrily on regardless :twisted:

If they thought it might have an adverse effect ( the Powerfull Leader's ) on their ability to run their countries and the ability to dictate to the people , DO you realy think they would have allowed the Internet to flourish?

Nobody foresaw what did and didn't happen with the Internet; networks could very easily have remained in the embrace of the US Department of Defence and, as it turns out, the decision to cut it loose was spectacularly enlightened ... by accident.

It is also worth noting that, until about 1995, "the Internet" was not really on the radar; "the information superhighway", which was envisaged to be a much more managed and controlled entity, was. I have a rare first edition of The Road Ahead, Bill Gates' first significant book, which doesn't mention the Internet at all but does mention "the information superhighway"!

(It is very interesting that the official Gates bibliography starts with the second edition ...).

I once had an entertaining discussion with someone who battled the Post Office (as it was) for five years to win the right to attach a modem to a phone line without being prosecuted! The 'reasons' for trying to stop him were a combination of fear of change, bloody-mindedness and "it would break the telephone network"; nothing to do with stopping information flow.