[wplug-plan] Meetting idea a debate stemming from the debate on line from the subject "On the subject of wardriving..."

[Michael P. O Connor]

Also if we were to do a debate, maybe we should not debate "wardriving"
but debate "The act of finding hotspots and mapping them on a public
accessible web site" or "Finding and using unsecured wireless access
points" or some other similar topic that should be fully spelled out,
since we don't agree on the def of "wardriving" is and there are even
arguments over what the definition is there has been at lest 2
definitions I seen posted to the list.
But I would like to stress NO NAME CALLING (sorry for shouting there,
but I seen over the last 2 days a bit of that going on, on the main
list, and for a debate to be done well, we must stick only to the ideas,
and remember that all involve are [for the most part] interested in the
truth)


> 1) also we need to keep it nice, no name calling
> 
> 2) also I will volentear to do eather jugde if needed (but I would say I
> might not be the best since I have stated my side and it could look bad)
> or to be on one side.
> 
> > Hello,
> > 
> > In theory a debate could work but as of now there are several important 
> > pieces that are missing.
> > 
> > 1. A formal question in which to debate.
> > 2. A definition of wardriving.
> > 3. Someone to take the Affirmative
> > 4. Someone to take the Opposed
> > 5. A more structured debate format with giving time to both sides to
state
> > the positions and rebuttal
> > 6. Someone to judge to we keep things on time and enforce who is
allowed 
> > to speak when
> > 
> > Anyone want to volunteer?
> > 
> > Thanks,
> > Beth Lynn
> > 
> > On Tue, 29 Mar 2005, Jonathan S Billings wrote:
> > 
> > > Michael P. O Connor wrote:
> > >> This has been a very intersting talk, on the wplug list.  And I have
> > >> gotten an idea, is it posable (with the blessings of the board) that
> > >> maybe we could scedual a Saterday for a full debate, we could get the
> > >> different people on this list that have already done some debate
on it,
> > >> mail each other so they can prepear for it. here is a suggested
sqedula
> > >>
> > >> 1) Each side will have 30 minutes to present their side of the
argument
> > >> 2) 30 Miniute break to prepare a responce to the other sides points
> > >> 3) present their responces
> > >> 4) Questions from the audiance to the two sides (how ever much
time is
> > >> needed to anser questiosn or till we have to leave)
> > >
> > > I think this is fairly well done on the mailing list.  It'd be nice if
> > > some people got together and did a joint presentation on what
Wardriving
> > > is, but I don't think that a public debate would be very easy to run.
> > > People in WPLUG are too argumentative.
> > >
> > > -- 
> > > Jonathan S. Billings <billings at negate.org>
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > wplug-plan mailing list
> > > wplug-plan at wplug.org
> > > http://www.wplug.org/mailman/listinfo/wplug-plan
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > wplug-plan mailing list
> > wplug-plan at wplug.org
> > http://www.wplug.org/mailman/listinfo/wplug-plan
> > 
> > 
> 
> -- 
> Michael P. O'Connor
> mpop at mikeoconnor.net
> http://www.mikeoconnor.net
> 
> _______________________________________________
> wplug-plan mailing list
> wplug-plan at wplug.org
> http://www.wplug.org/mailman/listinfo/wplug-plan
> 
> 

-- 
Michael P. O'Connor
mpop at mikeoconnor.net
http://www.mikeoconnor.net