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

Michael P. O'Connor mpop at MikeOConnor.net
Wed Mar 30 16:02:49 EST 2005


Please define "legal Internet activities"?  Sorry but I would be willing
to argue the opposition, but I would like to have both sides be at lest
teams of 3.

On Wed, 2005-03-30 at 15:57, Beth Lynn wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> So Rich, just so we can be clear on this, if the question was something 
> like "Is it legal to find and use unsecured wireless access points for 
> otherwise legal Internet activity?" you would be arguing the affirmative.
> 
> Who wants to argue the opposition?
> 
> We also need a judge to insure that this is a professional debate. If 
> someone gets childish (the affirmative, the opposition or the audience) 
> that that person is ejected from the room until the end of the debate.
> 
> Thanks,
> Beth Lynn
> 
> PS Drew has been bcc-ed to protect his privacy.
> PSS The above is not official question of debate. I was just putting that 
> out there as a possiblity.
> 
> On Wed, 30 Mar 2005, Richard Farina wrote:
> 
> > Of course I will volunteer for a debate on this topic.  Drew would also be 
> > there, I can assure this.
> >
> > -Rick Farina
> >
> > At 12:56 PM 3/30/2005, Michael P. O Connor wrote:
> >> 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
> >> 
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> 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
> >
> _______________________________________________
> 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




More information about the wplug-plan mailing list