Petition On No To War

by Ray Thu Jan 23, 2003 16:18

The UN is not gathering anti-war signatures.
This a chain letter. It doesn't work even in theory - if you follow those instructions you end up with 500 copies of a petition that differ only by a couple of names. If you absolutely must take part in an internet petition (that will be completely ignored by anybody more powerful than a litter warden) at least set one up on petitionsonline or something. Don't fill people's inboxes with something so obviously broken.

by Anonymous Thu Jan 23, 2003 17:03

Ray,

How do you "Know", they don't work whatsoever?

by shane Thu Jan 23, 2003 17:04

Because its fairly obvious

by King Mob Thu Jan 23, 2003 17:12

Fade in Bushy and Rummy muttering over paperwork

Rummy "It doesn't look good, seems a few thousand anonymous e-mails have gotten to the UN, the feds are at the gates with a warrant to take you to the War Crimes Tribunal in the Hague"

Bushy "What but..."

Rummy "Remember that last petition that forced its way past us, the one where we were forced to adhere to the war crimes tribunal"

Bushy "Dammit yes"

Rummy "It's true all those protests, the marches, the unconsitutionality and immorality of it all, it all didn't have a chance againist us, but it's just these pesky kids with their damn internet petitions"

Bush "our achilles heel"....

Thumps desk

Fade out
---------------------------

Can't you just see it happen?

Fucking morons,

KM

by TrotWatch Thu Jan 23, 2003 17:23

Have the SWP stopped doing petitions? They used to have one every week but I've not seen any in a while. Whats up?

by Ray Thu Jan 23, 2003 17:30

First off, petitions are generally ignored by politicians. As a general rule, the easier something is to do, the less notice they'll take of it. Signing your name on a petition is piss easy. Sending in a form letter is a bit harder. Writing your own letter harder still. Going on a demonstration takes some effort. Going on a demonstration and deliberately breaking the law, by engaging in some non-violent direct action, is harder.
The harder something is, the more commitment it requires. If some people are very committed to an issue then a) they're very likely to remember it when an election comes around, and b) they most likely represent the tip of an iceberg of people who aren't _that_ committed, but are still unhappy with the situation. That's the kind of thing politicians care about.
Online petitions are stupidly easy to sign, can be full of fake names (you can't fake your presence on a demo), and can have names from all over the place (politicians care a lot less about your opinion if you can't vote for them). They get binned immediately.

Secondly, this petition is obviously broken. The way it works - receive a petition with X number of names on it and pass it on to Y number of people - means that 100 completed petitions are not going to have 100 x 500 different names. Instead, the petitions will be massively duplicated.
If you are petition signer number 500 you send in your petition with 500 names on it. If number 499 on your petition sent the petition to ten of his friends (including you), then when they send in their complete petitions, you end up with 499 x 10 duplications. If number 498 also sent the petition to ten people (including your number 499), there are 498 x 100 duplications. And on, and on, and on. The collection method is flawed, and anyone who might have been initially impressed with the number of petitions sent in is going to realise that after about two seconds.

Thirdly, the UN don't gather signatures. Kofi Annan is not going to bring a box full of printed out petitions to his next meeting with George Bush. If you get an email message saying otherwise, you can be sure its a hoax. Always, always, ALWAYS check things out before forwarding them. ESPECIALLY the things that say 'Please pass this on to everyone you know'. Chain letters, petitions, 'little Timmy in Atlanta' begging letters - 99.9999999999999% of the time they're hoaxes, and somebody somewhere is laughing at you.

by Anonymous Thu Jan 23, 2003 17:32

Shane, a presumption is not knowledge. King Mob, a funny little story is not knowledge. I am looking to see if anyone has any real knowledge on this subject.

The huge, succesful and worldwide, Amnesty International, is based on priciples such as petitions.

Whoever would have thought that strange individuals from around the world sending in letters to free prisoners in brutal regimes would ever work?

Though the sucess of petitions may be less than that of sending letters, it takes far less time. It would not surprise me if the rate of success of a petition to the rate of success of a letter is the inverse of the time it takes an individual on both.

by King Mob Thu Jan 23, 2003 17:41

"Though the sucess of petitions may be less than that of sending letters, it takes far less time. It would not surprise me if the rate of success of a petition to the rate of success of a letter is the inverse of the time it takes an individual on both."

So if I have this moronic twist of logic straight, Petitions are easier therefore more effective.... Brillant. Dadaesque logic.

The sucess of amnesty is based on hard graft, political pressure, reporting detailed human rights abuse, and becoming a bloody well funded well respected nusance.

To equate that to a piss easy internet petition that i've seen half a dozen times in half a dozen places with half a dozen stupid names is beyond ignorant.

Grasp this the efforts and energy you're wasting on this could be MUCH better spent. If you want to actually DO something then DO something Ray suggested.

In stead of placating that stupid ego of yours with this pointless gesture.

The reason no one can give you an example is because THEY'VE NEVER WORKED!

by Ray Thu Jan 23, 2003 18:00

You said, "the UN is gathering signatures in an effort to avoid a tragic world event"

Go to the UN site, and find the petition there.
Here's their news site
http://www.un.org/News/

You find the page that proves this is a UN-backed petition, and I'll happily apologise for ever doubting your word.

by Anonymous - Left-Wing / Humanitarian Thu Jan 23, 2003 18:33

1. First of all I refer you to my above comment, especially regarding Amnesty etc. Though you have actually very much addressed my thoughts on different success rates being the inverse of different “time” rates.

2. To comment more precisely on your above piece:- You say “generally” ignored by politicians. Hence, so sometimes politicians do pay attention to them. And again I question your exact knowledge of this and the specifics of “ignored”, i.e. I would postulate there are different levels of being ignored, from being totally ignored down to having some affect, no matter on what level.

3. On your next point then you basically answer what I was on about with regards to success rates being the inverse of “time” rates, and I think you have basically agreed with my postulation.
i.e. signing your name to a petition and passing it on is damn easy. Though it may achieve little success in comparison to other forms of protest which involve much more effort such as going on a march, even if it only achieves a tiny amount of success I argue that this would make it worth it because you put so little time & effort into it in the first place.

3. Fourthly, forms of protestation such as demo’s only happen very rarely. Also, many people in the world do not live in big urban centre’s where these demo’s happen, thereby making it far more difficult for them to attend same, especially if they are only fringe protestors, which most protestors are.
So, I ask, what are these people supposed to do if they want to protest? I am sure you will have suggestions, but is not signing a petition and passing it on least something they can do?
And even for protestors who live in big urban centres. What are they supposed to do during the massive gaps between protests. I refer you to my same possible answer above.

4. Yes, there will be duplications in online petitions. Does this then mean that ALL online petitions are worthless and have zero effect?
Also, though a petition may end up with a billion names, taking only 10% of this, you are left with one million real, unduplicated names.
Also, duplication can have an advantage in that it leads to an increased amount of emails with petiions being sent in, helping the receiver to take increased notice.

5.I would say you are right in that the UN did not set out to gather petitions, though again I don’t think either of us know this for a fact, but if they receive them if “may” have some effect, no matter how small, and I think the possibility for a significant effect may always exist.

6. Your last point is probably a bit more grevious in the possibility of hoax petitions being sent around. I think one just has to use their immediate judgement on this. I for one am not going to spend time checking out the source of a petition everytime I receive one. I wouldn’t advise this on anyone. Use your judgement and don’t be too damn skeptical. And even if it is a hoax, the laugh is on the “child” who created it – AND, regardless, the fact that you have spread an anti-war message is a good in itself AND has an effect.

7. Finally just to reiterate my last scentence – whilst I am not definite yet on the overall effect of petitions and share some of your scepticisim, I do strongly argue that the signing of a petition and sending it on DOES have some effect, in that it has a POSITIVE (i.e anti-war) effect on the IMMEDIATE RECEIVER of the petition. Since there will be a countless number of receivers of the petition I think for this reason ALONE, it is worth signing and sending on a petition, if you believe in what the petition is saying. And besides this effect, the petition may have an effect on the ultimate intended recipient. No matter how small this effect may be, as long as there is some effect I believe this constitutes a second worthwhile reason for signing and sending on the petition.

by Anonymous - Humanitarian / Left-Wing Thu Jan 23, 2003 19:25

1. Sorry you have gotten my postulation on the relationship between success and time wrong. Sorry if I have explained it incorrectly.
What I mean is that though a petition may achieve less success, because one spent so little time on it the overall, the time/success rate may be the same if not too distant.

E.g.

Action One (eg. A demo)

Success of Demo = 100 Units

Time spent on Demo = 4 hours (includes traveling time etc. – of course for someone who lives outside Dublin or Shannon for example the amount of time increases very substantially)

100 / 240 minutes (100) = .4166

So rate of success per minute you spent = .4166

Action Two (e.g. A petition)

Time spent on Petition = 3 minutes

Success of Petition = 1 Unit

1 / 3 minutes = .33

So rate of success per minute you spent = .33

So in this instance, though a worldwide petition may be 100 times less effective than one single march in the "huglely influential country of Ireland in somewhere called Shannon", the actual success rate per minute may be not be that different. Even if the rates were considerably different I still think the petition would be worthwhile, so long as it was having at least some effect.

This is what I meant when I said:-

"Though the sucess of petitions may be less than that of sending letters, it takes far less time. It would not surprise me if the rate of success of a petition to the rate of success of a letter is the inverse of the time it takes an individual on both."

Again, sorry if I have phrased this wrong.

2. Your comment that “The sucess of amnesty is based on hard graft, political pressure, reporting detailed human rights abuse, and becoming a bloody well funded well respected nusance.”

The basic work of an Amnesty member/supporter is letter writing, compiling petitions etc. Do you deny this?

The strength of Amnesty is based on its huge worldwide membership/support. Do you deny this?

3. Your comment “Grasp this the efforts and energy you're wasting on this could be MUCH better spent. If you want to actually DO something then DO something Ray suggested.”

I have done the types of things that Ray suggested on countless occasions and will continue to do so.

If I hadn’t being doing this, I’d have been workin away at my capitalist job. I would not have been helping anyone. Probably exploiting them more like. I’ve enjoyed my stint away from that and engaging in thoughts of a humanitarian nature.

I also hope to have influenced other people to not be immediately skeptical on petitions and to encourage them to engage in them where possible.

4. “In stead of placating that stupid ego of yours with this pointless gesture.”
I’m merely having a debate/exploration here. Calm down, its nearly Friday!

5. “The reason no one can give you an example is because THEY'VE NEVER WORKED!”

Talk to Amnesty on that and come back to me. I am not definite if the one I posted up will have any effect (it certainly has had "some" effect! :)but I think it will have some effect and I certainly believe there is a place for internet and written petitions in this fucked up world of ours. I certainly hope there is.

by Phuq Hedd Thu Jan 23, 2003 19:36

W.r.t the comment about AI doing petitions, yes they have done that in the past and it is possible that they will do it in the future.

However, their biggest successes have come from the practice of individuals taking the time to write their own _personal_ letters to Prisoners of Conscience. This has two effects:
1. It shows the gaolers and "justice officials" that there are people watching and monitoring the situation who are so deeply committed to it that they will write letter after letter month after month.

2. When/if the letters get through to the prisoner it gives them hope and reassures them that other people out there in the world care about them.

These letter writing campaigns happen on several different levels with the most prioritised being the Urgent Action Network.

This is a whole different kettle of fish from the mostly useless petitions circulating.

by At swim two birds - ABSWP Fri Jan 24, 2003 11:29

No. The next line is NOT going to begin with "but if they did..."

The truth is the SWP take names and addresses for recruitment / prosletysing purposes. Putting your name on a SWP petition is like asking for a dose of something very uncomfortable.

by Ray Fri Jan 24, 2003 11:38

" I for one am not going to spend time checking out the source of a petition everytime I receive one"

That is, of course, your prerogative.
What I'm asking is that you check out these petitions (and virus warnings, and anything else that says 'please forward to everyone you know') before you SEND them on to anyone else.
How you treat incoming mail is up to you. When you send mails out (or post articles on here) you should consider how they are likely to be received.

by Anonymous Fri Jan 24, 2003 15:33

Yes indeed as you say that is my prerogative, and I believe a credible one at that.

On a seperate issue, regarding virus warnings, I agree with you on that. My computer is daily kept up to date with the latest Norton anti virus definitions and I scan everything that I receive.

And I agree that everyone should scan mail's that they send on no matter what they be. Particularly, as you say, if they are being posted on this site.

I end this mail and maybe the debate with the line I wrote when I first sent on the petition:-

"As in all instances, EVERYTHING, has got to be tried...".......or as John Hume would put it, "leave no stone unturned".

by Anonymous Fri Jan 24, 2003 15:35

Yes indeed as you say that is my prerogative, and I believe a credible one at that.

On a seperate issue, regarding virus warnings, I agree with you on that. My computer is daily kept up to date with the latest Norton anti virus definitions and I scan everything that I receive.

And I agree that everyone should scan mail's that they send on no matter what they be. Particularly, as you say, if they are being posted on this site.

I end this mail and maybe the debate with the line I wrote when I first sent on the petition:-

"As in all instances, EVERYTHING, has got to be tried...".......or as John Hume would put it, "leave no stone unturned".

by Ray Fri Jan 24, 2003 16:23

I'm not saying that you should be careful not to send on viruses (though you should be).
I'm saying that you should stop and think before sending on virus WARNINGS. Most virus warnings you will see are hoaxes, some of which are actually damaging in that they tell people to delete useful files. Any virus warning you see should be checked out with Symantec, or a similar site, to make sure that its genuine.
The same precautions should be taken with ALL forwarded mails. Make sure the message you pass on is genuine. Because some things don't help, they just piss off people who are sick of getting stupid pointless spam. Whether that's in their in-box or on the newswire.

by Anonymous Fri Jan 24, 2003 19:06

Ya fair enuf on passing on Virus warning messages. I agree with you on that, though not too sure what this has got to do with whether or not to sign a petition or not and pass it on.

Regarding "Make sure the message you pass on is genuine.". We've been over this ground already. I've already explained how I'm not going to spend time checking the source of every e-mail I forward on, to which you replied "That is, of course, your prerogative."

If an individual does not like an e-mail he receives from someone, he can simply let that person that he does not wish to receive e-mails of that nature again.

by King Mob Fri Jan 24, 2003 21:31

Head thunking of keyboard.

My favourite bite of your bullshit trite reply was the claim that you'd been on countless "direct actions" etc...

Anyone who has actually put their safety and risked arrest (like you claim you've done) would only have scorn for the petitions.

Final thought since you're all on the high and might "little things have big consequences" bus. Consider this. These POINTLESS FUCKING e-mails you're perpetuating, which as you admitted are repeating themselves, are burning motherboards out, and ram and harddrives. The increased bandwiwth required to handle spam, is costing ISPs hundreds of thousands of dollars in replacing equipment (cheaper to buy the new shit than to repair) the old computer equipment is dumped and destroyed badly in the third world where it contributes to polluting the atmosphere and damaging childrens lives.

Consider that while you SPAM UP OUR LIVES

NOW FUCK OFF

by King Mob Fri Jan 24, 2003 21:39

Now would and your delusions of making the world a better place by hitting copy and paste, read these, and I REPEAT "fuck off"

http://unicwash.org/unic%20was%20response%20to%20petition.htm

and even better

http://www.hoaxkill.com/afghanistan.html

by Anonymous Sat Jan 25, 2003 10:59

I'll only say this "King Mob", I lost a VERY important job to me over direct actions several years ago, and I am still very much baring the consequences of this since. I wonder how many protestors can say the same.

So don't you talk to me on risk that I have put myself through and felt.

I repeat with what I started this article with "EVERYTHING has to be tried" whether it be direct action such as protests down to much smaller actions such as petitions.

And now I'm not going to say anymore to you considering your agressive remarks above.

Except to advise you to grow up and mature. And please don't engage on debates on "any" issue if all you can do is retort to "mindless" abuse and fowl language.

It is this type of "mindless" behaviour that the whole left wing and humanitarian movement is trying to work against.

So PLEASE, take a bit of time out for self examination and grow up.

Good bye and best regards...

by King Mob Sat Jan 25, 2003 16:01

Notice how you didn't reply to anything valid.

You've just realised that you're so fucking wrong you're trying to sramble up on your high horse.

Hi ho silver and away...come back when you have something meaningful to add.