At 11:56 AM 6/24/01 -0600 Michael Harney wrote:
>I had a discussion with Brin off-list about why he left the list. His
>descision had little to do with the flame war that occured, the flame war
>simply prompted him to act sooner upon the decision. I would also point out
>that the flame war may have started because of discussion about one of his
>books (I don't know, I missed what started the flame war), but had nothing
>to do with the book itself.
Someone wrote an interpretation of _Startide Rising_ that he disagreed
with. Mostly, the difference in opinion was a major misunderstanding, but
emotions got out of hand, and he left. He may have been considering
taking a break before then, but that post on interpreting _SR_ was most
certainly the impetus.
>Would you care to amend this bill or pose an alternative one.
Absolutely not.
The essence of discussion is disagreement. Without disagreement, there is
almost no discussion. If you cannot handle people disagreeing with your
opinions, then you should not engage in discussion. If you are going to
take vigorous disagreement with your political opinions personally, then
you should not engage in discussion. Indeed, if you cannot handle the
existence of opinions that are the polar opposite of your own, then you
should strongly consider leaving the body politic, the essence of
democratic human civilization.
You would seem to think, Michael, the people with vigorous politicial
disagreements cannot be friends. You seem resigned to that fact that
vgorous political disagreement will eventual disolve friendship.
I categorically reject that viewpoint in every possible way.
If your viewpoint had any basis in reality, then I would not have a single
friend, as to this date, I have not met a single person who does not have a
vigorous political disagreement with me on one level or another. As it
is, I count among my best friends those who have the strongest
disagreements with me, and who continually challenge my mind with new ideas
and perspectives.
In my humble opinion, the greatest danger to human civilization is to
become too insular and too isolated. I think we all would like, at some
internal level, to be surrounded by people who think and act like we do.
Yet, as long as other ideas persist around us, those ideas need to be
engaged. If we are convinced that our positions represent our best
conclusions as to "the truth", then we should *want* to share that truth
with our friends and fellow list-members. Likewise, if we are convinced
that our positions represent "the truth", then we should have nothing to
fear from testing them in the fire of critical examination, debate, and
discussion.
If we are truly to be A Member Of A Civilization, then it is our
*obligation* to work towards the continual betterment of that civilization.
And how is our Civilization bettered? It is bettered through politics,
and the political system. If this List is to attract people who take
IAAMOAC to heart, then it will attract people who consider themselves an
active member of the body politic - the societal activists and
intellectuals that are the lifeblood of the republic. These people will
of course naturally want to discuss the greatest problems facing human
civilization today - and that discussion will invariably be characterized
as politics.
In my humble opinion, banning political discussion would be completely
contrary to what Dr. Brin would have liked to see from this list. Thus, I
refuse to recognize the validity of this process in any form, either by
offering amendments, or casting a vote.
JDG
__________________________________________________________
John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - ICQ #3527685
We are products of the same history, reaching from Jerusalem and
Athens to Warsaw and Washington. We share more than an alliance.
We share a civilization. - George W. Bush, Warsaw, 06/15/01
