----- Original Message ----- From: "Matt Grimaldi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, July 15, 2002 2:56 PM Subject: Re: Demanding change (was RE: Mmm, mesquite smoky goodness (was Re: (~) Please.))
> Nick Arnett wrote: > > > So, while Jeroen thinks it is his job to beat > > > sense into you, you think it is your job to > > > distract him from mistreating Mark. > > Erik Reuter wrote: > > > > And what is your agenda? > > > > He's trying to keep the list from falling below > the critical mass. Most of the old regulars > on the list are here out of loyalty to what a > great place this used to be, and out of hope > that it will return to that. Exchanges like > the one we are discussing push the list away > from that outcome. > I see a significant divergence between Eric's view of what Bring-I should be and what I see as a consensus view expressed by virtually everyone else. Eric sees it as a place for no holds bar discussion. His view is that this is a prerequisite for open minded discussions. A desire for civility is mocked as being overly sensitive. He appears to be singular among the people who have written on this subject. Indeed, I'd bet money that most people who have posted on _any_ subject in the last month have written a post that differs with Erik's point of view on this subject. >From my experience, there are plenty of uncivil forums on the internet. I was attracted to Bring-I because 1) it had some interesting people with unique knowledge and viewpoints 2) it was a place were controversial ideas could be discussed civilly. I would venture that, if you look at uncivil and civil discussions, the depth of ideas in civil discussions is far greater than forums where flame wars rule. The truism about generating more heat than light seems valid to me. Further, Bring-I was founded on IAAMOAC. There was a particular viewpoint; generally agreed upon bounds to actions. My view matches what Gautam wrote: there should be no limitation on the political ideas that one can express. For example, I think that someone who honestly believes that blacks are genetically inferior should have the right to put forth the reasons for her viewpoint. These viewpoints should not be countered with banishment; rather with good ideas. However, rude behavior is not an expression of an idea. Good ideas can be expressed civilly. So, trolling, list-bombing, flame wars, etc. need not be acceptable behavior for even the most open minded groups. Those are behaviors, not ideas. One of the great fallacies is that open mindedness equals anything goes. I'll give Erik credit, his views are consistent, not hypocritical. He seems to honestly believe that its no big deal to delete undesirable mail or to ignore threads. His attitude appears to be that folks who do not use technology to handle things the way he does have only themselves to blame when they read messages that bother them. I think, and Erik can correct me if I am wrong, that he thinks that the idea of a virtual community is quaint '60s nonsense. Indeed, his posts lead me to believe that he may very well hold that opinion about communities in general. In both cases, from what I read, he is decidedly in the minority among Bring-I posters in holding this view. He is more than welcome to express the view that we are all foolish for differing with him. That should be his right. Minority viewpoints should not be trampled upon. However, it is reasonable to request that he respect other people's wishes to take flame wars offline. Bring-I was founded by and, mostly, peopled by folks who want a civil forum. It is not closed minded to want civility. The real question is what happens when one member's view of what Bring-I should be is at odds with the majority of posters. IMHO, it is reasonable for the single person to refrain from forcing his/her view on the rest of the folks. Yes, it is probable that even civil posts will offend someone. That's not the issue. The question is not even a limit on the topics to be discussed. The question is whether civility, as understood by the community as a whole, should be ignored by someone who feels no need for anyone to be civil. FWIW, for the last couple of days that Erik has been debating with numerous people, arguing against the need for civility, he has written anything that I find offensive. Wrong, yes; offensive, no. :-) Its actually a worthwhile topic for discussion. But, the reality is that the fights between Jereon and <fill in the blank> as well as Mark's alternative reality spamming have changed the tone of the list in a manner that most posters find detrimental. It is no longer a cordial, fun, freewheeling place. I realize that, but I'm pretty good at filtering out noise, so Erik and Jeroen's tiff doesn't bother me much. But, I can understand why others feel different. Dan M.
