It's going to be particularly difficult to determine what is too "religious" or too "political" on this list.
People are entitled to their opinions and as long as they offer them in constructive ways that help discussions, then I think they should be able to do so on the list. But that is not what Tim et. al are talking about. I believe they are interested in highlighting the actions of a few (indeed maybe just one) who consistently drags conversation off topic and into meaningless estuaries of abusive sarcastic remarks that have very limited real world consequence (I offer for the purpose of an example, the recent debate over what was a "burdensome" signature.) Listen, I joined this list when it started. Free Culture @ NYU was one of the first chapters off the ground in 2004. I've seen plenty of back and forth on here. But what has happened now is exasperation. There was energy, good positive forward motion to the things being discussed on this list. We hashed out our differences in constructive and meaningful ways, and most importantly, discussions were not dominated (nor killed) by single players. That's all changed. Occasionally we'll see announcements that are interesting and once in a blue moon people get into somewhat interesting conversations. And that's sad. That may just be a consequence of many agreeing with many and few disagreeing with the rest. But whether it has to change is up to you -- everyone on this list has the power to engage in interesting debate focused on student activism, copyright reform, and technological advocacy. If you want it, its there. And its something the board has been discussing. We're interested in trying to figure out a way that we can help. We're organizing this conference in Berkeley in an hope to help you guys build community with each other and we think it will work. But for now, as they say, don't feed the trolls. F On Thu, Jul 31, 2008 at 7:05 AM, Creighton Samuels <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: > Greg Grossmeier wrote: > > Crosbie Fitch wrote: > > > >>> From: Tim Hwang > >>> No consensus/endorsement on any one of them (or even if we need to > >>> have consensus on them), but figure i'll reproduce them here: > >>> > >>> 5. Political, religious and idee fixee ideology is not on topic. > >>> > >> I hereby admit that I am subject to an idée fixe ideology of cultural > >> freedom, and hence irremediably in violation of rule #5. > >> > >> I await your decision as to whether Students for Free Culture shall > rescind > >> this rule or request that I unsubscribe in order that the FC list may be > >> 'liberated' from receiving my posts - by definition, not on topic. > >> > > > > > > To make it abundantly clear: > > "No consensus/endorsement on any one of them" in other words: they are > > not rules yet and are up for discussion. > > > > Tim was just relaying the discussion from #freeculture to the mailing > > list so all could be privy of what was discussed. > > > > just saying... > > > > > > > Well, thanks. However, I contest that *anything* that a few members, > regardless of their status elsewhere, have anything to conclude that may > be in any way binding on the rest of the membership of this list. I > certainly do not consider it binding upon myself. As to "rule #5" in > particular, I am of the opinion that "all life is politics". To put it > another way, any kind of social interaction involves politics on at > least a small level. Therefore, "rule #5" is impossible to adhere to. > > Creighton > > > _______________________________________________ > Discuss mailing list > [email protected] > http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss >
_______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list [email protected] http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss
