Christopher Sawtell wrote:
On Wednesday 29 November 2006 18:46, Gordon Findlay wrote:
Chris Sawtell wrote:
On Wednesday 29 November 2006 17:06, Gordon Findlay wrote:
Read that again: freedom is indivisible.
Indeed that's true, but the question we are debating is whether we,
as a group, wish to extend that freedom to members from whom
excessively frequent postings seem to indicate a very different and
divergent point of view of the world from that which the mainstream
CLUG community members normally see things.
That is a very un-free view. What 'mainstream'? Who defines the
'mainstream'?
The other members of the immediate community or society.
Interesting concept freedom. There is no such thing as pure freedom
unless you encourage anarchy. (And then those whose appetites are more
conventional are no longer free but victims and around the circle we
go). As Carl is promoting, it's deciding where to draw the line of what
constitutes good behaviour that is the essence of a freedom that works
in practise...
This sort of judgment is one that can only be made in a
closed group.
Which we are.
What's mainstream in CLUG?
Sanity.
Indeed, Chris. FWIW, I have found a few here to be so incomprehensible
that I have added them to my killfile. They not only add nothing to my
knowledge but detract from my enjoyment of the few technical posts as
some of the trollfeeders I don't block...
I'm in agreement with Carl here in that, as a new member, I don't see
any standards that one could be judged on. (Basic netiquette aside).
If there is a code of conduct for the group/maillist then I would
imagine any cuplrits venturing beyond that scope/s would be clearly
apparent. I don't sense that is the case. Like any organisation, if you
want a charter you need to form/vote on one.
My $0.01 worth...
Brett.
