Craig's right, and had I been able to find time to moderate I would have argued against any ban on Chaz - but accepted whatever the collective decision was or "resigned". As I can still chat with my mate elsewhere, I'm not too bothered. My friend Vam should remember that abrogating collective responsibility is a duty when amongst Nazis - though one needs to be discrete in the face of violent power that has reversed processes of discussion, persuasion and coercion (Ortega Y Gasset, the Spanish poet was good on this). I would interject here and say my feelings about this group do not include Nazism, but rather its converse - we are rather tolerant chaps and chapesses who retain passion in our arguments. I have been subject to Chazwardian vitriol myself, but frankly like to think he is welcome and this is an acceptable weakness and sometimes a strength. His erudition takes a different form - Francis is the excellent counterpoint, yet capable of hurting me (he never has) far more because of the respect that warms me whenever I read him. I have, of course, spent too much time in police canteens and barrack rooms to be offended by someone 'going off on one'. I have a very serious project concerning gossip and mis-interpretation and tend to believe that etiquette and politesse do more damage than good. One might read Labov on this - though surely the dull mediocrity of middle class consumerism has become obvious. This is a complex matter, but I'd say that learning politeness is very double-edged. The use of what is very normal language in many contexts is prevented by politesse and I would argue that much of what we genuinely think and feel is ruled out by it. People with mobile phones hurt me more than Chaz ever could, and the mods clearly keep out a lot of dross that would have set me high-tailing out long ago. The general standards of public behaviour are lamentable, but I suspect crass notions on what can be said are as much to do with this as anything else. In postmodernism, the recognition that we should be incredulous towards metanarrative control (grand theories of religion, wealth creation and soaked-up cultural nuances) also runs up against control through political correctness. Many a man who has called me fit to burn in front of my face has ended-up behind me when the chips were down - the quiescent supplicants of bureaucracy have always let me down. We should remember the question about who will stand up for "me" in the context of the banality of evil. This said, it is always going to be difficult to cope with this kind of stuff, and much personal attack, and probably its worst form is hidden under politesse, yet we need some decorum. I don't regard the problem as intractable, but is is damned difficult. It's made more difficult by a general tendency of people to personalise everything and stereotype. Now, how about banning Francis for being Irish and Gabby for operating under the illusion that all sheep count! The group would suit me so much better if reduced (or elevated) to a range war between me and Craig! I suspect the thread on the mathematical abilities of sheep may not be popular. All I'm sure of here is that the group loses any meaning for me once its sense of humour lapses. There are people in this world who can convince themselves I would want to ban someone for being Irish, and plenty who can't make me smile as much as either Francis or Gabby. In the end, Chaz makes me smile, and I suspect this may be my deep criteria.
On 19 Feb, 04:19, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> wrote: > You notice I've never been asked. :D > > On Feb 18, 7:55 pm, Kierkecraig <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Shouldn't be posting since I should be studying. Just wanted to say, > > Neil is not a moderator, he has been invited to be, but never took up > > the invitation. > > > On Feb 18, 8:23 pm, Vamadevananda <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Since all bannings are discussed among moderators, Neil should be > > > privy to details of the case. > > > > Neil, you do not seem to be in favour of banning Chaz. So, have you > > > broken the collective responsibility norm ? > > > > On Feb 19, 5:43 am, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > I was replying to Slip Disc's "crime" assertion, above. << Nominal9 > > > > > Crime assertion? I merely pointed out the obvious which is well known > > > > concerning Chazwin's forum demeanor. Fact is, if I were to address > > > > you in Chazwin style you most likely would be "offended" by all the > > > > expletives directed towards your misinterpretation of my post, which > > > > could also be considered effrontery. > > > > > Again I reiterate: Chazwin was vulgar and out of line with Minds Eye > > > > decorum. (that is not a dictum of criminal activity) > > > > > However, if that is not enough for you, I will cite some pertinent > > > > points from the Minds Eye Posting Guidelines. > > > > > From Posting Guidelines > > > > > 5. Bannings > > > > > All decisions regarding disciplinary actions up to and including > > > > banishment from the group are discussed thoroughly among the > > > > moderators before any decision is made. None of the moderators take it > > > > upon themselves to discipline a member of the group. Disciplinary > > > > actions include, but are not limited to: warnings, return to moderated > > > > status, banishment from the group, and ETERNAL DAMNATION. > > > > > ************************************************** > > > > In other words Nom9, don't crimp on me because I didn't ban anyone! > > > > > 3. Etiquette & Principles > > > > > Aggressive/bullying posts are unwelcome. If you've had a bad day, go > > > > and take your stress out elsewhere. > > > > > (Chaz has gone elsewhere and so should you take your Slip attack > > > > elsewhere too, it's baseless) > > > > > Avoid swearing/cussing, unless it is absolutely pertinent to the > > > > discussion at hand. Sometimes it happens naturally in the flow of a > > > > sentence -- and I'm guilty of it -- but there are many far more > > > > creative ways to express yourself. > > > > > (I've never found any of Chaz putrid verbalization to be pertinent to > > > > any discussion.) > > > > > It's not up to me, I'm just an observer! > > > > > On Feb 18, 11:18 am, nominal9 <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > Owners of groups determine the standards by fiat. Start your own > > > > > group > > > > > with your standards if it is important to you or find one that > > > > > matches > > > > > your tenets. There is no true democracy in a Google Group. / > > > > > ornamentalmind > > > > > > I agree with you, Orn.... I was replying to Slip Disc's "crime" > > > > > assertion, above. As to Google's policies... well that depends on > > > > > Google and on the "consumer" rights and responsibilities that it > > > > > grants to its "users".... but that includes the Group Owners, I would > > > > > think... Point being, if Goolgle happens to be a bit more > > > > > "enlightened" (my view of it) that the Group Owners as to any or other > > > > > censroship issue, then Google can make it's own countervailing > > > > > judgement.... > > > > > But ultimately it does get down to a question of the "company you > > > > > keep"... I've been keeping company with Chazwin, over on that other > > > > > Group.... > > > > > nominal9 > > > > > > On Feb 18, 10:54 am, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > nom, it is neither a right nor a wrong issue. It is a what/where > > > > > > issue. What sort of group do you want to be a member of? Where on > > > > > > the > > > > > > internet do you want to join? > > > > > > > Owners of groups determine the standards by fiat. Start your own > > > > > > group > > > > > > with your standards if it is important to you or find one that > > > > > > matches > > > > > > your tenets. There is no true democracy in a Google Group. > > > > > > > On Feb 18, 7:46 am, nominal9 <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > Vamadevananda, > > > > > > > I appreciate and respect both your own as well as Slip Disc's > > > > > > > rights > > > > > > > to your own opinions on this issue. I myself make a distinction > > > > > > > between words and deeds when it relates to questions of freedom of > > > > > > > speech, I think that I have said this before. I have had to put up > > > > > > > with more than my own share of verbal abuse, in many instances, > > > > > > > and I > > > > > > > have never asked for the censorship of the, in my opinion, > > > > > > > abusers. I > > > > > > > have tried to either refute or sometimes, if it got to that point, > > > > > > > even reply in kind to such, in my opinion, verbal abusers. I come > > > > > > > at > > > > > > > it from a "literary" and "historical" perspective.... censorship > > > > > > > has > > > > > > > muzzled scientific speech, artistic speech, political speech, > > > > > > > religious speech, satirical or humorous speech, and even "bad > > > > > > > taste" > > > > > > > speech. In some cases (most I would say) the censorship was, > > > > > > > itself, > > > > > > > more harmful or ill-intentioned than the actual expression > > > > > > > censored. > > > > > > > You are all fairly intelligent and probably aware of this in your > > > > > > > own > > > > > > > regards... You, Vamadevananda, want censorship and "social > > > > > > > decorum"? > > > > > > > I would think that you have more than enough of a bad case > > > > > > > example of > > > > > > > where it can lead with the Indian Caste system....As for Slip > > > > > > > Disc....crimes of speech???? Show me the law or legal statute that > > > > > > > outlaws any speech that Chazwin or anyone else may have used? > > > > > > > Unless, > > > > > > > of course, you are talking about some "political" law from some > > > > > > > sort > > > > > > > of "authoritarian" regime....among which I , myself, would include > > > > > > > some of the so-called politically correct laws promulgated by the > > > > > > > so- > > > > > > > called enlightened eEuropean or other (U.S. & Canada) > > > > > > > democracies.... > > > > > > > Nah, you are both wrong on this.... > > > > > > > nominal9 > > > > > > > > On Feb 17, 11:09 pm, Vamadevananda <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Chazwin, the person, or his thoughts and ideas were never the > > > > > > > > issue > > > > > > > > here, Nom. > > > > > > > > > It was his verbal " behaviour," which was grossly disparaging of > > > > > > > > others at times, including intolerance of other people and their > > > > > > > > beliefs. If members of this forum have their rights, then Chaz > > > > > > > > frequently committed crimes against other people's rights and > > > > > > > > priviledges. > > > > > > > > > On Feb 18, 3:57 am, nominal9 <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Proof Positive... Gabby and Francis.... here's the link to > > > > > > > > > Epistemology Group and Chazwin's own > > > > > > > > > words...http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology/browse_thread/thread/7913... > > > > > > > > > Maybe Kierkegraig or (I suspect) Chris Jenkins (more than > > > > > > > > > likely,the > > > > > > > > > censor) will give their side of it in explanation... I would > > > > > > > > > like to > > > > > > > > > hear it, as well as perhaps some avenue to a mediation or a > > > > > > > > > reconciliation of the matter.... Chazwin's is an especially > > > > > > > > > intelligent voice to stiffle, under any circumstances. > > > > > > > > > Although, as I > > > > > > > > > said, I despise censorship under all circumstances. > > > > > > > > > nominal9 > > > > > > > > > > On Feb 17, 1:21 pm, gabbydott <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for sharing this information with us. It is much > > > > > > > > > > appreciated at > > > > > > > > > > least on my side. Any sheep counts. Please keep us informed. > > > > > > > > > > > On 17 Feb., 18:23, nominal9 <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > I just read a statement on another board by Chazwin... I > > > > > > > > > > > reproduce it > > > > > > > > > > > and my own reaction below: > > > > > > > > > > > > "Maybe I'll avoid getting a summary > > > > > > > > > > > banning, as I have with Mind's Eye. / Chazwin.... > > > > > > > > > > > > Say what? Chazwin.... > > > > > > > > > > > banning?.... My Hackles are starting to rise.... > > > > > > > > > > > nominal9" > > > > > > > > > > > > I haven't gotten any explanation from Chaz, maybe it is > > > > > > > > > > > all a big > > > > > > > > > > > misunderstanding on someone or other's part....Hope so... > > > > > > > > > > > I would hate > > > > > > > > > > > to see good friends, fellow posters, over some > > > > > > > > > > > misunderstanding... > > > > > > > > > > > I despise censorship...., myself. > > > > > > > > > > > nominal9- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/Minds-Eye?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
