Yep, I'm in the middle of similar issues in a different conferencing system...finding unity of all mods. is quite a task sometimes. Yes, Neil, I've even thought of resigning...yet, some sort of perseverance seems appropriate...since I do feel fairly clear about my vision of how the 'decorum' should progress...I feel that if I left, there would be little left to temper a groupthink.
On Feb 19, 3:10 am, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > Keep at it Craig - the world needs a few decent lawyers. Must go into > purdah myself - haven't been able to concentrate for months. > > On 19 Feb, 03:55, 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
