You might be surprised that doctors, therapists and lawyers are
gossips.
On Jul 25, 8:37 am, deripsni <[email protected]> wrote:
> Personally, if someone thought my words were worth repeating, and did
> so under the circumstances being debated here, I would consider it
> more as a compliment, than an infringement. If one does not want their
> words copied, the open internet is the last place they should be
> posting them. At least Molly isn't uploading nude video taken
> surreptitiously, as per Erin Andrews. Although not a moderator (with
> no ambition to be such), I see no problem with her activity
> whatsoever.
>
> Another issue that seems to be prevelant here is staying on "topic".
> The matter being debated now is not relevant to the thread, but is
> definately an important issue. I personally don't mind straying of the
> straight and narrow on occasion, and not just to debate moderator
> issues as we are now.
>
> This is not a chat room, but some communicate with the friends
> developed here on occasion. As the debated posts are flying back and
> forth, a simple agreement post is made, or even welcoming somebody
> back who hasn't been here for awhile. If we had to create a new thread
> for every "secondary" issue or subject that arose, we would be
> responding to threads 10 pages deep when we log in.
>
> I personally like the chit chat on occasion. Some prefer an atmosphere
> that is more formal. To me, the displays of friendship remove the dust
> from the library setting, and reveal the joy of fellowship between
> like minded, or not, humans. Since this is not a journal or blog, the
> merriment is a nice aside to the ongoing topical debate imo.
>
> My opinion on another curent issue is that I don't mind moderators
> speaking amongst themselves, but think that once a decision has been
> made on a moderated issue, a log of the decision should be available
> to members, which could then be open for debate within the Eye, after
> which with we could even vote on the issue, which of course could be
> vetoed by the room owner. ;-[
>
> Just my three cents worth.
>
> On Jul 25, 6:56 am, frantheman <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Control is frequently closely related to power, and then politics is
> > never far away and things like the sublimation of aggression and likes
> > and dislikes which involves stuff like the competitive use of rules to
> > win dominance games.
>
> > Factually, the situation is quite simple: the group belongs to Craig
> > and he can decide whatever he likes. Although we disagree about nearly
> > everything, I still trust his rationality and basic common sense.
>
> > The sad thing about this whole issue is that it's completely
> > unneccessary. If ornamentalmind has a problem with Molly reproducing
> > some of his contributions here on her blog (which, incidentally, is
> > also a google-owned application) all he has to do is to ask her to
> > desist from this. I can hardly imagine her refusing to do so and
> > instead telling him that she will in future print his posts on tissue-
> > paper and use them to wipe her ass. There is no need to make it a
> > matter of principle. For all we know, there may be hundreds of college
> > students cutting and pasting stuff from our posts and using it to
> > obtain better grades in their term papers. Does it really matter to
> > us?
>
> > The question of freedom and control on the internet keeps coming up
> > and it IS important. My feeling is that control and regulation should
> > be held as minimal as possible (how's that from a European social
> > democracy tending sort of guy? :-)). The information revolution is
> > forcing all sorts of areas from the music business to the publishing
> > industry to reconsider what copyright and intellectual ownership
> > actually mean - an ongoing process, in which many still seem to be
> > trying to put the toothpaste back in the tube.
>
> > I tend to support Justin's call to the moderators to carry out their
> > discussion openly (without suggesting that they are obliged to do this
> > - nobody here is really obliged to do anything). Molly is not chazwin.
>
> > Minds Eye is not broken. There's no need to fix it.
>
> > Francis
>
> > On 25 Jul., 03:35, Justintruth <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > The admins are discussing this at the moment, but I'd suggest holding
> > > > back
> > > > from re-posting any more content until we're totally clear on the rules
> > > > and
> > > > their implications. Craig is a lawyer, so confident we'll get to the
> > > > bottom
> > > > of it.
>
> > > So are you saying that what is said here is irrelevant because the “
> > > admin” or "moderators" are "talking about this over email"? Why should
> > > she hold back and refrain? It just wastes valuable time!
>
> > > Why aren't these so-called "admins" posting here so we all can see? If
> > > they’ve got something to discuss... well bring it up! Who the hell are
> > > they to be talking about this behind our backs. My uncles only
> > > brother’s only son is a lawyer and I’m calling him because I believe
> > > that listening and then talking about what was said (in email) is
> > > plain and simple a form of cutting and pasting. And into a
> > > conversation that is not even on the INTERNET! A private conversation!
> > > An “un-moderated” conversation. How dare they! I hope that that are
> > > not actually talking literally about what we say. Between themselves?
> > > Without us? Cutting our words and pasting them into their private
> > > conversation - sneakily - instead of leaving them in the public on
> > > their blogs?! On the INTERNET! Our words...in public where WE PUT
> > > THEM! Taking them private there's the harm. Sneaky little devils eh
> > > what?
>
> > > Excuse me if I am slightly sane Alice but aren’t you saying she cut un-
> > > copyrighted material out of one place ON THE INTERNET and pasted them
> > > into another place ON THE INTERNET?
>
> > > But then, no use in us "discussing it". Because the *moderators* are
> > > "talking about this over email".... ahhh... the moderators...the
> > > admin.
>
> > > Glad I am not in a group that is actually political. I'd be scared. In
> > > fact, I am getting a little frightened right now...yes... I can feel
> > > the fear... way down there... oh there it is... yesss... now I am
> > > getting scared.
>
> > > How about you, Molly. Aren't you "scared"? Just a little? How's it
> > > feel when "they" cut you out of the herd. Can't you just feel the
> > > predation?
>
> > > Can you describe what it felt like to see those posts... little like
> > > seeing a rattle snake? Aww common you can work up some fear can’t you?
> > > A rattlesnake with a green polyester leisure suite and a toupe?
>
> > > Listen to the tone in this post:
>
> > > "Molly, I have mentioned this before. My words are clear. You accept
> > > them or you don't."
>
> > > “You accept them.... or....”
>
> > > You... um... er... accept them.... or .... well Molly dearest... he
> > > did say .... “or you don’t”. Kind of sneaky the way the slip that
> > > principle of non-contradiction in subliminal like no? “Either you
> > > accept them or you don’t” That phrase....its either the principle of
> > > non-contradiction itself or else its a threat. What do YOU think?
>
> > > Here’s my opinion. Forget the words, listen to the tone. It is what
> > > betrays them all the time. What you are witnessing is a primate threat
> > > display. Oh yes, it’s veiled as it always is. It’s actually quite
> > > modern. Couched in reasonableness and authority. It’s practically an
> > > archetype. You, dear, are being threatened! Now it would be a little
> > > less hilarious, (and I would have a little less trouble maintaining my
> > > fearfulness, I am trying, for the sake of the play you see), if we
> > > could just see what they are threatening you with and what they are
> > > threatening you for and how they can sustain their seriousness in the
> > > face of this hilarity. But its so much better this way no? Sort of
> > > Kafka for Shirley Temple? A harmless charade....Nicht vahr?
>
> > > Now listen to your tone Molly! After all you are not guiltless!
> > > Copying! Pasting! You bad little girl! You should have used a
> > > typewriter... Here is what you are guilty of:
>
> > > Molly:“I do not make money on it and have not received complaints
> > > until now. It does
> > > no harm, is not a secret, and I am told, is interesting and sometimes
> > > helpful.”
>
> > > (Really Molly, READ Alexander Soljenitsyn. Really READ him: Gulag
> > > Archipelago. The chapter on being arrested. “It must be a mistake!”
> > > Did you know that when he was arrested his captors got lost and he led
> > > them back away from enemy lines! “There must be some mistake!” “I was
> > > just....” Forget the words, Molly, hear the tone. And Soljenitsyn,
> > > like they all did, and like you are, apologizing and insisting there
> > > must be a mistake... because they did nothing wrong! Just don’t play
> > > with them dear. It’s not whether you did something wrong at all. It’s
> > > about how they establish dominance. No need to apologize. None at all.
> > > Really. None. No need to even sound like you are apologizing or even
> > > hint that you could...one cold day in hell...maybe... After all “There
> > > might be something I could have done but I am a good person....bla bla
> > > bla”...the pattern! Look at the pattern!)
>
> > > Try something like: “I have done nothing wrong and if you insinuate
> > > that I have that is slander”... then quote a link that defines the
> > > legal meaning of the term.
>
> > > Way.... way... too submissive dear. You should have come out
> > > fighting....”Sometimes” its helpful? Better to write something like
> > > “The world depends on my Blog! Hell, lots of people would not have
> > > read what is written here if they didn’t read it on My blog! Are you
> > > crazy! Do you want to stop the culture of the world! Its critical that
> > > I get the word out! EVERYONE knows that!” (Use the first person
> > > singular as often as possible, its stronger than the first person
> > > plural. Puff yourself up like when you
>
> ...
>
> read more »- 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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
