Molly, even though I voted ‘no’ on inviting you to be a mod a day or two ago, I now change my mind and would welcome you with open arms.
I have found, all along, (three years longer than you) that at least two of the mods do use the styles you attribute to them. This is as it is…and they have supported using their styles of ‘debate’ based upon a very limited part of the spectrum of what it is to be a human being. A person who uses the razor as a measuring device will conclude issues in a two sided way. The same goes for using some arbitrary set of debate tactics. While they have a function, doing so exclusively results in a poorer group let alone a poorer humanity. Ockham, when turned upon itself becomes pointless. A while ago I was asked by a mod to rewrite the standards here since I disagree with some of them. I now invite you to help in that process. To quote our current president, "We can do better!". orn On Aug 5, 12:46 pm, deripsni <[email protected]> wrote: > I have previously been chastised for what I considered rather mild > responses to rude or abusive posters, yet those who suggested I tone > it down a bit seem to do the same thing I am being accused of. IMO, > what is good for the goose is good for the gander. To be totally > honest, I have not read the rules as I have no intention of being so > far out of line that I have the slightest chance of breaking them. > > I was not asking anyone to respect an idea, but to debate it rather > than attempt to debunk it. It seems that several other posters here do > not share your views on this subject, so by stating catagorically that > what Molly was suggesting is outrageous, and not to be tolerated, is > not only impacting Molly, but others who agree with her, and may > decide not to post their thoughts on the subject for fear of > ridicule. > > There are two basic methods of getting ones point across. One hurts > and the other doesn't. In one, the responder says "You are wrong. That > is total BS" and that either ends the debate, or brings dissention > into it. In the other, the responder says "Interesting, but I don't > see it that way and this is why...", after which a meaningful and non- > hurtful debate can ensue. > > Many of the posters here do not know the history of ancient > conversations that have transpired in the past, so statements that are > inclusive of events that happened before we came do not add anything > constructive for newbies, and may in fact alienate them. > > On Aug 5, 3:09 pm, Ian Pollard <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Molly / Deripsni, > > > I believe that human ideas should be challenged vigorously and thoroughly > > and without restriction. An appeal to "respect" when it comes to an idea is > > something like a nuclear device that causes instant stalemate. It's a demand > > for a shield around something that, in and of itself, warrants no such > > thing. This style of debate is unproductive and dishonest. > > > With the above in mind, I will continue to respect the rules of Mind's Eye > > (which I largely wrote) and post in the same style I have for the last 5 > > years. If you think I am breaking the rules or going against the spirit of > > them, contact another moderator and let them know your concerns. > > > Molly, the moderators must represent a breadth of views and opinion > > (including mine). If you want to throw your hat into the ring, please go > > ahead and we'll discuss it. > > > Ian- 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
