Can we dall it the tinker thread? and limit him to it? Allan On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 7:38 AM, Vamadevananda <[email protected]>wrote:
> > I saw Fran's post below yours. But I restrained myself ( with some > effort, considering how delectable Fran's posts are ! ) from reading > it, and put in my response first : > > 01 Content is the holy cow, as it should be. > > 02 But the content and style, and the manner of posting, are also > aspects of behaviour, which is to be judged and acted upon if > necessary. > > When behaviour ends up being destructive of the ' atmosphere ' in > here, when it stymies the cause of meaningful discussions here, the > very raison d'etre of Minds Eye, it is definitely time to take a call. > To get to the point of holding ' meaningful ' discussions is difficult > and infrequent enough. Therefore, for someone to make such discussions > impossible through disruptive behaviour should be considered > inexcusable. What to do, and How, is to be clarified among the > moderators, included among guidelines ( process like ) if possible, > and applied as rigorously as we could. > > 03 Tinker may have a thread dedicated to his ideas and beliefs, which > in any case is unidimensional. The guideline for him is not to post in > any other thread. Others interested, inquisitive, positive, or > negative, may visit his thread and add to it. > > > On Aug 11, 1:15 am, Chris Jenkins <[email protected]> wrote: > > Gruff, I don't have a blind spot to this. Hell, it's one of the hardest > > things I have to deal with in moderating. And I don't charge you for > > chastising...I step up when there is blatant ad hom. The problem comes > down > > to what is inanity? > > > > I respect you, much as I respect all the members of the list, despite all > of > > us having vastly different viewpoints, so instead of being frustrated at > the > > levels of discombobulation we've had around here of late, let me take > this > > in a different direction: > > > > Let's say we have a new member on board, ZenMaster, and this is the > > dialogue: > > > > ZM: I know of the universal truth. > > Me: And what is it? > > ZM: Nothing. > > Me: What? > > ZM: Yes. > > Me: Erm..the truth is what is nothing? > > ZM: Yes. And no. > > Me: That makes no sense at all. > > ZM: It makes absolutely perfect sense, once your mind is open to it. > > Everything is nothing. Nothing is everything. Within everything is the > > truth, and outside the truth is nothing. > > Me: What exactly are you blathering on about? > > ZM: You are not capable of understanding the all yet, but when you do, > you > > will know the truth. You do not have to seek it. It will simply be. One > > cannot find the truth. One must simply know it. > > Me: What the hell is this idiot spouting off? Utter inanity? > > > > ...and yet, there are vast tomes of wisdom written with similar text. > This > > is the key here. We cannot purport to be an open minded rational > > conversation list if we intend to start censoring for content because we > > don't like the sound of pseudo zen koans in response. > > > > It would be one thing if the posts were blatantly off topic, leading > > everyone to scratch their heads and think "what did that have to do with > > anything?" It didn't take long before there was a clear cut across the > board > > consensus on that sort of general interjection. It would be another if > the > > posts were simply cut and paste proselytization. We cover that in the > > guidelines, and don't allow it, as those posters rarely actually engage > in > > discourse. What I'm seeing, and please correct me if I'm wrong, is an > utter > > disdain for the lack of value of the contribution, despite it being > > generally within guidelines. To be perfectly honest, your reaction > strikes > > me very similarly to that of an adult who is irritated when a child > > interrupts an important entomological conversation incessantly to note > that > > butterflies do indeed have wings. I don't feel I could in good conscience > > apply any sort of moderation against that...that would be moderation of > > content, something we've consistently taken a hard line against. > > > > However, this is the reason I ask others to share this task with me, so > that > > it's not all resting on my shoulders. I'm more than willing to open a > > moderation thread on it, and get some feedback from the others on their > > perspective. > > > > > > > > On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 3:23 PM, gruff <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Chris, I've always found you to be a rational and level-headed person, > > > but in this matter it seems you have a blind spot to one of the > > > subjects most annoying and counter-productive tactics, which is to > > > butt in over and over again with inanities. In the year I've been > > > here with Mind's Eye, there have been a few annoying characters who > > > have popped in and out again and even one or two that have been banned > > > because they would not add to the mix but rather depleted it. > > > > > I contend that this is the issue here. The subject drops post after > > > inane post that have interrupted and in a case or two brought an end > > > to discussion through exasperation. According to popular opinion the > > > subject adds nothing to discussions but interrupts them incessantly > > > and takes away from them. And you charge us with violation of the > > > rules for chastising this person and yes, at times even an ad hom > > > attack ... which is put forth as within the realm of acceptability for > > > the reasons stated above. > > > > > So I put it to you, ignoring the subject is a worthless endeavor as > > > the subject continues on with obfuscation and unwarranted and inane > > > interruption, ad hom'ing him doesn't work, he just blithly ignores it > > > or comes back with more of his inanities, and you attack us for are > > > attacking the subject. This is getting to be a nasty little circle. > > > I would request that you (1) reconsider your charges against us and > > > (2) put the subject on notice against banishment. > > > > > "... On Aug 8, 4:24 pm, Chris Jenkins <[email protected]> > > > wrote: ... " > > > > > > Ignoring posts that have little value to you is the ideal, Slip. > > > > > > In the years this list has been around, we've watched people come and > go, > > > some more insightful than others. Each of us over time will find > regular > > > posters whose contributions hold much value. Conversely, we'll find > others > > > whose posts hold little for us. > > > > > > Engage with the ones whom you are able to construct positive > discourse, > > > even if that discourse is argumentative. If you feel there's absolutely > no > > > value to it, pass over it. Your posts are often of value to me, which > is why > > > I've often engaged with you. However, don't presume that a post has no > value > > > for anyone, and put that message out there on list. > > > > > > Despite the friction we've encountered this last week or so, I truly > > > believe that this list is unique on the web in the quality of > discourse, and > > > its participants. You are truly the greatest group of > conversationalists > > > I've had the pleasure of engaging with in this fashion. It can be > > > frustrating sometimes to have these communication issues, but only in > > > comparison to the heights of understanding I've seen achieved here.- > Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > -- ( ) I_D Allan --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
