Let's be magnanimous, Allan ! It's Tinker's call, and freedom.
On Aug 11, 11:16 am, iam deheretic <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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- 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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
