sigh ,,, I can dream can't I Allan On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 9:02 AM, Vamadevananda <[email protected]>wrote:
> > 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 - > > > -- ( ) 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
