Your " limiting him " dream is still in place, intact.
On Aug 11, 4:30 pm, iam deheretic <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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- 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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
