Aw shucks, Gabs. Keep this up and I might get the impression you like me. ;)
It's an interesting analogy you pose, but Minds Eye is not Germany, or Poland, or France, Italy, or even the U.S. My desire to hand over the reins has nothing to do with any sense of guilt, and I note with some pride the influence I've had in growing and moderating the group over the last five years. As Lee noted above, the hallmark of our moderation has been how little it's ever been used. Despite the cries of Fascist authoritarianism, I bet most current users can't remember the last person we banned. I do remember, however, the voices I truly miss around here; Atalante, Archytas, ThePeasantKing, and many others who along the way have contributed the carefully articulated thoughts that make this group great. I would love to see the group grow and thrive again, and have been happy with how conversation has grown recently. However, there's a lot that goes into group ownership which never gets talked about on here, things that I haven't been able to keep up with, like promoting the group in other places to grow membership, and injecting quality conversation starters to keep the pump primed. As the number of active users has dwindled, many of the conversations became broken records to me, rehashing the same obstinate points and unyielding positions over and over and over again. I recognize this to be my fault; in the last year, I've been struggling to get my business up and running, and working on many different media projects. I simply haven't had the time needed to be a good steward of the group, in all the ways which though un-noticed, are critical to its growth, and to new ideas and conversations being explored. I have no intention of unsubscribing, and as life becomes more manageable, I hope to rejoin the conversation regularly. However, someone else needs to be at the reins, someone who loves the group enough to make the time to advertise it, grow it, start new conversations, introduce new people and new ideas, and truly break out of the quagmire of thought which occurs among those who have had the same conversation a thousand times. And yes, I do enjoy the position of senior editor for Obnoxi.us, and hold a higher editorial standard than is generally found in forum conversation. It's a different medium, with a different purpose, and clarity of language is important. Given the analogy you've used (Hitler, et al), I think you can un-ironically call me a grammar nazi. I've always enjoyed a good open argument with you, Gabs, and take nearly as much pleasure in it as I do in those rare moments you and I completely agree on something. I've also enjoyed butting heads with Orn over the years, although I'm not sure I can point to any moments we've completely agreed on something. :^D Chuck, the trope of the Reluctant King is an eternal meme for a reason; they're the best kind. Those that actively seek power are generally poorly suited for it. I knew Francis would decline the position, but it's that humility, even temper, and sincere diplomacy which make me think of him as the perfect caretaker for this list. You seem to have the right attitude, and with three votes, you're the current board leader. I'll give it til Sunday at 10:00PM EST for everyone to weigh in, and then hand it off. On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 7:43 AM, gabbydott <[email protected]> wrote: > Let me try to show you by defining this Google group "Minds Eye" as our > common reality. It comes in the form of the English language. Now the > English language is not my native language, which qualifies me for not > having been exposed to a prescriptive moral when it comes to violating > innate English language principles and rules. There is no shadow in that > area that I need to be shown to learn to embrace. Coming from a German > background, a statement from Chris in which he doesn't reflect his role in > this community and the impact he has had to shape the present form of it - > only saying: I'm out of it, it doesn't matter to me, it's your community - > is like me here in Berlin saying: Hitler was not German, he was Austrian > (check his birth certificate for factual evidence) therefore you Austrians > are the root of all evil, it doesn't matter to me. Coming back to viewing > the prescriptive power of language at work, note how Chris has established > structures in his new/old project in which he alone controls the grammar of > the site and the grammar of the foreign content. The grammar of a language > is its bones with the words as the surrounding flesh - it's not the dark > shadow that you can make disappear by hanging the lamp right above your > head. And yet Chris has never avoided an open argument with me over what the > world should like, which is why he will remain my American hero, and Orn and > Molly cowards. > > > On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 5:03 AM, Chuck Bowling < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> What is a prescriptive moral? >> >> >> On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 3:57 PM, gabbydott <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Where does that leave the prescriptive moral which I find is really under >>> discussion here? >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 9:22 PM, Chuck Bowling < >>> [email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> The term “morality” can be used either >>>> >>>> 1. descriptively to refer to some codes of conduct put forward by a >>>> society or, >>>> 1. some other group, such as a religion, or >>>> 2. accepted by an individual for her own behavior or >>>> 2. normatively to refer to a code of conduct that, given specified >>>> conditions, would be put forward by all rational persons. >>>> >>>> The above definition of morality was taken from the Standford >>>> Encyclopedia of Philosophy. >>>> >>>> It seems to me that while the interpretation of the individual may be >>>> subjective, the overall goal of a code of conduct is to objectify >>>> behavioral >>>> expectations within the group or society. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 6:14 AM, [email protected] < >>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> In short then a flawed human is flawed only on measures of subjective >>>>> morality. I contend that there exists no such thing as objective >>>>> morality. >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >> >
