Blow horn Chris, send up the call for the mighty owner to come claim back his crown.
Kierkecraig, keikercraig! On Apr 28, 3:04 pm, Chris Jenkins <[email protected]> wrote: > 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.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
