Heh, I would if I thought it would make a difference. He's pounded with his new law practice, and legal blog.
On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 10:17 AM, [email protected] < [email protected]> wrote: > 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 -
