Horse: One thing that I have been putting a lot of thought into recently is how to balance the right to speak freely with the right to be heard. It's a tricky one - how do you balance the interests of those that don't scream and shout the loudest with those that do? Who upholds the rights of those who wish to have moderate and reasonable debate?
Ron: Lets remind ourselves that in order to maintain a community that defines itself in a particular way also requires a certain rigity to maintain what we mean by distinguishing ourselves in this way. If memory serves me, by participating on this discuss we also agree to the charter rules. What choice does a community have when participants refuse to agree to those terms? The moment discussions stop having rules, is the moment discussions stop being philosophical and meaningful. On 03/01/2011 09:34, Ian Glendinning wrote: > Hi Horse, > > Glad to see MD is not a democracy, but as I've consistently said any > good democracy has good regulation too. You have my support. > > One observation on the edict itself. The term reification cannot > itself be made taboo (I hope, it has valid uses in our discussion - eg > misplaced concreteness of named objects), but in this context, as a > rhetorical cover for SOLAQI etc ... then the point is clear. > > Happy new year BTW, > Ian -- "Without music to decorate it, time is just a bunch of boring production deadlines or dates by which bills must be paid." — Frank Zappa Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org/md/archives.html Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org/md/archives.html
