From: Mermaid . (britannica@hotmail.com)
Date: Mon Jan 21 2002 - 16:58:30 MST
Yea..and all that..
what I would most like to know is how Kirk got the 'last four digits' of
Yash's phone number. I am just drowning in a swirl of emails. Was that a
joke by Kirk? I am not going to ask if those were indeed part of Yash's
phone number..that would defeat the purpose of keeping one's privacy...so I
wont go there..instead let me ask...is it at all possible to do that? How
many of us here are open to the risk of cyber snooping inside CoV?
Is Kirk using technology funded by my tax dollars and if he is ..where can I
report him?
concerned...
Mermaid.
From: "L' Ermit" <lhermit@hotmail.com>
Reply-To: virus@lucifer.com
To: virus@lucifer.com
Subject: virus: Miss Conception
Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2002 11:34:40 -0600
Dylan, I think you are attempting to have an argument about a non-argument.
May I suggest that rational discourse is what you mean. Not debate. As a
very clear example, if we were here to debate, you could not make the
statements you just did. They were disorganized and undoubtedly out of
order. You see, a debate is managed by a moderator, who has the power to
silence anybody at any time, who determines who is permitted to speak and in
what order, and enforces and is bound by a set of well tested rules. Are you
sure that this is what you want, because it sounds to me as if you are
wanting the opposite.
Let me expand on this, a debate is a specialized, stylized discourse, in a
particular format and under very particular rules designed to prevent the
possibility of flamewars. I have run thousands, mainly IRL, some on IRC, and
while they can be very interesting to listen to - or read, I am guessing
that very few here would be able to engage in them due to a lack of
understanding of the protocols and unfamiliarity with formal argument. In
any case, I would argue that they are not a good match for this environment
and would exacerbate rather than alleviate agitation. The reason is that a
debate occurs over a formal proposition, with one side attempting to support
the proposition, the other to oppose it. Few of the things we discuss are
amenable to this simplistic two sided argumentation, and there is in any
case a tendency to polarize when two sides are presented by antagonists.
As for the CoV, criticize all you want. Just be prepared to substantiate
your criticism and to "do" the things that you "advocate". Because the CoV
is all of us who are members of her. When you criticize a member, make sure
that you can support and defend your criticism. Otherwise it is not
criticism, it is attempted insult. And while an insult does no harm unless
permitted to (an insult cannot injure unless you accept the loci of the
criticizer and validity of their argument), it is still unacceptable.
Particularly when attempted by lamers who don't understand how support their
assertions. So criticize all you want - including me if it floats your boat.
I encourage and listen to criticism. But be sure you are criticizing (can
sustain, justify and support your assertions) and not insulting. Or I will
toast your heels.
Rather than attempting to assault me, recognize that your assertion, "I for
one will be out of here soon if it doesn't start getting a little more
rational" is exactly what others are saying - including me. I think I speak
for most of the congregation when I say that we all want more rationality
and less emotion. The concern I express is not just for myself or some l337
group, but for all the members of the CoV, seeing that we are all members of
the congregation and all share the same pulpit. Nobody here is a pope. And
everyone makes mistakes.
So given that I do care about this, and do not accept that it is inevitable
that the barbarians win, I will do what I think appropriate to try to
prevent this - including discussion, argument, invective and when insulted,
flaming. If it makes me unpopular, so be it. I am not engaged in a
popularity contest, nor a pissing contest, nor a war. I don't seek people to
agree with me, I seek people who know why they hold the views they do. In
other words, I want this list to adhere to the stated aims of the CoV, where
rational conversation predominates and which holds a clearly defined goal to
which I subscribe. If I am asked to stop this by a significant number of the
congregation, so be it. That will be the choice of the congregation and will
tell me that we no longer share the same aim. Until then, I assume that my
aim is the same as theirs. I don't like or want flamewars, I don't want or
like people to be banned, and I don't like or want a "Star Chamber." Yet I
like the idea of the CoV becoming another "IRC chat-room" even less. And at
the moment this is where the CoV seems to be heading. Currently the only way
to attempt to obtain more reason with less emotion is to stamp on emotion
and insult, as and when it happens, or to attempt to obtain the support to
ban the people engaged in such shoddy tactics. The alternative seem worse.
Ignoring people making misleading, emotion riddled statements from our
pulpit serves only to lend a weight to such people, as well as an audience,
as they would and could not obtain elsewhere. And I won't provide my
credence to such people.
Hermit
_________________________________________________________________
Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com
_________________________________________________________________
Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Sep 25 2002 - 13:28:40 MDT