Hi Fintan, Jonathan, Lithien and all
FINTAN:
> "Thinkers" are- by your remarks, obviously a higher breed than socialisers.
No. Quite obviously just different. Look,
THINKERS SOCIALIZERS
two different words (different spelling for a start)
But socializers can be thinkers and thinkers can be socializers and some can be
both at the same time but different times and places may require different
behaviour and actions.
Hence the Lila Squad and moq_discuss.
Simple really innit!!!
FINTAN:
> Smacks of elitism, when you also characterise the LS as "mature"
> and the MOQ_DISCUSS as "for the masses."
Where's the elitism? Is it elitism that causes some to go into the saloon bar
rather than the public bar or just the desire for a different atmosphere. Is it elitism
to prefer an opera to a rock festival. When someone makes these sort of divisions
into something important then it suggest to me that there is something basic
missing from their life. Live and let live!
FINTAN:
> Is the LS to be a "closed forum" for "closed" minds?
Anyone who is prepared to follow a few simple rules can join in as far as I'm
aware - and Fintan, as you're one of the most vocal proponents that the social
level should morally dominate the intellectual then by your own reasoning you
should be the first to welcome this. Or is it, like so many supposed advocates of
social responsibility, the responsibility falls to others and not to you.
FINTAN:
> A moderated discussion is by definition moderate.
Wrong again. A moderated discussion group is a focussed discussion group that
wishes to concentrate on a main issue.
FINTAN:
> The concept of "moderation" as the phrase "everything in moderation"
> implies, is essentially a religious concept:
Which from your previous posts you should be supporting as you are apparently a
deeply religious person - or so you keep telling everyone.
FINTAN:
> Moderation is a Puritan ideal.
> Salvation through restraint and non-contamination.
> The puritan mind eliminates all the "dirty" thoughts of the masses,
> in order to preserve the "clear" light of intellectual puritanism.
> The puritan elect are therby assured of illumination and thus salvation.
Ah! Here we come to the nub of the matter. You seem to be a bigot. If others
don't conform to your view of the 'RIGHT' way then they, not you, are in the wrong.
Which way is that then Fintan - pretty obviously it's the Church of Fintan Mary
Dunne. The church of "listen to me because only I know the way". You and a
thousand others - surely you can't all be right? Wasn't it the Puritans that had to
leave England because THEY were the ones that were continually being
persected for their beliefs. They were denied a voice in their own community
because of their different beliefs and ways. The Puritans were not the
persecutors. They just wanted to get on with their own lives and do what they
wanted to do without hurting others. But the rest of 'society' wanted them to
conform to the wishes of the masses.
You can keep your social bigotry Fintan. If it's against your principles then don't
join the LS as no-one is forcing you to. But if we keep to a single list then others
are forced to listen your views or leave which is no choice at all. Now we have an
alternative and those that wish to exercise their right to choose can do so.
FINTAN:
> Of course, this ivory tower is a self-defined closed system of concordance.
Or in other words those that agree that a site for discussion and promotion of the
Metaphysics of Quality (that's why it's called moq.org and not mo?.org) should of
course spend their time doing what FINTAN requires. Anyway if you find it that
distasteful and it offends your moral values so much then go and set up your own
site and run it. But of course you wouldn't do that would you because you're quite
happy to winge on about injustices to you at the hands of those "who just don't
understand" and who are unable to see the truth according to Fintan. So not only
are you a bigot Fintan, but by your own words you are also shown to be a
hypocrite.
FINTAN:
> I urge you to remain in the kitchen even if you find
> -the heat uncomfortable.
> -and the guests a little scruffy.
Or move if you so choose. There will shortly be a choice and those that choose to
stay may do so or they may move to the new forum or participate in both or
neither. Choice is the essence of democracy.
JONATHAN:
> That's extremely disappointing. This whole two-tiered idea smacks of
> elitism. We already have the website "Forum" for more fully developed
> contributions (apparently all uncensored, and high standard). We also
> experimented with the sci.philosophy.meta newsgroup (uncensored, and
> mostly trash).
What's the problem? Nothing is being taken away. The committee are trying to
establish greater choice for all. What's so terrible about that?
Any member of moq_discuss is free to discuss any aspect of the MoQ =
Increased choice.
If a member of Lila Squad wants to focus on one particular aspect of the MoQ
then that aspect is proposed others agree and we talk about it without having to
spend time filtering out unwanted noise = Increased choice.
If you want a bit of both and don't mind downloading extra stuff (most decent mail
tools now allow you to selectively download) then have it = Increased choice.
A few ground rules are being established in an attempt to avoid becoming like
sci.philosophy.meta, which as you say is mostly trash - how much discussion of
Metaphysics did you encounter when you subscribed. As you also point out,
there is also the "Forum" for folk who want to publish their work. The only real
restriction we have is that this site and the mailing lists are restricted to subjects
to do with the MoQ - which considering that the site is MOQ.ORG is hardly
surprising or unreasonable.
JONATHAN:
> When we switched servers, I noted at that time that the new immediate
> distribution system might cause problems. It's great to post and get
> immediate feedback, and then post again, and again, and again... It gets
> to be almost like a real-time discussion. On the other hand, most
> traditional "academic" work gets done by publishing papers where the
> turnaround time is often months. Even conferences mostly consist of a
> prearranged programme of prepared presentations, with just a few
> questions, and only sometimes a "discussion session" to allow freer
> spontaneous exchanges.
Fair enough. But you could also consider that MOQ.ORG has only been around
for a few months and we are still feeling our way. Chat rooms have not been ruled
out (I've been looking at some free code recently to implement a chat room) but it
takes time. Everyone on the committee puts in their time free of charge and asks
for nothing in return. Also don't forget that Domain names cost money and so do
hosting services that aren't littered with banners and adverts. Chat rooms and
other paraphenalia take time to set up and administer and I think it would stiil be
reasonable to ask that it is centred around the MoQ. There are any number of
chat rooms and forums on the net which cater for all tastes and proclivities. This
site caters for the MoQ. Where is the problem?
JONATHAN:
> What I believe the Lila Squad needs is to find the right balance between
> prepared contributions and spontaneity. I suggest that we might achieve
> this simply by reintroducing a time delay and circulating posts say once
> in 24h.
Or alternatively having a choice of forums and making each the best it can
become. If the need arises for another mailing list then we can accommodate
that. A chat room? - no problem, probably! But give us time - we're human beings
with a life outside the Lila Squad, jobs to hold down, other interests to pursue etc.
The charter and rules I've suggested aren't cast in stone - in fact they aren't cast
in anything at the moment. They're up for discussion. I think the biggest problem
we are likely to encounter here is too much static latching around the
MOQ_DISCUSS list, as it currently stands, which I think is dangerous. Why
shouldn't the list and its format change occasionally. Why shouldn't there be a
few rules to ensure that anyone gets a chance to decide what issues of the MoQ
they want to discuss. I'm trying to balance that off against an increase in the
general noise level. Which rules specifically do you think are wrong and what
alternatives do you suggest?
JONATHAN:
> Lithien raised the time zone problem, but the only real concern is
> meeting the daily deadline, more an issue of how it suits personal
> habits. A more serious objection is that certain rapid-fire exchanges
> would indeed be suppressed.
So one post per person pre day per topic wouldn't present any more of a imezone
problem than it does now and it would give others time to join in if they are way
ahead or behind. I wouldn't have thought that the occasional rapid fire exchange of
posts would kill the list but what I personally object to are the number of posts
that are completely irrelevant to the MoQ and where a member answers a single
post from another member in 3 or 4 seperate posts and in each post attaches the
whole of the original post. Or the worst one of all was a reply to a certain very long
post which consisted of three lines which were not relevant to the original and the
original post was included!!!!!!!! Is this the Metaphysics of Quality or Quantity?
Do you wonder why I want to get a minimum number of reasonable rules in place.
It's not to stop creativity or discussion but to stop blatant abuse of a worthwhile
mailing list by members who don't appear give a toss about the rest of us. No-one
is going to be asked to leave or kicked out for the occasional transgression. But if
there are no rules then there is no means of applying pressure to those selfish
few when abuse appears. Most members don't post more than once a day
anyway so there is no problem. I do sometimes and so do you but I don't see a
problem of addressing each topic I'm interested in with a single post.
JONATHAN:
> Lithien may have suggested a solution to this in the form of an virtual
> pub or on-line chatroom. I think this is a GREAT idea, though I doubt
> that I'd be able to participate much.
Nor me. But if and/or when I get time and there is a requirement for it or
something similar then I will try and sort something out.
JONATHAN:
> My suggestion for NOW:-
> 1. Retain a single discussion list with postinsgs forwarded once a day.
See above.
> 2. A virtual chatroom for addicts who need "immediate gratification"
See above
> 3. Some occasional reminders on "self censorship" protocol.
It hasn't worked in the past and I can't see it working now. Self-censorship
requires self-discipline and self-control. It only takes one or two people to
completely screw things up. If we have rules in place then in cases of persistent
abuse after continual requests and warnings we can legitimately take
reparatory(?) action.
>
> (4. The DREAM .... A REAL LIVE IN-THE-FLESH LILAQS CONFERENCE)
Amen to that. Anyone interested in organizing and funding it? I'm serious! So if
any member has oodles of dosh and the desire to spend it let me know so I can
help you lighten the load (in your wallet).
LITHIEN:
"... if we didn't have static quality we wouldn't be able to understand and appreciate the dynamism that we encountered. but, i think that we are closing the door to vital energy if we insist on taking the squad back to w
hat it was before."
That's the point Lithien. We're not going back we're providing more and trying to move forward - choice is good, we've had too little in the past. The moq_list is staying pretty much the same in some ways and in other way
s is changing for the better. I've noticed that most of your posts come through in a short progression. Instead of 3 posts on the same subject stick them in one post, erase those parts of the original you aren't referring
to and hey presto - no noticeable difference for you. Quality not quantity.
LITHIEN:
"... the new members are part of the squad whether you like it or not.and what is wrong with some socializing? my god, it is being spoken of as if it were a token of innefectuality whereas i see it as bringing the squad t
o life!"
I'm glad to see the lurkers becoming active and new members joining in - whatever their slant on the MoQ. Be honest Lithien, you were welcoming them because they declared themselves sympathetic to the mystic side - a divi
sion that you helped create. You and Fintan and one or two others were very busy running down the "rationals".
LITHIEN:
"...third, restricting emails and what people can say on them goes against
everything the internet stands for. the freedom of the net is one of the things that
appealed to me when i first discovered it. i thought, how wonderful to have a place
where one could be oneself."
We're trying to reduce the quantity of mail not the content of the mail itself. Did
you use the newsgroups in the very early 90's before all the spamming and
massive cross-posting. Most newsgroups now consist of pyramid sales crap,
adverts for sex sites, pirate software and anything except what the groups were
set up for. Check out sci.philosophy.meta sometime. Do you really want
moq_discuss to go that way, because it will if we continue as we have been.
Keep the MoQ lists for the MoQ. The net is being invaded by corporate knaves
and fools like Bill Gates who use apathy, disinterest and ignorance to gain what
they want. That isn't going to happen on this site.
LITHIEN:
"...and as we all know the path to oneself is the hardest thing to undertake in this
life. yet, here was a place that allowed you such exploration. are we in the lila
squad going to take this intrinsical freedom away because some of the old
members want things back the way they were?"
Take what freedom away? What are you talking about? Are you that scared of the
existence of another mailing list that you want to run away from what you have
statically settled into. The Lila Squad is a seperate list. If you don't want to join
then don't join. Or are you just uncomfortable with a few simple rules and
behaving in a way that acknowledges the existence and wishes of others.
LITHIEN:
"my answer is no. and for those who agree with me, my suggestion is that we
start a new group called the Lilaqs where we can take the path to ourselves
without restrictions and allow dynamic quality to visit whenever it wants. if you are
interested, you can email me privately and see if we can get started."
So in other words you want everything to be the same as it is now and refuse to
try the new ways - that's very very static of you. Are you sure that when DQ
knocks on the door you'll even recognize it? And if you do will you let it in. But
whatever happens - sincere good luck. The more on the net to do with MoQ the
better.
Horse
***********************************************************************
"Prejudice is the greatest labour saving device known to man,
it enables one to form an opinion without having to go to
the trouble of checking the facts."
Quote from Stephen Fry - Source Unknown
(Could be Oscar Wilde ??)
************************************************************************
homepage - http://www.moq.org
queries - mailto:moq@moq.org
unsubscribe - mailto:majordomo@moq.org with UNSUBSCRIBE MOQ_DISCUSS in
body of email
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:02:46 BST