[MD] Decision

[John Carl]

Hey Ian,

On Fri, Jul 9, 2010 at 8:55 AM, Ian Glendinning
<ian.glendinning at gmail.com>wrote:

Sorry John, I have to disagree further ...


Oh goody.  For after all, I didn't come here for an argument, I came here
for an Argument.

Or maybe that's, "Arghhh you meant":




> and right now I'm just
> defending Horse on a very simple matter of moderator principle ...
>
>

Righto.  Understood.  But otoh, who gives a flyin' fu...?

I mean, about "moderator principle" and such?  Are we such children that we
actually crave teacher moderation and approval?  Is the MoQ such a fainting
flower that it actually needs censorial control for it's survival?

I doubt it.  In fact, I'd guess just the opposite.

And if the whole thing hinges upon Horse's assessments, then we should
change the name on the masthead to the "the MoH", in all intellectual
honesty.  What about "central control" at the post office?  What if Horse
gets hit by a bus?  (You know, I  worry about stuff like that.  Like  how
the driver of those big double-deckers could notice a puny lil sysadmin
under his wheels before it's too late.  That sort of thing).


>
> This is not about tenure, or arguments or convincing Bo and others.
> They can hold any views they like for as long as they like and express
> them on this open discussion forum. I have no problem with there being
> orthodox / mainstream interpretations and minority views, and I have
> no preconceptions about which are the more dynamic.
>
> What they cannot do is lie or argue dishonestly, ... consistently,
> determinedly dishonest ... not just for rhetorical effect.
>




  Oh plbbbttt....  It's been done for years.  If you're gonna insist on
intellectual integrity, then lotsa people are screwed.  I could point to a
lot of dmb's rhetoric that falls under that exact category, for one.

and hey, admittedly, me - for another.  Don't get all high and mighty on us
now Ian,  just because the drama of the whole thing is so exciting.


> Dan and Magnus have pointed this out clearly too. What I can't hack is
> the people ... (inc Matt, whose opinion I also respect, that's why I
> use him as the example here) ... say they've got that point, yet
> continue to argue on other points .... muddy waters and the straw men
> featuring platteral shift.
>
>
I agree on the "respect" point.  Which means I respect these minds I've
encountered, enough to let them express and judge for themselves without the
need to employ treacherous or high-handed means.  By "high-handed" I mean
unilateral.  If there is broad consensus that a member is disruptive, I
could see reason for action or banning.
And for the most part, the actions of banning I've witnessed in the past,
have been justified or consensual, albeit unspoken.  The crazy planet prison
guy for instance.  Nobody wanted to deal with that kind of foolishness.
Moderation is good.  But if it doesn't reflect the will of the community,
then the community will be killed by it.



> Since when was moderation a democracy anyway.
> What chance does Horse have ?
>
>

Well I think I put a good idea out there with the "tenure" concept.
Shouldn't we be thinking about the future evolution of this particular
intellectual pattern?  Social recognition of some kind, a static latch, if
you will, is needed to keep it going, beyond the frail life-span of one
hard-pulling horse.



> If I am to be accused of riding the high horse to point out that
> honesty is a good idea to defend, then so be it. Sorry Steve.
> Ian
> (PS Marsha is away on a vacation break I believe.)
>


I always love your input. Ian.  Especially do I relish the things with which
I don't agree.  It gives me so much to say!

Marsha might seem like she's gone, but I've come to know that ole witch and
she's unavoidably present.

Take care,

John