[MD] Where I'm at [Administrator Message]

[david buchanan]

Horse said to Krim:
You're completely wrong about who has a right to say what on this forum. This is a place to discuss Robert Pirsigs MoQ and not just every single thing that comes into anyone's head.  .. I do have the right to remove people that I think are either detrimental to the running of this list or I believe have no purpose here other than to promote some personal agenda.  .. This has nothing to do with thought police or censorship or any other nonsense that's raised to try and force me to run this list the way others want. It has to do with a list administrators right to perform his or her job as they see fit. And as I've said before if this is not acceptable to any member then they should leave.

dmb says:

Exactly. As Arlo so clearly explained, every community of discourse has its boundaries. Far from being a form of censorship, these boundaries define a space in which we can think. Those borders are not supposed to keep out alternative views or new ideas, of course. They keep out the noise so that views and ideas can be heard. A agree with Arlo on that point too. "I don't see anyone being "bullied" into silence" and "Horse is far more forgiving and generous than I would be". In fact, the lovely sentiment expressed "the fucking thought police" by Krimel is a bullying tactic if ever there was one. The basic idea is, "I can say whatever I want or you are a Nazi". That kind of talk overblown, to say the least. C'mon. Would be oppressive or dictatorial or Stalinist to ask the members of a MOQ discussion group to discuss the MOQ? Or to refrain from getting in the way of those who do want to? It's not about what big brother wants, it's just about the forum's purpose. On another matter,...

Arlo said: 
...While there seems to be unresolvable conflict between John and DMB, I think DMB was just responding from his own, more private, view that expressing some things in a permanently public media is not wise. It is an opinion I personally share. Ultimately, John has made the decision to share his troubles with the list, and I think this is not an issue given the amount he participates in otherwise topical reconstruction. Certainly, I wish him well.


dmb says:

Thanks Arlo. That's how I see it too. My concern about John's personal post was not only that it was outside the topical parameters, it also unwisely confessed too much. I have to confess that it makes me uncomfortable when people seek love or sympathy in a place like this. I used to love book discussion groups but there was always one or two people who'd show up wanting to talk about anything BUT the book. Usually, they hadn't read the book and they were lonely. It pulled on my heart strings of course, but it also made me angry. It's pretty damn inconsiderate and self-indulgent, really. Either you had to let them spoil the book discussion, which was the main point of being there, or you had to be a dick about it. These are usually not the type of people that can take a hint, you know, so you gotta say something about sticking to the topic out loud in front of everybody. Then they pretend to go while along while looking for a chance to get their revenge with some snide comment or other. It's really quite distracting. Then there are the people who call talk shows to express their opinion on a topic other than the one being broadcast. when you explain that they are off the topic and invite them to call back some other time, they often scream about their free speech rights. Anyway, I've got some experience with people who don't have a very strong sense of these kind a parameters. It's funny, they sincerely wonder why others don't want to listen to them and seem genuinely offended that any such parameters should apply to them. 

But I don't think there's all that much conflict between John and me. I expressed some sympathy off line about his separation from his wife recently, while also saying no thanks again to a Royce debate. He seemed to take that well enough. As I see it, he's way too soft on theism and he's in love with a dead philosophy but it's not personal. Like I said to the guy off line (oops!), I don't even pretend to know him. Can you know anyone through an email? Not really. In my experience, if I know somebody only thru email, one still photograph will alter my impression entirely. Imagine what a difference a real, face to face conversation would make. You don't really ever know a person until you've gone on a road trip with them. Or camping.