From: Dylan Sunter (dylan.sunter@fisystem.com)
Date: Fri Jan 18 2002 - 08:12:09 MST
but stupidity and irrationality memes are still memes all the same, and as
such are they not valid? Surely, to get a good sector of memes on an
unmoderated list means that there will occasionally be some stupid fucks on
the list ranting and raving and generally being abusive and unconstructive.
Whoever said this was a democracy anyway?
I havent really followed the arguement in question, so I dont know who are
the good guys and the bad guys here (if such a thing exists)
I think that all CoV's posters should use their intellectual freedom
responsibly, but that said a good old fashioned pinging doesnt hurt too
badly...
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-virus@lucifer.com [mailto:owner-virus@lucifer.com]On Behalf
Of L' Ermit
Sent: 18 January 2002 13:02
To: virus@lucifer.com
Subject: virus: How to handle lamers? What is off-topic? Ping Bodie
[Hermit 0*] Secondly, name calling - in return for continuous insults - is
not only fair, it is correct. There are no moderators here, and as I refuse
to allow myself to be driven from the list as readily as Casey appears to
be, anytime that an asshole with an agenda becomes unpleasant, this involves
fighting fire with fire. I just try to make sure that I have the better
flamethrower.
[Bodie 0] Surely in this case, for the good of the list, it would be better
to fight fire with water, i.e, filter the offending person from your email
forever. This is the correct way to deal with that situation, as was proved
with a certain other person who we agreed never to speak the name of again.
If we start by getting down to their level and exchange insults then they
just throw more insults back at us and the whole thing carries on escalating
until it threatens to overtake the whole group. This has been proved in
recent weeks with the amount of messages on this group that have been purely
there to slag of another person. The best and possibly only way to do it is
to ignore them.
[Hermit 1] Perhaps, except that this will encourage the godly. Which is why
we previously determined that people advocating a non-atheist or irrational
stance have no right whatsoever to make use of our "pulpit", although we
carefully did not determine exactly where the limits were, as that would
depend, to a large extent on the scope, advocates and style of the advocacy.
The only question in this instance is whether this instance is approaching
the limits or not. Which requires discussion and eventually list consensus,
which will probably, though not necessarily, be determined by a vote. When
somebody using our platform will not discuss their viewpoint, it becomes a
question of whether this is in and of itself irrational, or if there is some
other way to determine their perspective. Some discussion on this issue may
be good. Should we just boot them, or should they be ignored, knowing that
if we permit this, that such discussion will take over the CoV simply
because it will tend to drive off those most capable of engaging in rational
discussion (recognizing that there has been very little of that recently
anyway). Or is there another path? Suggestions are, as always, welcomed.
[Hermit 0] Thirdly, Casey's assertion that I "go off the handle" at the
"slightest inclinations of religious thought" is in fact, like all of
Casey's assertions incorrect. It is my experience that once "religious
thought" is endorsed by a self-identified rational atheist forum, the
quality deteriorates rapidly. As the CoV can be a nice sandbox, when not
cluttered with lamers, I attempt to discourage religious exercises, but
asserting that I "go off the handle" for any reason is not sustainable. If
Casey wants a forum in which to pursue such matters, may I suggest
alt.chat.brainless.religious.chinless-wonders. I'm sure he would feel
comfortable there.
[Bodie 0] While I agree that religion is generally brain dead, there are
some parts that are worth exploring, not for the spiritual implications, but
for historical purposes. I would never condem anyone on this list for
reading the babble, but I would if they believed it. While 90% of religios
texts are complete bollox, there is occasionally a point of historical
truth, although it may be seen in a different light. Wether we like it or
not, there is a great deal to be learnt through religion that doesn't
involve any sort of faith
[Hermit 1] Oh, been there done that. I have a nice collection of babbels and
other so-called "sacred works" which I read from time to time and can
probably talk to the topic as well or better than most anyone else here -
but don't choose to - or at least, not here. Neither I think, do most of the
congregation. The reason is simple. Discussing religion - outside of its
memetic or possibly historical implications (within indeterminate limits) -
opens the door to an invasion of nutcases, lunatics and lay preachers that
could make Yash look positively attractive. Given that we tend not to toss
people out of our church, or at least not in a hurry, opening the door to
this would be to invite an invasion of the mindless. In addition, it seems
likely that we have a number of members who are still not completely decided
on their stance, and it would not be fair to raise theological issues from
the CoV's atheist perspective without also opening the door to the Deistic
or Theistic viewpoint. It was for these reasons that we as a church,
determined that theological discussions were off topic.
[Hermit 1] There are thousands of locations, on mail-lists, Usenet and IRC
where religious discussions can be held. Most of them are nests of the class
of flame-fest we are currently suffering. Anyone desiring such conversations
(for any particular religion, or religion in general) and not knowing where
to start is welcome to ask me off-list for suggestions. For myself, I don't
think that it would be good for the CoV. Do you?
Kind Regards
Hermit
_________________________________________________________________
MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos:
http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Sep 25 2002 - 13:28:40 MDT