From: L' Ermit (lhermit@hotmail.com)
Date: Fri Jan 25 2002 - 19:14:15 MST
[Hermit 1*] And I [i]know[/i] that I am right to attempt to defend reason,
experience and rationality and others attempting the same, here and
elsewhere (no alternative has ever lead to any recorded deliberate
advancement in recorded history).
[ben 1] What I do not [em]know[/em]* is how insulting the intelligence of
anyone who disagrees with you or who fails to argue back in the form you
desire is conducive to the defense of reason or its proponents.
[Hermit 2] * Small change. I messed up on my formatting advice – use square
brackets rather than angle braces to denote formatting or it can give web
page formatters the screaming fits. Version II of the FAQ will follow
shortly.
[Hermit] I'm not sure whether Magic Jim, a world class memeticist, or Loki,
our Viral Prophet, both of whom gave countless hours to help here, put it
best first. The CoV is a learning machine. It teaches logic and rationality.
Those interacting here are all cogs in that teaching/learning machine. None
indispensable, none redundant. Some of us have watched battle after battle
with people who seemed to be deliberately trying to break the machine. Some
by throwing sand in the gears, others by attacking it with a crowbar. Some
of the supporters of the CoV have given up, some from boredom, some from
distaste, some due to the fact that the battle seems so incessant and so
unwinnable - and in a way it is. After all, there is essentially an infinite
supply of monkeys and only so many prepared to put their time into keeping
the machine working. And of those, only a few have the ability to keep it
working right. More and more have left or all but left, because they felt
that they were not getting any reward for their efforts (thanks, seeing
others "graduate" to do the same, peer recognition, intelligent discourse,
mental stimulation, new discoveries). Some of us brought new people on board
- and had to watch many of them leave when "lamer tactics" caused the
environment to breakdown. When I watched the caliber of people leaving,
telling me that I was, am, a fool to be hopeful that we can do anything
positive, I got stubborn. And being not totally stupid, determined that I
would attempt to find a way to deal with situations like these - without
giving lamers the opportunity to use the Church I helped to build as a
pulpit to propagate nonsense and "trash the machine". And because many of
the long-term CoVers feel the same way, and are not stupid either, we are
adapting to the situation and to each other, to discover how to deal with
people who are not here "for the cause."
[Hermit] Right now, there is a lot happening in the CoV in terms of didactic
and interpersonal dynamics. Not all of it immediately apparent without a lot
of digging in the archives, simply because, communicating on and off the
list, many of the congregation have begun to know each other and to
anticipate what can be expected of and from each other. Which does give us
an advantage. So does the fact that we have seen a lot of people come and go
and have a fair idea of what to expect as an argument develops.
[Hermit] A large part of getting people to think rationally lies in getting
them to interact rationally. Many people arrive here without a clue. We try,
as a congregation to help them. Note that our only insistence is on rational
discourse. Which amongst other things means that people think, defend their
positions and don't toss insults (BTW supported criticism is not insult).
Few, I think, leave here without having learnt something (even when it is
that the Hermit can be an aggressive jerk - which is not meant to be the
primary message at all, but nonetheless is an occasional consequence of the
style I am using here at the moment :-/). Most others learn more useful
skills. Like how to read fast! :-) Now, when we have somebody who simply
makes unsupported assertions, that screws up the entire environment for
everyone. And while some have argued that we should be slower to rise and
less ruthless in responding to such people I disagree. There are certain
classes of believers, generally known as trolls, who simply keep going on
their chosen course and picking fights no matter how you nicely deal with
them or ask them to desist. Eventually, in the past, much later, it ends in
a fight and their departure. In the meantime, they can do vast amounts of
harm and swallow unconscionable amounts of time. As I am close to
considering the end result to be inevitable, I am trying to simply
accelerate the process. When somebody is rude, I respond aggressively. Some
people will take insults quietly. As you may have noticed, I don't. If
someone apologizes and show signs of attempting to fit into the channel, I
will back-off. If they don't, I respond at a level which is calibrated to
get them to fit in or fuck off. Others will usually play along to achieve
this end. When I play too aggressively, I rely on the congregation to tell
me so. It does not happen often.
[Hermit] A side benefit of this style I have adopted here is that it offers
a living challenge. I don't try to tell people that I am smarter*, I try to
show them I am. Not being afraid of being wrong (it leads to progress), I
can and do make a fair amount of "meaningful noise". For a large number of
people, this acts as an irresistible challenge. They want to prove
themselves better/smarter than me and "put me in my place". Strength to
their elbows! That lets me teach, and learn (the best way to learn is to
teach) and challenges others to learn (by teaching in turn). And together,
that means that we have one bitchin' research machine going here which can
give better quality answers to most questions, and a better overview of any
field when there are not "answers" than any other forum of which I am aware.
Bar none. So even the "challenging" style has its place, and when it fails,
there are others here with other styles. Style is irrelevant. We don't
prescribe style any more than we prescribe a dogma. We do demand rational
discourse. It may be positive, it may be negative. That too is irrelevant.
People can disagree on every and anything (with the exception of Theist
apologetics or AnalCraptic MeatyFizzies, both of which are off topic) they
want to, and that too is quite acceptable. You may have noticed some
regulars, e.g. Joe Dees, Bill Roh, Kirk Steele, Casey and others to numerous
to mention by name arguing with each other and with me. We somehow keep our
respect for one another - and usually apologize or crack each others
knuckles when we go to far. Why? We know that what we get from the CoV is
valuable. Valuable enough to (usually) repay us for the investment of time
we make to it.
Kind Regards
Hermit
*Which usually, but not always, means that I don't pull qualifications or
authorities out, to use as a club. When I know something I try very hard to
teach it in such a way that it becomes evident to those listening (with
varying degrees of success), when I don't know something, I try very hard to
figure it out and defend my reasoning. When I screw up, or am persuaded I am
wrong about something, the archives will attest to the fact that I apologise
immediately (but it doesn't happen often) and when it is appropriate, I will
thank the person teaching me. I try to always provide references to allow
others to check for themselves and will clearly state when something is from
memory or a surmise.
_________________________________________________________________
Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Sep 25 2002 - 13:28:41 MDT