Date sent: Mon, 4 Aug 2003 18:06:45 -0400 (EDT) From: Calvin O Ashmore <coa@andrew.cmu.edu> To: virus@lucifer.com Subject: Re: virus: Re:Notice and Proposal of Importance to all Virians Send reply to: virus@lucifer.com
The reason that I and several others are pissed off at Hermit is because he has repeatedly attempted to piss on us (and anyone else who should dare to disagree with them), and is presently endeavoring to do the same to the purpose for which this list was originally created.
No whine, just fact.
But you do bring up an interesting point. Let me indulge in an example to illustrate it.
The anti-Israel people accuse the pro-Israel people of failing to distinguish between Arabs, Muslims (most Muslims are not Arab) and militant Wahhabist jihadists, or of covertly attacking all Arabs or all Muslims when they take issue with the rhetoric or actions of militant Wahhabist jihadists. The pro-Israel people accuse the anti-Israel people of failing to distinguish between Jews, Semites (the Palestinians are Semites, too, and both groups share the genetically based malady of Tay-Sach's Disease), Israelis (there are many Palestinian Israelies), and Zionists, and of covertly attacking all Jews when they criticize Zionism or the state of Israel. Each side accuses the other of pointing out nonexistent motes of sawdust in the others' eyes whilst missing the ship's masts on their own. Each accuses the other of racism rather than opposition to what they perceive as a malignant ideology. There is plenty of evidence that both sides are both right and wrong to some degree, but neither side will admit to any error except those they claim are made by the other side, and members of each side believes, or claims to believe, that those on the other side are either clueless dupes or malevolent manipulators. What is the cause of such a radical disconnect, and more to the point, what can be done about it, so that the complete truth of the matter can arise from this conflicy of dissonant perspectives? Or, when faced with extremist 'true believers' of any ilk, who excuse, ignore or even applaud the mistakes and malevolencies of their own group while decrying those of the other whether they do in fact exist or not, is any such decanting possible?
Re:Notice and Proposal of Importance to all Virians
« Reply #46 on: 2003-08-05 15:49:42 »
Some thoughts on the schism proposals and the condition of the Virian community generally.
While I happen to find the schism idea unpalatable for a number of reasons (largely because while the two churches might be more succesful than a single one might be, they could inevitably gravitate towards a somewhat conformist outlook instead of being confronted with reasoned arguments of opposed views* i.e. the utility of heterodoxy), I'm somewhat reluctant to go any further than voicing reservations for the simple reason that the only alternatives I am aware of (banning, censorship, moderation etc) are for the most part even more unpalatable. If I have no better alternative, I have little right to complain.
While I think Calvin is correct to say that co-operation is a pre-requisite for the CoV to function, my suspicion is that the social fabric of the CoV is too badly damaged for that to be possible at this juncture; I am very pessimistic that the status quo is a feasible option. Jonathan also raised a valid point that many of us do not fit neatly into the two opposed viewpoints we appear to be confronted with (For example, I agree with Joe to some extent concerning his analysis of Islamic theocratic fascism, but am likely to disagree that preserving secularism and modernity figures greatly in the minds of most Western administrations), but it is surely those viewpoints that have suffered the most in the sniping, largely due to self censorship.
It would be of great assistance, if those explicitly opposed to the idea of schism, could elaborate some proposals that would permit the Cov to maintain diversity within its stated framework but to remain co-operative and amicable in character (one possibility might be split forums on a single bbs dedicated to differing political persuasions.) Proposals along the lines of 'Hermit should jump under a bus' will not be regarded as being constructive.
* Not that that is what we have at present. Arguments, certainly.
Re: virus: Re:Notice and Proposal of Importance to all Virians
« Reply #47 on: 2003-08-05 16:54:33 »
I oppose splitting the CoV because I do not think that a political entity serves the COV in any way, and because cooperation is a vital aspect of any groups ability to compete and grow.
An agreed upon peace treaty of sorts seems the most likely way, IMO, to reduce tensions. Something along the lines of a "cease fire", then arbitration regarding ways to get along. Treat all parties the same, and promote their cooperation by having everyone who supports the "treaty" say so here in writing. And name people who are perpetuating the problems after the treaty. Choose relatively objective observers - perhaps chosen by David, that most all of us will agree is serving the better interest of the CoV. By the looks of the reputation board, this would fall to you, Kharin and Rhino.
Kharin wrote:
>Some thoughts on the schism proposals and the condition of the Virian community generally. > >While I happen to find the schism idea unpalatable for a number of reasons (largely because while the two churches might be more succesful than a single one might be, they could inevitably gravitate towards a somewhat conformist outlook instead of being confronted with reasoned arguments of opposed views* i.e. the utility of heterodoxy), I'm somewhat reluctant to go any further than voicing reservations for the simple reason that the only alternatives I am aware of (banning, censorship, moderation etc) are for the most part even more unpalatable. If I have no better alternative, I have little right to complain. > >While I think Calvin is correct to say that co-operation is a pre-requisite for the CoV to function, my suspicion is that the social fabric of the CoV is too badly damaged for that to be possible at this juncture; I am very pessimistic that the status quo is a feasible option. Jonathan also raised a valid point that many of us do not fit neatly into the two opposed viewpoints we appear to be confronted with (For example, I agree with Joe to some extent concerning his analysis of Islamic theocratic fascism, but am likely to disagree that preserving secularism and modernity figures greatly in the minds of most Western administrations), but it is surely those viewpoints that have suffered the most in the sniping, largely due to self censorship. > >It would be of great assistance, if those explicitly opposed to the idea of schism, could elaborate some proposals that would permit the Cov to maintain diversity within its stated framework but to remain co-operative and amicable in character (one possibility might be split forums on a single bbs dedicated to differing political persuasions.) Proposals along the lines of 'Hermit should jump under a bus' will not be regarded as being constructive. > >* Not that that is what we have at present. Arguments, certainly. > >---- >This message was posted by Kharin to the Virus 2003 board on Church of Virus BBS. ><http://virus.lucifer.com/bbs/index.php?board=54;action=display;threadid=28917> >--- >To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l> > > >
-- Reason - Vision - Empathy Tools for a healthy mind
RE: virus: Re:Notice and Proposal of Importance to all Virians
« Reply #48 on: 2003-08-05 18:25:17 »
Many parliaments have the institution of "Speaker" who enforces the rules of parliamentary debate. Members who transgress are expelled from the chamber if they refuse to withdraw any remark, or behave in a manner, that is considered "unparliamentary". (The speaker also has the power to demand an apology.)
Could we have a system like this? If a member of the CoV transgressed the agreed rules he/she could be suspended from posting for a certain time.
Of course the rules * would have to be very clear. The task of 'Speaker' could be rotated, perhaps randomly. There might have to be an appeal mechanism.
Quite possibly this has all been tried before and failed, but just in case it hasn't...
Best regards Blunderov
* Speaking for myself, a rule that would like to see implemented is a reasonable(?)ceiling on "cut and paste" posting. I would expect to see a lot more original thinking and writing from such an intelligent group of people than is sometimes the case. I don't think that there should be any limit placed on citing links in support of an argument.
[Blun.] <snip> It would be of great assistance, if those explicitly opposed to the idea of schism, could elaborate some proposals that would permit the Cov to maintain diversity within its stated framework but to remain co-operative and amicable in character (one possibility might be split forums on a single bbs dedicated to differing political persuasions.) Proposals along the lines of 'Hermit should jump under a bus' will not be regarded as being constructive. [Blun.] </snip>
> Many parliaments have the institution of "Speaker" who enforces the > rules of parliamentary debate. Members who transgress are expelled > from the chamber if they refuse to withdraw any remark, or behave in a > manner, that is considered "unparliamentary". (The speaker also has > the power to demand an apology.) > > Could we have a system like this? If a member of the CoV transgressed > the agreed rules he/she could be suspended from posting for a certain > time. > > Of course the rules * would have to be very clear. The task of > 'Speaker' could be rotated, perhaps randomly. There might have to be > an appeal mechanism. > > Quite possibly this has all been tried before and failed, but just in > case it hasn't... > > Best regards > Blunderov > I sincerely wish that such a system had been in place all the times that hermit has gratuitously slandered my mother, whom he has never met, but I unfortunately doubt its efficacy with him. He has sworn never to apologize for his tasteless and malignant remarks, and refused to promise not to slander her again. In fact, when I asked for such a promise, he responded by attacking her further, and did so with obvious malevolent relish. Do you really think that he would submit himself to such a system? Do you really think he could ever bring himself to apologize for the vile mischaracterizations he has already made concerning her, or be compelled to do so by a "Speaker"? I sincerely doubt it. As far as hermit is concerned, rules seem to be only devices to be created, used, abused and twisted for use against other people; in his own mind, I do not think he believes that they apply to him. > > * Speaking for myself, a rule that would like to see implemented is a > reasonable(?)ceiling on "cut and paste" posting. I would expect to see > a lot more original thinking and writing from such an intelligent > group of people than is sometimes the case. I don't think that there > should be any limit placed on citing links in support of an argument. > A condition by which I am willing to abide if all other do; after all, it was hermit, and not me, who began the practice. > > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-virus@lucifer.com [mailto:owner-virus@lucifer.com] On > Behalf Of Kharin Sent: 05 August 2003 09:50 PM To: virus@lucifer.com > Subject: virus: Re:Notice and Proposal of Importance to all Virians > > [Blun.] <snip> > It would be of great assistance, if those explicitly opposed to the > idea of schism, could elaborate some proposals that would permit the > Cov to maintain diversity within its stated framework but to remain > co-operative and amicable in character (one possibility might be split > forums on a single bbs dedicated to differing political persuasions.) > Proposals along the lines of 'Hermit should jump under a bus' will not > be regarded as being constructive. [Blun.] </snip> > > > > --- > To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to > <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
Just when I thought I was out-they pull me back in
Re: virus: Re:Notice and Proposal of Importance to all Virians
« Reply #50 on: 2003-08-06 00:22:24 »
A large, hearty AMEN from the grey-haired dickweed in the last pew.....
Walter
Bill Roh wrote:
> I oppose splitting the CoV because I do not think that a political > entity serves the COV in any way, and because cooperation is a vital > aspect of any groups ability to compete and grow. > > An agreed upon peace treaty of sorts seems the most likely way, IMO, to > reduce tensions. Something along the lines of a "cease fire", then > arbitration regarding ways to get along. Treat all parties the same, and > promote their cooperation by having everyone who supports the "treaty" > say so here in writing. And name people who are perpetuating the > problems after the treaty. Choose relatively objective observers - > perhaps chosen by David, that most all of us will agree is serving the > better interest of the CoV. By the looks of the reputation board, this > would fall to you, Kharin and Rhino. > > Kharin wrote: > > >Some thoughts on the schism proposals and the condition of the Virian community generally. > > > >While I happen to find the schism idea unpalatable for a number of reasons (largely because while the two churches might be more succesful than a single one might be, they could inevitably gravitate towards a somewhat conformist outlook instead of being confronted with reasoned arguments of opposed views* i.e. the utility of heterodoxy), I'm somewhat reluctant to go any further than voicing reservations for the simple reason that the only alternatives I am aware of (banning, censorship, moderation etc) are for the most part even more unpalatable. If I have no better alternative, I have little right to complain. > > > >While I think Calvin is correct to say that co-operation is a pre-requisite for the CoV to function, my suspicion is that the social fabric of the CoV is too badly damaged for that to be possible at this juncture; I am very pessimistic that the status quo is a feasible option. Jonathan also raised a valid point that many of us do not fit neatly into the two opposed viewpoints we appear to be confronted with (For example, I agree with Joe to some extent concerning his analysis of Islamic theocratic fascism, but am likely to disagree that preserving secularism and modernity figures greatly in the minds of most Western administrations), but it is surely those viewpoints that have suffered the most in the sniping, largely due to self censorship. > > > >It would be of great assistance, if those explicitly opposed to the idea of schism, could elaborate some proposals that would permit the Cov to maintain diversity within its stated framework but to remain co-operative and amicable in character (one possibility might be split forums on a single bbs dedicated to differing political persuasions.) Proposals along the lines of 'Hermit should jump under a bus' will not be regarded as being constructive. > > > >* Not that that is what we have at present. Arguments, certainly. > > > >---- > >This message was posted by Kharin to the Virus 2003 board on Church of Virus BBS. > ><http://virus.lucifer.com/bbs/index.php?board=54;action=display;threadid=28917> > >--- > >To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l> > > > > > > > > -- > Reason - Vision - Empathy > Tools for a healthy mind > > Bill Roh > > --- > To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
--
Walter Watts Tulsa Network Solutions, Inc.
"Reminding you to help control the human population. Have your sexual partner spayed or neutered."
[Blunderov] > Many parliaments have the institution of "Speaker" who enforces the > rules of parliamentary debate. Members who transgress are expelled > from the chamber if they refuse to withdraw any remark, or behave in a > manner, that is considered "unparliamentary". (The speaker also has > the power to demand an apology.) > > Could we have a system like this? If a member of the CoV transgressed > the agreed rules he/she could be suspended from posting for a certain > time. > > Of course the rules * would have to be very clear. The task of > 'Speaker' could be rotated, perhaps randomly. There might have to be > an appeal mechanism. > > Quite possibly this has all been tried before and failed, but just in > case it hasn't...
[joedees] I sincerely wish that such a system had been in place all the times that
hermit has gratuitously slandered my mother, whom he has never met,
[Blunderov1] A theoretical Speaker would be obliged to call upon a member of the congregation to withdraw any ad hominem comments. An apology would also very likely be demanded.
[joedees] but I unfortunately doubt its efficacy with him. He has sworn never to apologize for his tasteless and malignant remarks, and refused to promise not to slander her again. In fact, when I asked for such a promise, he responded by attacking her further. Do you really think that he would submit himself to such a system? Do you really think he could ever bring himself to apologize for the vile mischaracterizations he has
already made concerning her,
[Blunderov1] A theoretical Speaker would probably be compelled to call upon you to withdraw this remark on the grounds that it is 'poisoning the well' = a sort of hybrid ad hominem/logical fallacy. Eg: "How can we trust anything this man says; he is an admitted atheist".
I suggest that we adopt a policy of 'tabula rasa'. It would be counterproductive to attempt to address all previous slights, insults and ad hominems, whether real or imagined. Let us move on.
[joedees] or be compelled to do so by a "Speaker"? I sincerely doubt it.
[Blunderov1] I don't think compliance would be a problem; bouncing any subsequent posts from a refusenik to Lucifer (for the stipulated time) would achieve the aim of censure. Any similar remarks made upon return would simply attract the same tariff.
[joedees] As far as hermit is concerned, rules seem to be only devices to be created, used, abused and twisted for use against other people; they do not apply to him.
[Blunderov1] Once again a theoretical speaker would probably require you to withdraw such a remark. It would be considered unparliamentary I think. (Or perhaps in our case 'unvirian'?) If you wished to cite a specific instance, or instances, of a rule/s being broken it would probably be allowed.
[Blunderov] > * Speaking for myself, a rule that would like to see implemented is a > reasonable(?)ceiling on "cut and paste" posting. I would expect to see > a lot more original thinking and writing from such an intelligent > group of people than is sometimes the case. I don't think that there > should be any limit placed on citing links in support of an argument.
[joedees] A condition by which I am willing to abide if all other do;
[Blunderov1] Nobody would be 'above the law'. A theoretical speaker would be required to be impartial. As I previously remarked, it would probably be sensible to have a mechanism of appeal to ensure this.
[joedees] after all, it was hermit, and not me, who began the practice.
[Blunderov1] The congregation would have to decide whether it was within the remit of a theoretical speaker to intervene in instances of 'tu qoque'. My feeling is that this would probably not be necessary.
It is worth noting that the title 'Speaker' is not without irony; he/she is, for obvious reasons, not permitted to 'speak' on any matter other than procedural issues. For this reason, and also because it is likely to be a very demanding task, it seems to me to be vital that the duty, if instituted, be rotated amongst the congregation in some equitable way.
Hello Virians
« Reply #52 on: 2003-08-06 04:56:38 »
Joey, perhaps you shouldn't have called that nice hermit man an antiAmerican and a racist as well as a supporter of terrorists and then perhaps all these nasty things wouldn't have been said about me here. And you Virians should be ashamed of yourselves. Frightening poor Joey so he doesn't want to take your Reputation Rating in case he gets embarrassed. Joe has always been scared of rejection ever since he wet his pants when he was receiving his diploma and all the other kiddies laughed, but that is another story.
I said to him, Joey, I'm going to join this little group and be elected their president on a sympathy vote, just like you can. And now, here I am, getting rated and all, and no sign of you with 30 people already here. Are you still watching the test pattern on Fox Joey? There is a real world out here. Come here and get rated.
Now don't worry people, that isn't really drool running down your screen, or not much, I just couldn't work out where to lick the envelope for this letter, now where was I? Oh yes, I'm going to be taking the teacher an apple to school today....
Re:Notice and Proposal of Importance to all Virians
« Reply #56 on: 2003-08-06 11:30:40 »
I do not feel that a temporary ban will help in this case, it will merely fuel such parties with greater anger. As was discussed on #virus on tuesday night, the ditching of the bbs is not a great idea either.
These personal attacks on people without reason or any real point to make should definately be moderated, I have very little respect for members of the CoV who just keep going at each other like raging bulls, these people can hardly be called virians if they cannot just try to get along and agree to disagree.
The reputaion system is a good idea as an experiment, and integrating this system with the tasks system on wiki would be a very good way of progressing the CoV.
However I dont think that a bad score on the reputation board should result in banning, this decition should be made only by David and a vote of representatives.
I do agree with hermit on a lot of points he makes, but his actions will in the end result in a lower rating.
My advice to Joe and everyone else is to try out the reputation system, and if what he thinks will happen does happen, then perhaps it should be changed.
RE: virus: Re:Notice and Proposal of Importance to all Virians
« Reply #57 on: 2003-08-06 12:21:33 »
It looks at face value like an attempt to re-ignite the Joe's mother row which was arguably the most damaging set-to we have seen in the church.
Was it a joke? Was it an attempt at sabotaging the emergent détente that we appear to be nearing? Is this person valiantly trying to be a scapegoat who can unify us in our contempt and derision?
I say name and shame them David and let the individual answer for themselves.
[quote from: billroh@churchofvirus.com on 2003-08-06 at 09:06:12] Not only is it in poor taste, but the avatar added themselves the the reputation app. Humm - I wonder who and why?
I know who did it, the IP was logged. The queston is what do with this person? Temporary ban? If so, for how long?
Re:Notice and Proposal of Importance to all Virians
« Reply #58 on: 2003-08-06 12:30:32 »
Ah Billy, I keep meaning to ignore your fatuous outpourings, but you do make it so terribly difficult to repress the reflux reflex... Quote:
"Not only is it in poor taste, but the avatar added themselves the the reputation app. Humm - I wonder who and why?"
When a sneaky, lying thug like you starts stammering, it passes my ability to restrain myself. You appear to forget who was not just insulting, but threatening, on the CoV. I haven't. Neither it seems, has Joey's Mommy(tm). Neither have I forgotten your vicious words and actions to Lucifer and I, and deliberate torpedoing of attempts to establish a structure to prevent it. Most of which, but not all by any means, remain on record in the Pit & Serious Business forums.
At that time the community stated its preferred means of expression by its apathy, inability or unwillingness to moderate your and Joey's behaviours. The same appears to be happening again. So consider that I am merely behaving as the CoV has indicated is right and proper (though less aggressively to be sure). And shall continue to do so until this modus is no longer found acceptable and people told how the situation is to be resolved and such behaviour dealt with. Hopefully soon now.
Maybe by then Joey's mother will have stopped dribbling and died, and he might be doing something other than masturbating over Fux TV and emptying pisspots over our heads. And perhaps you will have shot yourself in the head, rather than the foot and we won't have to put up with your ludicrous attempts to portray yourself as some kind of vacuous elder statesman. Though of the latter, I have my doubts. Your ineptness is bound to lead you to plug yourself in the paw again - as usual. In the meantime, your public words and off-list rants preclude me from doing anything but laugh at your antics when you attempt to get people to take you seriously.
With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. - Steven Weinberg, 1999
BillRoh
Guest
Re:Notice and Proposal of Importance to all Virians
« Reply #59 on: 2003-08-06 12:30:59 »
name and shame, thats my vote.
I just hope Joe lets it fall to the system to handle!! Please Joe, let us try - no more nukes for now please. We agree it was wrong.
Author
Logged
what a display of poor taste!!
