Re: New SCJM poster

In <m3od9q1t40.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Don Levey <Don_SCJM@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:

They aren't "using our words against us." They don't have the power. All
they're doing is talking amongst themselves and having a good old time
insulting each other.

I forgot, they're just words, and words are impotent.

All words are not equally potent. Some have more power than others.

When you're teaching children, those children are your responsibility.
We're not your children, Don. We're not your responsibility. I appreciate
your motives but they're misplaced.

We are all responsible for each other. I remember hearing that
somewhere.

But we're not each others Moms either, Don.

If you want to know about it, then you're free to search via Google Groups
and check. I do that from time to time. It's easy enough if you care.
Then, you'll know. Fine. And if you wish, you can deal with it there, or
via email, or whatever you want. All I'm saying is don't bring it back
here.

What do you mean by "bringing it back"? I might perhaps agree that
bringing those actual posts into this forum would possibly be wrong,
but I don't agree that telling people here that it's happening is
wrong.

Then we disagree.

Look, I choose not to go to Basra. However, I do read news accounts
of what goes on there. Just because I choose not to put myself through
that risk, and I choose not to bring that fighting into my own home,
is no reason why I should demand that the news programs, newspapers,
and internet news sites stop reporting what is going on there.

So we should be posting about Basra here on SCJM, Don? Is that your point?
Newsgroups have topicality. that's why there isn't just one big newsgroup
called "alt.everything." Your example doesn't make any sense.

Actually, no - generally I'm pro-transparency but in this particular case
I think it's better to keep for them to keep silent.

I think it should be transparent for two reasons:
1) It becomes more of a deterrent if it's known that this is done, and
2) It becomes less likely that moderators will be accused of abusing
their privilege.

Maybe, but it's more frustrating for the trolls, I think, if they're
unable to view their scores. If Henry tells us why he blocked a post from
the Rev, then that a) gives the Rev the publicity he apparently craves and
b) teaches him what to do differently next time.

"The loop" is the problem. Most of us don't want to be in the loop. If
people stop bringing it back here, then there IS NO LOOP.

Remember that you're not obligated to read those threads, just
as I'm not obligated to watch the TV news, read the papers, or
go to certain internet sites.

Then why have any limits on topicality at all?

Those are the risks we take in a free society.

So you're opposed to background and CORI checks on childcare
workers? After all, it's a risk that we take, and when in doubt
let them through...

HUH??? You were talking about posts on a newsgroup, Don, not about
background checks. Free flow of information despite the fact that some
people might use that information for their own purposes. Nothing
whatsoever to do with background checks.

If we feel the need to protect ourselves against such people, then the
criterion of "posted to group x" is as good as any and better than most.

Again, I disagree. It is exactly like saying "visited country X,
nt allowed in here." But, for example, we have many people who
have visited Iraq and Afganistan - and even engaged in military
activity - should we not let them into the US?

Your analogy fails compeletely. It's nothing at all like saying someone
visited a certain country. It's more like saying that if we're the
Economist and we're looking to hire a columnist, and we find out he not
only writes a weekly UFO column for the Weekly World News but he intends
to continue writing it, that we move on and hire someone else. it's not
exactly like that, but the analogy is closer.

Who cares?

Clearly, you do. You're spending a lot of time and energy telling
everyone else why they shouldn't be spending a lot of time and energy
discussing the matter. I'm sorry, Steve, but you're reminding me
of my 5-year-old right now, carrying around a book or toy and making
a point of telling everyone he sees that he doesn't like it. OK, so
put it down. If we want to read that book in this house, let us read it;
it doesn't mean you have to. There's no requirement to read every thread
or every post.

I care about this newsgroup. That's why I'm posting. I don't care about
what Eli posts. Do you see the difference, Don? Let me spell it out for
you, since we're apparently 5-year-old children -- when I wrote "who
cares" I didn't mean "who cares about anything at all in the whole wide
world," I meant "who cares if people are posting nice things here and
naughty things elsewhere, the important thing is that they're posting nice
things here." You see? I do indeed care about this newsgroup, I enjoy(ed)
posting here.

If we choose not to visit the sewer, then we don't want to know. If we
want to know, we should scan the sewer. I don't need any self-imposed list
moms or troll baiters - whatever their motiviation - bringing the circle
jerk here.

You're taking two extremes in a situation which clearly isn't black and
white; see my discussion of Basra above. And remember that you're being
as much of a list mom as anyone, trying to tell others how to behave.
If you don't like it, drop it, but don't complain when others here happen
to disagree and feel that it's a legitimate topic of discussion.

Ah, but it IS black and white. It's purely black and white. Either we
reference what people do on other groups, or we don't. Either we do what
Susan did, or we don't. It's pretty cut-and-dried, Don.

And yeah, I guess I am being a list mom. Pardon me for caring. I thought
we were all in this together -- guess not, if anyone on this group wishes
to do something that disturbs others or the integrity of the group well
we'd all better just be quiet and take it, huh?

BTW, who are "these others?" So far you, Cindy, Susan, and Tim seem to be
the only people eager to discuss what's going on in SCJ. Several others
have posted that they don't care for it, and most of the regular posters
have been silent on the issue.

--s
--

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: ATR FAQ (part 2: outside Britain)
    ... This monthly posting contains a list of Frequently Asked Questions ... the FAQ contains European characters which may ... Basic newsgroup "netiquette". ... Are there archives where I can find older posts on a subject? ...
    (alt.talk.royalty)
  • Re: SwingWorker.execute() does nothing
    ... So you are violating the newsgroup charter by posting to it. ... All such posts, after all, are automatically off-topic and a waste of bandwidth. ... Ditto not respecting a followup-to header that was used for its intended purpose, to redirect a thread out of a newsgroup when its topic has drifted away from that group's purpose and it's become mostly noise to that group. ...
    (comp.lang.java.programmer)
  • Re: email from ramashiva to earthlink abuse department
    ... I tried asking you nicely to please stop posting off-topic articles to ... "This is an unmoderated usenet newsgroup. ... I will make OT posts whenever I ...
    (rec.gambling.poker)
  • Re: New SBS2003 setup quagmire
    ... I'll be posting back in a new thread about my progress ... Please feel free to use this newsgroup. ... > Microsoft CSS Online Newsgroup Support ... When responding to posts via your newsreader, ...
    (microsoft.public.windows.server.sbs)
  • Re: New SCJM poster
    ... So we should be posting about Basra here on SCJM, ... You were talking about posts on a newsgroup, Don, not about ... I care about this newsgroup. ...
    (soc.culture.jewish.moderated)
Loading