Re: New SCJM poster

"Steve Goldfarb" <slg@xxxxxxxxx> writes:

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.

Nor am I the mother of my students. But everyone in the classroom
(teachers AND students) has a responsibility for the events in the
room.


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.

No, Basra *here* wsn't my point. My point was that something that IS
topical (and Jews, Judaism, discussion of anti-Semitism, and events
pertaining to Jews *because* they are Jewish are topical for SCJM)
is permissible here even if some don't like it, are irritated by
it, etc.

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.

Perhaps, perhaps not. I'll need to think on that a little more.

"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?

So it's binary? If everything here is related to Judaism in some
way (and it should be) that you'll automatically read everything here?

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.

It's the same principle. You snipped the part where you had previously
written what makes that comparison possible.

You've said that what they do elsewhere is not relevant, only what
they do here. And to a certain extent, we agree. It's just a question
of borderline activities. And one could easily say the same thing about
childcare centers: what workers do *there* is most important. But having
a child sit on a lap takes on a different tone when we know that the
worker is a convicted child molester. The alternative is to ban lap-
sitting, which would certainly solve the problem. But as you say they'll
find new ways to get around the prohibitions, and it bans an activity which
can be appropriate in some situations.

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.

Not at all, and you make my point for me. You're saying: ban them
if they appear in the Weekly World News. You've said that we should
ban someone if they had *posted* to SCJ/SCI/AM, or that we should
ignore those activities completely. I'm saying: ban them if
they write a UFO column - but not if they write a humour column.
It's not the presence, but the CONTENT.

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.

I understand, Steve, I really do. But it hasn't all been roses and
song from Eli's posts here, that's the point. If he were posting only
nice things here, we'd be having a different discussion entirely (and,
likely, disagreeing about that too :-) ). Instead, for example, we
see fairly persistent moves toward genetic Judaism in a way that seems
an disturbing echo of the eugenics material I read from the 1930s.
That's the sort of warning flag that suggested people take a second
look. And it's that second look which makes things more disturbing.

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.

Um, you've missed an important distinction here. There's a difference
between merely posting and WHAT they're posting. There aren't only two
options here, though it does superficially make things look simpler when
you remove all but two.

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?

I'm sorry that you don't think what I'm doing is stemming from a
similar motivation.

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.

So? How many do we need before telling others how to behave becomes
incorrect?
--
Don Levey If knowledge is power,
Framingham, MA and power corrupts, then...
NOTE: email server uses spam filters; mail sent to salearn@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
will be used to tune the blocking lists.
.

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
    ... It's easy enough if you care. ... So we should be posting about Basra here on SCJM, ... You were talking about posts on a newsgroup, Don, not about ...
    (soc.culture.jewish.moderated)
Loading