From: Lee Corbin (lcorbin@tsoft.com)
Date: Thu Sep 19 2002 - 16:56:00 MDT
Harvey writes
> Lee Corbin wrote on Wednesday, September 18, 2002 9:41 pm,
> > I also apologize to the list for having become so
> > notorious that an actual thread is devoted to my
> > case (though, of course, I didn't start the thread).
>
> Lee, you DID start the thread. You started the thread under the title
> "*Why* People Won't Discuss Differences Objectively".
Under one definition of what a thread means, a thread retains
its identity even when the subject line is changed, so long
as there is also a "(was " following it. But surely you see
that the subject "Why is Lee a Troll (was ... " is rather different
from "Why can't people objectively discuss differences?". The former
is almost a personal attack, while the latter is an appeal to
objectivity (though others might see it as a put down of "people"
in general, or people on this list, whatever).
I say that changing the name of the thread from one thing not
referring to anyone in particular, or even a sect or class of
people to a personal attack *does not* constitute the same thread
---but this is a case where arguing over what is and is not a
thread doesn't IMO add anything. So the point is that my above
paragraph should be interpreted as saying that I'm sorry that
a subject line has been chosen to single out an individual,
and as the individual singled out is me, sorry if I provoked it.
> Now, after he and many others answered your questions,
> you are pretending that this is an unprovoked attack
> and that you didn't start the thread.
I am *pretending* nothing! Whether it's "unprovoked" or
not is exactly what we are discussing!
> This is an example that other people can interpret as game
> playing. You ask the question, and when people answer you,
> you attack the answer and claim they started it.
Enough said. Clearly someone else started an attack
against me by means of using my name in a subject line.
Again, (in case you missed it), we are still arguing
over whether the attack was justified. But that it's
an attack and it was started, there can be no doubt.
> 2. Another was the "Censorship" thread in which you
> implied ExI was censoring you when they were not.
For the last time, Harvey, please go back and *read*
my initial post! There was *no* accusation of
censorship! On the contrary I stated that *this*
list *has been* free of censorship.
I've told you about this repeatedly. Honestly, this
makes me wonder about the old "big lie" technique:
repeat a lie often enough, and it becomes accepted.
In fact, I told you that *again* offlist just a day
or two ago.
Here in fact was my post:
Subject: Censorship
Date: 5/27/2002
Sent: Mon 8:24 PM
Recv: Mon 9:07 PM
We all exhibit various levels of disapproval when reading
posts. The question is, what is the appropriate way to
express our disapproval, or feelings, or opinions, and
what terms should be used?
In the 1970s and '80s, several times a Vice President of
the United States strongly condemned the opinions coming
from some quarters. Because of his position, and because
of the language he used, cries of "censorship!" could be
heard. It's similar in many ways, though not all, to
recent Extropians cries of "censorship!".
Samantha Atkins wrote (off-line communication)
>Censorship requires force (and perhaps something more stringent
>than just that). Requesting someone stop beating on a subject
>that is painful and arguably disruptive is not in the least
>censorship.
I am compelled to agree completely.
>Even a list moderator ending a thread is not censorship
>as a list is a private place that the moderator is
>charged with keeping going according to its charter.
But this seems to me to be going too far. Due to the
meanings of the words involved, were a list moderator
to end a thread, or to take any forceful action whatsoever,
we must conclude that censorship has occurred. (I'm hardly
saying that it's always wrong---I gather that a gun debate
was once forcefully taken off this list, and that may have
been entirely appropriate, especially if due to list
volume, other issues were being driven out.)
To be absolutely sure, this latter form of censorship,
provided it occurs in a free country, is not at all
as repulsive as the actual shutting down of an individual
or forceful suppression of views. To shout down a speaker
at a rally, for example, is tantamount to censorship.
But clearly, no one can really be shouted down on an online
forum. The nearest thing to that---and although quite
deplorable---is "piling on", which is an effort to exert
social pressure in place of reasoning and debate. But
even that's not censorship, I submit.
>I hardly see why a request and expression of extreme
>discomfort is censorship.
Yes. What concerned a number of us, including me, was the
forcefulness of the requests---sometimes demands---that
certain topics be avoided, that certain persons not submit
an intended post. Such was the language used that I inferred,
perhaps incorrectly, that the parties writing would be very
happy if censorship were imposed by the list authorities.
So, in conclusion, I would ask those crying "censorship!" to
rephrase their expressions of dismay. I would also appeal to
those protesting a certain discussion topic to attempt to provide
reasons why a topic should not be discussed, beyond "it makes
me sick", or "it's counter to Extropian principles to discuss
that".
Thanks,
Lee Corbin
So what was wrong with that? Was I anywhere accusing ExI or
anyone here of censorship? Will you retract your words above?
I'm not going to bother to respond to your other long list
of equally (for the most part) baseless charges.
Lee
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:17:10 MST