Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Moderators: please do your job - too many non FSP posts

Expand Messages
  • Seth Cohn
    ... Tim, that is exactly -why- moderators exists: so 1000 people do not have to hit the delete key everytime you (or someone else) post something offtopic for
    Message 1 of 56 , Dec 7, 2009
    • 0 Attachment
      Tim wrote:
      > Who defines "relevant"? And how much time or energy does it take to press
      > that little key down there on the lower right of your keyboard, the one with
      > "Del" on it?

      Tim, that is exactly -why- moderators exists: so 1000 people do not
      have to hit the delete key everytime you (or someone else) post
      something offtopic for this list.

      1) Tim, you can always start your own list (and free free to invite
      folks from here, _once_, and then add a link to your signature), if no
      other list exists that meet your audience needs. Except I know you
      are on the RLC list, among others. Then you need not fear the
      moderation of your posts, and can post as freely as you like, on your
      own 'property' to only those who volunteer to participate with you.
      Such a libertarian solution.

      2) Some of us read mail in a digest format, offered by this list, so
      we can't just delete or filter it out. It's bundled into a collection
      of posts, not deletable one by one.

      3) As a community list, the shared goal is the stated one (FSP growth
      and news), and off topic posts violate the spirit in which we all
      volunteered to participate on this list. Unless you are proposing we
      change the Statement of Intent to read:

      I hereby state my solemn intent to move to the state of New Hampshire.
      Once there, I will exert the fullest practical effort toward the
      creation of a society in which the maximum role of civil government is
      the protection of life, liberty, and property. Also, I will be on a
      list where Tim Condon (and others, but mostly Tim Condon) can post
      whatever he wants to post.

      4) I'm not suggesting moving to the FSP forum (or any other forum).
      Mailing lists are a push model (posts go to users), Forums are a pull
      model (users come to posts), different models for different means.
      (And yes, RSS feeds/mailings can make a forum more of a push model,
      that's NOT my point, so don't go there).
      (Plus, everyone (who has heard me rant on it) knows I want to see the
      FSP forum replaced with something more useful too)

      Having been on the Internet for almost 20 years now... (yes, really),
      this is not a new problem, it's the same old problem, and the reason
      moderators were invented.
      Thus my post asking the moderator(s) to do their job.
      And I note the only complaint has been from Tim. Tim, take note:
      nobody else even stepped up to agree with you or defend your postings.
      What does that mean?

      Seth
      who hates having to end being the grumpy guy who complains so much all
      the time, but hey at least my ranting(s) can win awards. Come see me
      at PorcFest2010 defend my title of Soapbox Idol.
    • GaryT
      I have read some of CS Lewis philosophical works, and works similar to it. They are full on one-sided arguments, and just-so justifications for their
      Message 56 of 56 , Dec 11, 2009
      • 0 Attachment
        I have read some of CS Lewis philosophical works, and works similar to it.
        They are full on one-sided arguments, and "just-so" justifications for their religious opinions.

        I find it quite frustrating to be spoon fed dribble masquerading as profound truth, from adults who cling to their childhood envisioned cosmologies, never having the courage to nip off from themselves what is most obviously redigested pagan creation myths.

        It is like an adult who refuses to affirm that human beings are physically just as much animal/mammal as other animals, 'because we are special'. Yet all the evidence smacks them in the face, they just affirmatively refuse to acknowledge it, because it deflates their worldview and their specialness in it.

        And speaking of 'just-so' stories, Judeo-Christianity an inspiration for most scientists, philosophers and libertarians?
        (Poets are another animal, so I don't comment on them here.)

        To the contrary, most contemporary scientists, philosophers and libertarians are agnostics or atheists. And those who are not, rigorously compartmentalize their two belief systems (in order to remain sane of course).

        Gary T


        ----- Original Message -----
        From: Jon Isaac
        To: freestateproject
        Sent: Friday, December 11, 2009 7:30 AM
        Subject: Re: [FSP] Working with non-pure libertarians



        Judeo-christianity is a mess, it is an excuse for incredible travesties. And
        yet it is the inspiration for most scientists, philosophers, poets, and
        libertarians throughout history. Shifting from our myopic little present and
        taking a much longer view of existence, the last century may turn out to be
        the most violent, atheist, oppressive century in history, and not more than
        a blip in a very religious experience. It's the fashion these days to take
        Dawkin's art as "Bible-truth," but truly open-minded people will step
        outside that little cocoon and wonder if it was just historic delusion that
        inspired the greatest minds throughout history to be fervently religious, or
        if it could have been a long-acknowledged wellspring for abolition, art and
        scientific investigation.

        Gary, if you are ever inclined to read about religion-- a real, robust
        religion -- as Dawkins and Hitchens don't dare discuss, pick up Mere
        Christianity by C.S. Lewis or Orthodoxy by G. K. Chesterton.

        Jon Isaac

        MCG School of Medicine, 2012
        404-550-5903 jisaac@...

        "...all that has been is but a slight intimation of what is to be." Neuhaus

        On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 3:09 PM, GaryT <garyonthenet@...> wrote:

        >
        >
        > And of course we must thank Judaism for the United States, for without that
        > there would have been no Christianity.
        >
        > I tend to think that Christianity just happened to be there; the original
        > principles that America was founded upon came about from Enlightenment
        > Philosophers, like Locke, Bacon, etc.
        > Christianity was there for the Crusades and the Spanish Inquisition, and
        > pogroms and the invasion of South America. Christianity has as its holy
        > book, an amalgam of parables and moral stories that say just about
        > everything at once, there isn't much there that isn't also contradicted or
        > marginalized logically somewhere else within the same book.
        >
        > The point is, Christianity as a moral or political force can be anything
        > and has been, from monarchiesa, to dictatorships, to benign friendly
        > nations, to whatever. It is a slippery definition, because it has so many.
        >
        > Gary T
        >
        >
        > ----- Original Message -----
        > From: Tim Condon
        > To: freestateproject@yahoogroups.com <freestateproject%40yahoogroups.com>
        > Sent: Wednesday, December 09, 2009 2:31 AM
        > Subject: Re: [FSP] Working with non-pure libertarians
        >
        > At the first annual PorcFest, NH state Rep. Henry McElroy gave a speech in
        > which he said exactly that (he even had a Bible as a teaching aid). I'm not
        > much of a Christian (it's hard to get there), but I don't see anything
        > wrong
        > with recognizing the historical reality that all our freedoms, and Western
        > Civilization itself, would never have come about about but for
        > Christianity.
        > Don't attack me. I'm just quoting anarchist libertarian hero Dr. Murray
        > Rothbard.
        >
        > On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 1:02 AM, wolzybk <phil@...<phil%40boncer.com>>
        > wrote:
        >
        > > The big "if" is the "if it will move the goal forward". Someone might be
        > > 80%, or 90%, or 99.44% libertarian in his ideas, but if he's actively
        > > pursuing the *other* ideas, then it may not be enough. Conversely,
        > someone
        > > might be 5% libertarian, but if he is most active on that one
        > > freedom-related idea he does have, then he might well advance the goal.
        > > It's not necessarily about "purity", but about what it is that person is
        > > really trying to accomplish.
        > >
        > > A good example of this for me is the Constitution Party. They call
        > > themselves that, and they sometimes talk a good game of respecting the
        > > Constitution. If you issued them a libertarian questionnaire, they'd
        > score
        > > quite highly on it as a percentage. But if you get down to what they
        > really
        > > believe and work for, they believe as a party that the Constitution (and
        > > everything else) is subordinate to the Bible, and that America is a
        > > Christian country and should be governed that way. Which is a profoundly
        > > NON-libertarian idea, yet is the rock-bottom basis for their belief
        > system.
        > >
        > > So while I am perfectly happy to work with that party and the members of
        > it
        > > on common interests, I am very leery of helping them to have enough power
        > > and influence to pursue their full agenda.
        > >
        > > These are the sorts of considerations that must be addressed to see if
        > > someone is an asset or a barrier to "moving the goal forward", in a
        > > practical real-world sense. Not just "what do they say?", or even "what
        > do
        > > they believe?", but "what are they trying to actually do?"
        > >
        > > PhilB
        > >
        > > --- In freestateproject@yahoogroups.com<freestateproject%40yahoogroups.com>,
        > "GaryT" <garyonthenet@...> wrote:
        > > >
        > > > Well then, I guess you will be able to work with 100% of the people and
        > > politicians, since almost everyone in America is at least 80%
        > libertarian.
        > > >
        > > > I would work with anyone who would help move the libertarian cause
        > > forward, the question is, are the 80%'ers willing to work with
        > libertarians
        > > - mostly I don't think so.
        > > >
        > > > Gary T
        > > >
        > > > ----- Original Message -----
        > > > From: Chris Lawless
        > > > To: freestateproject@yahoogroups.com<freestateproject%40yahoogroups.com>
        > > > Sent: Tuesday, December 08, 2009 7:28 AM
        > > > Subject: Re: [FSP] Re: Moderators: please do your job - too many non
        > > FSP posts
        > > >
        > > > ... I would rather an active 80% ally then a purist who is not active
        > > if it will move the goal forward.
        > > >
        > > > ****************************************
        > > >
        > > > I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice!
        > > And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is
        > no
        > > virtue!
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > > ------------------------------------
        > >
        > > Yahoo! Groups Links
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        >
        > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        >
        > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        >
        >
        >

        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]





        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.