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

Re: Grrrrrrrrrr! - so a shipwreck there shall be...

Expand Messages
  • Will Brown
    Ok, I have changed my preferences to traditional and I am going to weigh in on this access to the archives matter. I am with meddy here. I surf around other
    Message 1 of 11 , Sep 8, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      Ok, I have changed my preferences to traditional and I am going to
      weigh in on this access to the archives matter. I am with meddy here.
      I surf around other groups just to see what others are thinking on the
      given subject of the group. Fortunately, all are not of the members
      only sort. If this matter were to be put to a vote, I would say open
      it up and keep it open. I don't mind hanging my laundry out for all to
      see, witness my own homepage. Of course, I am a pseudonym and William
      Incognito Brown is not my real moniker.

      What is this about a difference between SK and Climacus? I see no
      difference in message between CUP and WL, but of course all that says
      is that you and I do not interpret SK in the same way. Ok, lets see if
      the message format has changed. In the old format, when one previewed
      the message, what one saw on the preview was what one saw in the post
      when published; now it is not. I think the new format is not set up to
      handle cut & paste. ----willy


      --- In kierkegaardians@yahoogroups.com, "James Rovira"
      <jamesrovira@...> wrote:
      >
      > Yep, Mederic, you're being over-dramatic and cannot be more possibly
      wrong
      > about my motivation. It is not an exclusionary act because, as I
      already
      > said, -membership itself is not moderated-. In other words, anyone
      can join
      > the group without first needing to be approved, and -then- view the
      archives
      > all that they want.
      >
      > The only infringement is on the privacy of the person viewing the
      archives
      > in that they cannot do so anonymously (really, they can, though --
      no one
      > can tell who someone -really- is just through a Yahoo ID unless the
      person
      > provides that information in their profile, which they are not
      required to
      > do). Since they're viewing our writing, it seems fair to me that we
      should
      > know they are there.
      >
      > It is my opinion that someone's listserve posts are the property of the
      > person making the post, and that this ownership takes precedence over
      > someone else's right to read them. For this reason anyone can
      remove or, I
      > think, edit their posts any time they like. I would think you wouldn't
      > disagree as this protects you as well.
      >
      > If I were to start questioning motives, I'd wonder why it was so
      important
      > to you that people can anonymously view our archives. It's clearly
      not an
      > exclusionary act, since anyone can join without restriction and then
      view
      > them without restriction.
      >
      > So far as K goes, in its closing sections CUP is clear that the
      > Religiousness A individual feels a unity with all humanity that the
      > Religiousness B individual, the Christian, cannot, because of sin and
      > because of his relation with the god in time. I will say I get a
      different
      > impression reading Works of Love, so this may be a difference in
      perception
      > between Climacus and Kierkegaard. It is not my impression that
      Kierkegaard
      > was a liberal democratic thinker, however, as he supported the monarchy
      > (esp. the old guy), was ambivalent towards, or even negative towards,
      > political rights for women, and was equally ambivalent about the 1849
      > revolution in Denmark that gave Denmark a constitution.
      >
      > Jim R
      >
      >
      > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      >
    • Ron Criss
      Mederic, I would be happy to make the archives open again if that is the group sentiment. So how about if everybody chimes in their vote either for openness
      Message 2 of 11 , Sep 8, 2006
      • 0 Attachment
        Mederic,

        I would be happy to make the archives open again if that is the
        group sentiment. So how about if everybody chimes in their vote
        either for "openness" or "privacy" as far as the archives are
        concerned?

        Ron

        --- In kierkegaardians@yahoogroups.com, Médéric Laitier
        <hidepark21@...> wrote:
        >
        > Dear Ron,
        >
        > Thank you for this frank answer. It seems we don't apprehend the
        > evolution in the Group's direction in the same manner. Let me
        suggest
        > that it has nothing to do with the fact that neither of you - the
        > Owner and the Moderator - is being paid for his contribution to the
        > life of this forum since it is, after all, the situation of all the
        > actors of this group.
        >
        > Perhaps it is, on the contrary, more due to your lessened interest
        for
        > what has been happening in here recently, and the subsequent less
        > frequent message monitoring of yours. But after all, you are
        right, if
        > your interest has decreased, your interest has decreased and there
        is
        > not much you can do about it.
        >
        > I may be wrong about all this, of course - I may be wrong could
        > definitely be my middle name... - but if I am not then I shall
        regret
        > the forum for what it once was: a open place where to have pleasant
        > conversations with varied characters.
        >
        > The archives non-disclosure to non-members may look a harmless
        > evolution on its own and may be in line with the 'privacy' policy
        > which you suggest it is consequence of. But I doubt it is how it is
        > meant. It seems to me to be much more in the descending lines of
        > James' dearest dogma: there are the in-mates - the brothers - and
        > there are the others - poor lost neighbors. The latter are not
        worth
        > albeit only reading /Our/ truth...
        >
        > This is, in my opinion, a complete misconception and further an
        > anti-kierkegaardian notion. It is true K. advocates for the
        isolation
        > of the thinker. But this is meant as an inward movement for /the
        > single individual/. There cannot be any kierkegaardian enclosed
        > /community/ of man. What a man can be, on the contrary, for another
        > one is /an occasion/.
        >
        > Reading the archives can be, for a non-member, an occasion to
        initiate
        > his move towards a deeper form of subjectivity. Closing them off is
        > preventing for good such occasions to become, and closing them off
        > purposely is thus taking in the matter of subjective ethics a grand
        > responsability.
        >
        > This is what I meant to underline and what I continue to consider
        as a
        > most regretful evolution for the forum. My critic has never born
        upon
        > the wonderful job of spam-guarding you have both done. Of course
        not!
        >
        > Should I have sounded here excessively solemn or even
        overdramatic, I
        > feel I must apologise for it for it is true it is not the
        character I
        > have accustomed the forum to embody. It must be aging's
        eeneficence,
        > sorry I meant beneficence...
        >
        > Now what was meant to be done has been done. I have nothing more to
        > add on that matter.
        >
        > Prophetically or not,
        >
        > I remain
        >
        > Yours sincerely,
        > Mederic
      • nnn88388
        ... Thanks Ron, Let me say that if it were not for the openness of this forum when I was looking around I would not have joined. What is there to hide? The
        Message 3 of 11 , Sep 8, 2006
        • 0 Attachment
          --- In kierkegaardians@yahoogroups.com, "Ron Criss" <roncriss@...>
          wrote:
          >
          > Mederic,
          >
          > I would be happy to make the archives open again if that is the
          > group sentiment. So how about if everybody chimes in their vote
          > either for "openness" or "privacy" as far as the archives are
          > concerned?
          >
          > Ron
          >

          Thanks Ron,
          Let me say that if it were not for the openness of this forum when I
          was looking around I would not have joined. What is there to hide? The
          invitation should be; welcome one and all. As the Lord said to Philip;
          come and see. After all, we are all neighbors, aren't we?
          Nick
        • Ron Criss
          ... I ... The ... Philip; ... Nick, To be honest, as a group owner and moderator, I like to know who is using the forum. I don t know why, but many folks are
          Message 4 of 11 , Sep 9, 2006
          • 0 Attachment
            --- In kierkegaardians@yahoogroups.com, "nnn88388" <nnn88388@...>
            wrote:
            >
            > --- In kierkegaardians@yahoogroups.com, "Ron Criss" <roncriss@>
            > wrote:
            > >
            > > Mederic,
            > >
            > > I would be happy to make the archives open again if that is the
            > > group sentiment. So how about if everybody chimes in their vote
            > > either for "openness" or "privacy" as far as the archives are
            > > concerned?
            > >
            > > Ron
            > >
            >
            > Thanks Ron,
            > Let me say that if it were not for the openness of this forum when
            I
            > was looking around I would not have joined. What is there to hide?
            The
            > invitation should be; welcome one and all. As the Lord said to
            Philip;
            > come and see. After all, we are all neighbors, aren't we?
            > Nick

            Nick,

            To be honest, as a group owner and moderator, I like to know who is
            using the forum. I don't know why, but many folks are simply too shy
            to say anything (God knows I blab on and on with little thought!).
            I've been in groups where I was the only person talking and,
            finally, when I thought nobody cared and threatened to close it,
            suddenly folks came out of the woodwork begging me not to close it
            because they were lurking around. But, to be realistic, that's not
            an issue here. There's plenty of dialogue and I'm sure plenty of
            folks who are digesting what is said (it is pretty deep stuff!). So
            I'm perfectly open to opening up the archives if James agrees and
            enough people say they prefer oppenness to privacy.

            Ron
          • Ron Criss
            James, It s not because you are a moderator, but because the group was created before the poll option became available. Its a great idea, but I can t post a
            Message 5 of 11 , Sep 9, 2006
            • 0 Attachment
              James,

              It's not because you are a moderator, but because the group was
              created before the poll option became available. Its a great idea,
              but I can't post a poll either. So I guess will have to allow
              opinion to trickle for a bit.

              Ron

              --- In kierkegaardians@yahoogroups.com, "James Rovira"
              <jamesrovira@...> wrote:
              >
              > What do you think, Ron? Let the responses keep trickling in, or
              post a
              > poll? I can't post a poll since I'm not a list owner, just a
              moderator.
              > Maybe something simple, like:
              >
              > List archives should be
              > 1. Open to the public.
              > 2. Accessible only to members.
              > (choose one)
              >
              > We can post an announcement so that all members get notification
              of the poll
              > whether they're normally receiving email or not.
              >
              > I don't think we're hiding anything either way since anyone can
              join with no
              > commitment or barriers and read the archives even if they're
              members only,
              > but if most people think they should be publicly accessible I'm
              fine with
              > that despite my preference.
              >
              > Jim R
              >
              >
              > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              >
            • Ron Criss
              I m not totally sure. But I assumed that was the case. I noticed that a lot of the newer groups do have that option. Maybe Yahoo can fix it? Ron ... I m ...
              Message 6 of 11 , Sep 9, 2006
              • 0 Attachment
                I'm not totally sure. But I assumed that was the case. I noticed
                that a lot of the newer groups do have that option. Maybe Yahoo can
                fix it?

                Ron

                --- In kierkegaardians@yahoogroups.com, "James Rovira"
                <jamesrovira@...> wrote:
                >
                > Ugh, that would suck. It would also mean we just missed the date.
                I'm
                > listowner for another group that started in Sept. of 2001, and we
                can have
                > polls in that group. This group started Jan. 2001 and apparently
                we can't.
                > I noticed a Poll option in the sidebar of my Kierkegaardians email
                and
                > clicked it, then got a message saying that this feature isn't
                available for
                > this group.
                >
                > On the other hand, I'm a member of a group that started in June of
                1999 and
                > it can have polls...so are you sure that the timeframe is really
                the issue?
                > I emailed Yahoo customer care to see if they could do anything
                about it.
                >
                > Jim R
                >
                > On 9/9/06, Ron Criss <roncriss@...> wrote:
                > >
                > > James,
                > >
                > > It's not because you are a moderator, but because the group was
                > > created before the poll option became available. Its a great
                idea,
                > > but I can't post a poll either. So I guess will have to allow
                > > opinion to trickle for a bit.
                > >
                > > Ron
                > >
                > >
                >
                >
                > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                >
              • nnn88388
                meddy-son, You make many valid points. We certainly can t democratize europe and perhaps the whole cosmos without clear rules and intentions and a universal
                Message 7 of 11 , Sep 12, 2006
                • 0 Attachment
                  meddy-son,
                  You make many valid points. We certainly can't democratize europe and
                  perhaps the whole cosmos without clear rules and intentions and a
                  universal crowing. And if we do democratize the entire world we should
                  at least grow enough potatoes to feed them all. Onions and tomatoes
                  too. Perhaps Willy the B can tell us how to grow them 'ala
                  californiaye'! My vote is still Yes; keep the forum open; if I have to
                  vote again as myself or another, I will as long as the polls stay
                  open. Unless of course, I have to dip my right thumb in purple ink!
                  Then, let this one honest vote stand.
                  enchrinic_nic
                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.