From: Toto <toto@sk.sympatico.ca>
Date: Sun, 2 Feb 1997 02:13:17 -0800 (PST)
To: blanc <blancw@cnw.com>
Subject: Re: Cyphernomicon by Tim May
Message-ID: <199702021013.CAA16582@toad.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


blanc wrote:
> From:   Toto
>   What currently threatens the list, in my opinion, is not the dissension,
> but the rise of a cliquish sheep-mentality and the resulting dismissal
> of the opinions of people of Reason (and the opinions of 'anyone', in
> general, whom 'I' perceive as being on the 'other side' of an issue).
> ........................................................................
 
> Who are these sheep you're talking about?   At the end of the trial period,
> anyone still on the list who doesn't like the moderation can at their
> leisure either protest vehemently its continuation, producing masterly
> works of eloquence in favor of continuing the free-for-all, or they can
> unsubscribe (sp?).

  I am not speaking of the sheep-mentality in regard to moderation or
any other single issue on the list. I am speaking of the tendency of
many list-members to fall into common ruts of thought wherein the
comments and opinions of others are auto-files as this-or-that,
and interpreted in that light, no matter what the actual content
of their messages.
 I told Attila the Hun, in private email, that when I opened his
messages, that I never knew whether to "pucker-up or duck", because
he was just as likely to chastise me as agree with me, depending
on his personal opinion of an individual post of mine.
 I regard Igor and yourself, and a number of others, in the same 
light. I'm reluctant to bend over and drop my pants, waiting for
you to kiss my butt, because I realize that I am just as likely 
to feel the sting of your toe-nailed boots instead of soft lips.

> I think what threatens the list is the absence of really major issues to
> fire up everyone's sense of indignation & imagination, 

  But, under the New List Order, any strong opinion risks being
thrown in the crapper as a 'flame'.

>plus the fact that
> many of the long-timers are pretty sophisticated on all the political
> issues which have been discussed before (how many of Tim May's long
> treatises, engaging, thorough, and relevant as they may be, can one read
> yet again without recognizing the repetitive themes therein),

 Yes, but there are always members to whom these treatises and
orientation
of thought are 'new', and people only notice the repetiveness when they
are, indeed, following these posts, which means that they must be 
getting some value out of them.

> plus a lack
> of interest in engaging in rhetorical arguments with people who find it
> difficult to think in a straight line.

 I, too, agree that you can lead a horse to water, but a stitch in time
saves nine.

>  Sometimes the posts on the list
> come to resemble more attempts at educating the clueless than discussions
> among peers which could truly advance an understanding of between fine
> points of difference.

  Some of the more rambling threads are indeed the result of not
understanding that some of the clueless aren't seeking a clue, but
merely to hold on to their ignorance. But I would rather err on 
the side of believing that the person I am replying to is sincere
in wanting to discuss an issue in order to gain a broader 
understanding of it.

Toto