>hmm, this is an interesting thought. I think the key word is tolerance. >that those who join need to be tolerant, whatever their views. if you >out-of-hand exclude these folks, how can they learn what is >wrong with their thinking process?
>perhaps i am too optimistic, to me, these views are learned >and can also be unlearned, but not by separating people >from exposure to the folks they fear. To me, they should >be welcomed with the caveat of tolerance. if they dont fit in, they'll drop >out, to be sure.
Are you saying we should be tolerant of educatable bigots? Our motto could be "We seek diveresity within our congregations for the purposes of reducing societal diversity" or "Merging many viewpoints into one"
On Sun, 16 Apr 2000 00:53:49 GMT, "Richard Puchalsky" >
>Note that in the Marvin example, Ed has a good point in saying that Marvin's >congregation never excluded him. They simply didn't give in to his demands, >so they were "tolerant" in the widest sense of the word. I personally >wouldn't have blamed them if they had kicked him out.
Well, his congregation was tolerant of him but you are not. On what grounds would they have kicked him out? Was he not engaged in his individual quest for meaning? Was he not sharing his personal spiritual journey?
David Barrett <david...@pop3.concentric.net> wrote: >>Another idea is to choose a meaningless qualifier, like 'compassionate' >>or 'responsible' and restate the concept as "we honor responsible >>diversity" or "we honor compassionate diversity". Then each >>congregation could adopt their own ideas about what the qualifier >>means--this is pretty much the status quo, but it's sort of a secret >>now. > How about "we are more tolerant than average" or "we seek just enough > diversity to make us a little uncomfortable" or "we are more diverse > than many" or "diversity within limits"
Actually, we could *demonstrate* just how diverse we are by using a large number of different qualifiers.
Richard Puchalsky <rpuchal...@att.net> wrote: > "David Barrett" <david...@pop3.concentric.net> wrote: >> You are arguing >> that it is not practical to have a commitment to diversity when we >> also have commitments to being non-racist, non-sexist, non-homophobe, >> etc. That is probably true. But if that is the case, i.e. we are not >> tolerant to racists, sexists, homophobes, etc. then we should not >> claim to be tolerant or claim we have a commitment to diversity. > Again I disagree. The problem with your argument is that you are confusing > different meanings of "diversity" together. Properties of human beings > (sex, race, probably sexual orientation), or of cultures, are generally what > people mean when they talk about a commitment to diversity. All of those > things are things that people either have no power to change, or grew up > with, and there is no reason to think that any one of the varients is > intrinsically better than any other one. > Ideas are different. People largely choose their ideas, and some are > demonstrably worse than others. We tolerate a wide variety of personal > religious ideas, because they basically don't matter in a real-world sense. > But ideas about how to treat other people can be helpful, harmful, or very > destructive.
If this attitude is true of UUs in general, which it may well be, then shouldn't it be stated clearly as part of the explanatory material, in particular as a qualifier on words like 'welcoming', 'diversity', and 'honor'?
David Barrett wrote: > >hmm, this is an interesting thought. I think the key word is tolerance. > >that those who join need to be tolerant, whatever their views. if you > >out-of-hand exclude these folks, how can they learn what is > >wrong with their thinking process?
> >perhaps i am too optimistic, to me, these views are learned > >and can also be unlearned, but not by separating people > >from exposure to the folks they fear. To me, they should > >be welcomed with the caveat of tolerance. if they dont fit in, they'll drop > >out, to be sure.
> Are you saying we should be tolerant of educatable bigots?
i guess this question depends on how you define tolerance and also how you define bigotry. the bigot has views of some group or another, not based in reality but on some preconceptions (s)he has gotten from somewhere. the bigot is constrained by his or her own ignorance and fear. Don't we all have biases that affect us, some more than others? The problem with bigots is that they are utterly unaware of their own capacity to be a victim of their preconceptions.
My point was, that to exclude someone on the basis of the uneducated views they may hold is not what i think of as a uu action. That to the extent they are attempting to push their own views on the congregation, the congreagation should not acquiesce, but neither is it a good practice to exclude them; if they are unhappy, they will, of their own accord, drop out, this is not necessarily a failing of the congregation. but to reject someone out of hand is.
i am not suggesting the previous person (greg, i think) suggested we should do that btw, just that's the thought his comment led me to.
> Our motto > could be "We seek diveresity within our congregations for the purposes > of reducing societal diversity" or "Merging many viewpoints into one"
and where did i state that, dave. i don't want everyone to become queer, but i sure as hell expect them to get to know queer folks and accept them as human beings. same for class, race, nationality, political orientation, etc.
"David Barrett" <david...@pop3.concentric.net> wrote: > On Sun, 16 Apr 2000 00:53:49 GMT, "Richard Puchalsky" > > >Note that in the Marvin example, Ed has a good point in saying that Marvin's > >congregation never excluded him. They simply didn't give in to his demands, > >so they were "tolerant" in the widest sense of the word. I personally > >wouldn't have blamed them if they had kicked him out. > Well, his congregation was tolerant of him but you are not. > On what grounds would they have kicked him out? Was he not engaged > in his individual quest for meaning? Was he not sharing his personal > spiritual journey?
It's a free *and responsible* search for truth and meaning that you seem to be alluding to. Toleration does not mean "Sure, go on with that human sacrifice .., we don't personally believe in human sacrifice, but since that's your personal spiritual journey, feel free to slit that guy's throat."
> Richard Puchalsky <rpuchal...@att.net> wrote: > > Again I disagree. The problem with your argument is that you are confusing > > different meanings of "diversity" together. Properties of human beings > > (sex, race, probably sexual orientation), or of cultures, are generally what > > people mean when they talk about a commitment to diversity. All of those > > things are things that people either have no power to change, or grew up > > with, and there is no reason to think that any one of the varients is > > intrinsically better than any other one.
> > Ideas are different. People largely choose their ideas, and some are > > demonstrably worse than others. We tolerate a wide variety of personal > > religious ideas, because they basically don't matter in a real-world sense. > > But ideas about how to treat other people can be helpful, harmful, or very > > destructive.
> If this attitude is true of UUs in general, which it may well be, > then shouldn't it be stated clearly as part of the explanatory material, > in particular as a qualifier on words like 'welcoming', 'diversity', and > 'honor'?
I have so many disagreements with this, I'll have to number them:
1. My opinion may or may not be true of UUs in general; I have no way of knowing. In any case, congregational policy is not set by the denomination, it is set by each congregation. Each congregation must decide for itself whether it will eject people like Marvin and whether they will write up their introductory materials accordingly.
2. The only document that has ever been presented as the average congregational views of UUs in general is the P&Ps. Read them carefully. Remeber that they are not dogma, but as introductory materials, they exclude a wide range of ideologies. For example, Stalinists beleive that individual humans are not of much value and that only the working class as a whole is of value. So much for their "diversity"; they would feel excluded by principle 1. Marvin ran afoul of principles 2 and 3 when he demanded that gays not be allowed to participate in the congregation in the same ways as other people; he couldn't accept the results of principle 5. People with harebrained and destructive religious practices regularly complain about their free search for meaning and ignore the word "responsible" in principle 4. Militarists feel excluded by principle 6. There are a number of Satanist types who believe that their own will is the only important thing; they would feel excluded by principle 7.
3. The introductory materials that I've seen that do use "welcoming", "diversity", and "honor" do indeed explain what they mean by those words. They talk about how they welcome GLBTs and honor racial and ethnic diversity. I've never seen one that implied that Fascists, say, would be welcomed.
<4s9jfso4b44b6t20u2kuaivpc33o4po...@4ax.com>... > >>hmm, this is an interesting thought. I think the key word is tolerance. >>that those who join need to be tolerant, whatever their views. if you >>out-of-hand exclude these folks, how can they learn what is >>wrong with their thinking process? >> >>perhaps i am too optimistic, to me, these views are learned >>and can also be unlearned, but not by separating people >>from exposure to the folks they fear. To me, they should >>be welcomed with the caveat of tolerance. if they dont fit in, they'll drop >>out, to be sure. > >Are you saying we should be tolerant of educatable bigots? Our motto >could be "We seek diveresity within our congregations for the purposes >of reducing societal diversity" or "Merging many viewpoints into one" > > >Dave Barrett There is always the hypothetical UU KKK'er. Assuming that he could find some reason for wanting to be a UU, what would happen? Assuming that he did not engage in legal "disorderly conduct," I think he would not be evicted, but that people would universally disagree with him, and he would find no psychological support whatever for his views. Possibly some people would withdraw from him, not wanting to waste their breath on arguments with him, or even their friendship on him.
A few would be baited into thinking that if they argue with him (as with Marvin) that somehow either he would understand, or at least a moral point would be made, as opposed to his speaking without opposition.
I can think of only one case in which a person has been asked not to return to a UU congregation, and that was over an issue of extreme and consistent B.O.
Gene
-- Portal to un-mod UU group at: http://www.deja.com/~soc_religion_uu/ Remember: (current list) Rich Puchalski / Richard Kulisz / --------- / (Your name here) New Un-Moderated group at alt.religion.unitarian-univ, or use URL to go there. - "I quoted Rich Puchalski." -- To err is human, to forgive... unlikely. -- "Justice will only be achieved when those who are not injured by crime feel as indignant as those who are." - King Solomon -- Man must exist in a state of balance between risk and safety. Pure risk leads to self-destruction. Pure safety leads to stagnation. In between lies survival and progress. -- You know, you could have been prevented for a quarter. -- Age and knowledge don't always come together. Sometimes you just get the age... -- GeneDougNOS...@prodigy.net
<3iajfs076l8i6htamqb1asfqjkp169j...@4ax.com>... >On Sun, 16 Apr 2000 00:53:49 GMT, "Richard Puchalsky" > >>Note that in the Marvin example, Ed has a good point in saying that Marvin's >>congregation never excluded him. They simply didn't give in to his demands, >>so they were "tolerant" in the widest sense of the word. I personally >>wouldn't have blamed them if they had kicked him out. >> > > Well, his congregation was tolerant of him but you are not. > On what grounds would they have kicked him out? Was he not engaged >in his individual quest for meaning? Was he not sharing his personal >spiritual journey? > >David Barrett
And-- Was he not expressing his actual personal beliefs? Would we demand that certain UU's keep their beliefs in the closet?
<3tlK4.11067$fV.911...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>... >"David Barrett" <david...@pop3.concentric.net> wrote: >> On Sun, 16 Apr 2000 00:53:49 GMT, "Richard Puchalsky" > >> >Note that in the Marvin example, Ed has a good point in saying that >Marvin's >> >congregation never excluded him. They simply didn't give in to his >demands, >> >so they were "tolerant" in the widest sense of the word. I personally >> >wouldn't have blamed them if they had kicked him out. > >> Well, his congregation was tolerant of him but you are not. >> On what grounds would they have kicked him out? Was he not engaged >> in his individual quest for meaning? Was he not sharing his personal >> spiritual journey? > >It's a free *and responsible* search for truth and meaning that you seem to >be alluding to. Toleration does not mean "Sure, go on with that human >sacrifice .., we don't personally believe in human sacrifice, but since >that's your personal spiritual journey, feel free to slit that guy's >throat." > The difference here is in the violation of another person's rights. Do I have a right not to be offended by differing beliefs? Or not to be affronted by another's vigorously arguing those beliefs, despite what I believe to be proof to the contrary? That's a lot different from sacrificing a human, who may not be a competent volunteer.
Gene -- Portal to un-mod UU group at: http://www.deja.com/~soc_religion_uu/ Remember: (current list) Rich Puchalski / Richard Kulisz / --------- / (Your name here) New Un-Moderated group at alt.religion.unitarian-univ, or use URL to go there. - "I quoted Rich Puchalski." -- To err is human, to forgive... unlikely. -- "Justice will only be achieved when those who are not injured by crime feel as indignant as those who are." - King Solomon -- Man must exist in a state of balance between risk and safety. Pure risk leads to self-destruction. Pure safety leads to stagnation. In between lies survival and progress. -- You know, you could have been prevented for a quarter. -- Age and knowledge don't always come together. Sometimes you just get the age... -- GeneDougNOS...@prodigy.net
Richard Puchalsky wrote in message <9WlK4.7568$PV.529...@bgtnsc06-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>... >"Greg Shenaut" <g...@bogslab.ucdavis.edu> wrote >> Richard Puchalsky <rpuchal...@att.net> wrote: >> > Again I disagree. The problem with your argument is that you are >confusing >> > different meanings of "diversity" together. Properties of human beings >> > (sex, race, probably sexual orientation), or of cultures, are generally >what >> > people mean when they talk about a commitment to diversity. All of >those >> > things are things that people either have no power to change, or grew up >> > with, and there is no reason to think that any one of the varients is >> > intrinsically better than any other one. >> >> > Ideas are different. People largely choose their ideas, and some are >> > demonstrably worse than others. We tolerate a wide variety of personal >> > religious ideas, because they basically don't matter in a real-world >sense. >> > But ideas about how to treat other people can be helpful, harmful, or >very >> > destructive.
Actually, according to our history, diversity *especially* means difference in religious and philosophical ideas. And they actually do matter in a real-world sense. Witness the various martyrs which UU's claim, as well as the advocates of the religious right, anti-abortion activists, various acts taken toward or opposing control of marijuana or other drugs, and so on. All of these real-world elements derive from the beliefs of the people acting on them. >> >> If this attitude is true of UUs in general, which it may well be, >> then shouldn't it be stated clearly as part of the explanatory material, >> in particular as a qualifier on words like 'welcoming', 'diversity', and >> 'honor'? > >I have so many disagreements with this, I'll have to number them: > >1. My opinion may or may not be true of UUs in general; I have no way of >knowing. In any case, congregational policy is not set by the denomination, >it is set by each congregation. Each congregation must decide for itself >whether it will eject people like Marvin and whether they will write up >their introductory materials accordingly. > But would they actually do so, or would they just silently think to themselves, "except for people like Marvin, of course."
>2. The only document that has ever been presented as the average >congregational views of UUs in general is the P&Ps. Read them carefully. >Remeber that they are not dogma, but as introductory materials, they exclude >a wide range of ideologies. For example, Stalinists beleive that individual >humans are not of much value and that only the working class as a whole is >of value. So much for their "diversity"; they would feel excluded by >principle 1.
Yet, people who oppose principle 1 would be free to say so, if they wished. And they should expect to be asked to defend their argument, and to hear many arguments to the contrary.
Marvin ran afoul of principles 2 and 3 when he demanded that >gays not be allowed to participate in the congregation in the same ways as >other people; he couldn't accept the results of principle 5. People with >harebrained and destructive religious practices regularly complain about >their free search for meaning and ignore the word "responsible" in principle
Even the meaning of "responsible" is subject to great latitude in interpretation. I once worked for a small town newspaper which used the word, responsible, to mean, don't print news which would be upsetting to important people. It's all right to write about local trash who get in trouble, but people who wear neckties to work should be allowed to do their thing in peace.
>4. Militarists feel excluded by principle 6. There are a number of >Satanist types who believe that their own will is the only important thing; >they would feel excluded by principle 7. > A Satanist would not want to attend a UU church, so mention of them is merely hypothetical. But that person should expect to hear argument from people who tolerate his right to make his arguments. That's one reason by the way, that the ACLU defends Nazis. The Bill of Rights doesn't just defend the rights of people with non- controversial opinions, it defends the rights of people with opinions that offend us a lot.
>3. The introductory materials that I've seen that do use "welcoming", >"diversity", and "honor" do indeed explain what they mean by those words. >They talk about how they welcome GLBTs and honor racial and ethnic >diversity. I've never seen one that implied that Fascists, say, would be >welcomed. > If they refer to diversity of philosophy, creed or religious views, then that would include Fascists. We don't just say it's OK to be Irish or Italian, and some skin color would be OK, too. That isn't what is meant by diversity at all. -- Portal to un-mod UU group at: http://www.deja.com/~soc_religion_uu/ Remember: (current list) Rich Puchalski / Richard Kulisz / --------- / (Your name here) New Un-Moderated group at alt.religion.unitarian-univ, or use URL to go there. - "I quoted Rich Puchalski." -- To err is human, to forgive... unlikely. -- "Justice will only be achieved when those who are not injured by crime feel as indignant as those who are." - King Solomon -- Man must exist in a state of balance between risk and safety. Pure risk leads to self-destruction. Pure safety leads to stagnation. In between lies survival and progress. -- You know, you could have been prevented for a quarter. -- Age and knowledge don't always come together. Sometimes you just get the age... -- GeneDougNOS...@prodigy.net
"GENE DOUGLAS" <GENED...@prodigy.net> wrote: > Richard Puchalsky wrote in message > >It's a free *and responsible* search for truth and meaning that you seem to > >be alluding to. Toleration does not mean "Sure, go on with that human > >sacrifice .., we don't personally believe in human sacrifice, but since > >that's your personal spiritual journey, feel free to slit that guy's > >throat."
> The difference here is in the violation of another person's rights. Do I > have a right not to be offended by differing beliefs? Or not to be > affronted by another's vigorously arguing those beliefs, despite what I > believe to be proof to the contrary? That's a lot different from > sacrificing a human, who may not be a competent volunteer.
Marvin was spreading false rumors that would result in people getting beaten up. I'd say that that goes farther than vigorously arguing his beliefs. And by the way, I don't see what the competent volunteer part has to do with whether human sacrifice is acceptible.
"GENE DOUGLAS" <GENED...@prodigy.net> wrote: > Actually, according to our history, diversity *especially* means difference > in religious and philosophical ideas. And they actually do matter in a > real-world sense. Witness the various martyrs which UU's claim, as well as > the advocates of the religious right, anti-abortion activists, various acts > taken toward or opposing control of marijuana or other drugs, and so on. > All of these real-world elements derive from the beliefs of the people > acting on them.
If someone's religious or philosophical beliefs don't mean that they will take actions that are destructive to others, then it doesn't really matter what they are. Discrimination in such cases involves rejecting people because they are either unitarian or trinitarian, say. But if those beliefs cause destructive actions, then UUs can discriminate, do discriminate, and should discriminate against those beliefs. Otherwise why would people hold up famous UUs in the Abolition or Civil Rights movements as models?
UUism is not the bland, vapid anything-goes religion that some people present it to be. There is no creed or dogma, but that doesn't mean we've all adopted Crowley's "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law."
> Yet, people who oppose principle 1 would be free to say so, if they wished. > And they should expect to be asked to defend their argument, and to hear > many arguments to the contrary.
Some people don't want their congregations to be debating clubs. If someone is vigorously opposed to core principles that everyone else holds dear, and insists on demanding that everyone else change, I think it's reasonable to ask to them to leave. Usenet newsgroups *are* debating clubs and have a different standard.
> A Satanist would not want to attend a UU church, so mention of them is > merely hypothetical. But that person should expect to hear argument from > people who tolerate his right to make his arguments. That's one reason by > the way, that the ACLU defends Nazis. The Bill of Rights doesn't just > defend the rights of people with non- controversial opinions, it defends the > rights of people with opinions that offend us a lot.
There is no right, in the Bill of Rights or elsewhere, for a person to be a member of a UU congregation.
> >3. The introductory materials that I've seen that do use "welcoming", > >"diversity", and "honor" do indeed explain what they mean by those words. > >They talk about how they welcome GLBTs and honor racial and ethnic > >diversity. I've never seen one that implied that Fascists, say, would be > >welcomed.
> If they refer to diversity of philosophy, creed or religious views, then > that would include Fascists. We don't just say it's OK to be Irish or > Italian, and some skin color would be OK, too. That isn't what is meant by > diversity at all.
I've never seen one that mentions diversity of political philosophy.
> My guess is that if moderation gave Lisa >trouble she might get fed up with UU newsgroups. I enjoyed her challenge, >because when she and I and other regulars pursued a thread I was right in a >crossfire. It *really* kept me honest.
HAH!
OK, here's my summary of what happened.
It really all started with Marvin.
As I recall it, SRUU was founded with the explicit premise that the only moderation would be robomoderation. The initial discussion, according to my memory, was that an unmoderated religion group would not be approved, but that it would function as unmoderated, except for crossposting, (explicitly excluded) and "spam" (undefined). This was all prior to dejanews so the discussion on news.groups is not available.
Although I am a compulsive archiver, I no longer have the trumpet (newsreading) software or the files from that time period. On a basic level I'm not sure it matters.
During the flap that led to the creation of this group (more on that below) I received contradictory private email from three of the original moderators on this subject. One explicitly supported me on this memory. Another, specifically stated that I was wrong. . . Another waffled.
So what happened? Well, this group went on for a number of years, with the usual flamewars and soreheads, and occasional idiots and so on but no moderation.
Then there was Marvin. Marvin was an extremely persistent individual. (at least six to eight months). I and many other people experienced Marvin's posts as homophobic. Nothing, that I know of, was ever done by the moderators about Marvin but many people left both because of Marvin and the exhaustive effort to talk to Marvin. (Marvin claimed to have ceased being a UU because of our openness to gays, although he claimed to be tolerant...).
However because of Marvin some moderators, who had been around since the beginning, actually began to read the newsgroup again (some of them had from time to time, but they became more active.)
And then there is John Levine, who is the person who owns the domains and addresses that all the computers all over the world send sruu posts to so that they can go back out all over the world. Rich Puchalsky and John Levine were involved in a disagreement, and John Levine, took the unilateral action of banning Rich.
This, after a period of some weeks came to the attention of the other moderators. This led to the first major revision which led to the current progressive system of cooling off periods.
Initially, these were announced. I believe these cooling off periods were applied in a somewhat uneven manner, with egregiously insulting behavior by some people, including moderators, being tolerated, while other people were banned because they "stirred up trouble." or were critical of UU's.
There also was a period when some peoples posts were moderated in the more traditional sense. i.e. particular people's posts would be reviewed. Again this was applied in a way that seemed to me to be uneven. The moderators abandoned this as too labor intensive. (It is very labor intensive. I operate at both ends of the spectrum. I am a moderator on a UUA mailing list where *every* message is looked at and yes, we are arbitrary sometimes. However, that's another story.)
So then the decision was made that not only would people be banned, but discussion of the banning of people was forbidden. A mailing list was set up (also on John Levine's machine) that was supposed to be a vehicle for meta discussion, but since it seemed to have no real impact on the moderators, except for them to get huffy and have hurt feelings, I didn't see it as particularly useful.
I decided that there was still a need for an unmoderated and unmoderatable uu forum. There is a process that alt groups go through, that I initiated. Post announcement on alt.config with a charter, review comments, and post newgroup message. A newgroup message is a specially formatted message that creates alt groups, or goes to sysadmins of news servers at ISP's all over the world to notify them that there's a new newsgroup. Unfortunately, before the appropriate waiting time expired, John Levine, using the return address of the sruu moderators posted a newgroup for alt.religion.unitarian-univ with what I read as a perjorative charter rather than the fairly neutral charter I had proposed. (I hadn't even said anything nasty about the change in moderation policy in sruu.) The assessment of the damage that may have caused is mixed.
It is interesting that I received apologies from every moderator active at that time, but nothing else changed.
At some point in all this, John Levine posted something that a number of people, including me, interpreted as a not very veiled threat to shut down sruu if he was criticized.
If he were to do that, getting the news servers all over the world to send sruu posts to some other computer would probably be a matter several months in the remedying, which I think is why no one has done this. The actual technical requirements are pretty minimal, a 24/7 connection and a reasonably stable platform are all that's needed.
I still feel John Levine owes me an apology for what he did.
aruu still did get created on many servers.
Lisa was banned a number of times, Gene has been banned a number of times. A couple of other people have been banned. I have never been banned, although I don't read the group much any more. (Partly because in my term as an email moderator I've been busy oppressing other people <grin>).
While I think they are wrongly and unevenly applied, I don't have any real process issues with the progressive bannings that have been done.
I will continue to have Rich in my newsgroup signature as long as I'm on usenet, because I believe that decision was pure use of raw power in a personal disagreement and the decision of the moderators to uphold that is wrong. And if that is the price of John continuing to host the newsgroup, I feel that the principled stand would be to say, ok, shut it down, because if he did, I think that there are plenty of resources to pick it up elsewhere.
On the other hand, those of us who do UU work on line are a tight community and there are other things that might also be at risk. It is like putting up with a generous but bullying member in in a congregation. Or perhaps putting up with a productive but abusive coworker, who can also be a really nice guy and very helpful and generous.
As I say, and have said before, I am extremely grateful for everything John Levine has given in the past and continues to give to the UU electronic community. But I believe what he did was wrong. And I believe that the moderators decision to support this is wrong. No matter how abrasive Rich might be.
What would fix it?
My first preference would be for sruu to experiment for six months or a year with a return to the promise of the original charter as I understood it. No bans, and nothing except "make money fast" filtering. (I might even countenance Marvin limits.)
I don't think that is going to happen, but I figure that it is always worth saying what you want.
If I can't get that, a more achievable goal would be much more limited.
The things that I think would make sruu into truly sruu, (instead of sruu.john-levine which exists only at the sufferance of John Levine's whims) would be less drastic.
I don't object to moderation, even arbitrary moderation. I do moderation, including being arbitrary and complicit in things that some people have seen as immoral and unUU in my moderation actions.
The two things that I believe would make sruu a place that had not betrayed the initial charter would be:
1. Restore Rich's posting priviliges. 2. Establish some method for publicizing suspensions. (Web page, mailing list, I don't care what, but the unwillingness to allow any outside scrutiny of those decisions is what bothers me most about all this.)
(I still want an apology, and I think Rich is owed an apology, but those are personal. The others are institutional failures and make every word posted on sruu is posted in a society that has a secret police. We know something about their power, but we don't know what they've done. And we can't ask.)
It will be interesting to see if Greg's assertion that nothing here has any effect is true. Lynn Calvin lcal...@interaccess.com UU Discussion also available on: news://alt.religion.unitarian-univ for unmoderated discussion UU-Community email list for moderated discussion on uua.org UUS-L mailing list Holding Lisa Hadler, Rich Puchalsky, and Richard Kulisz in my thoughts.
"Lynn Calvin" <lcal...@interaccess.com> wrote: > OK, here's my summary of what happened.
My memory matches Lynn's, in terms of the moderation history.
> Rich Puchalsky and John > Levine were involved in a disagreement, and John Levine, took the > unilateral action of banning Rich.
It was actually an Email disagreement. Levine sent me nasty Email as a "moderator"; I told him that I could care less what he thought and asked him not to Email me again. This was the proximate cause of the original ban. He also convinced the other moderators not to tell me that I was banned, despite my queries to them, for the next month.
> I decided that there was still a need for an unmoderated and unmoderatable > uu forum. [...] Unfortunately, before the appropriate waiting time expired, > John Levine, using the return address of the sruu moderators posted a > newgroup for alt.religion.unitarian-univ with what I read as a perjorative > charter rather than the fairly neutral charter I had proposed.
It was pejorative. I don't think there's any doubt about that.
> The others are institutional failures and make every word > posted on sruu is posted in a society that has a secret police. We know > something about their power, but we don't know what they've done. And we > can't ask.)
Levine basically set up the moderators by taking non-charter-supported individual action. They bought in by supporting him. Then the rest of sruu bought in because it was easier to, and anyway, they like everything nice. The result is an electronic police state because it's all based on a lie.
Lynn Calvin probably has just as much ability to shut people out of UUA mailing lists as the moderators have over sruu. Do people complain? Yes. But since her power is chartered, within set procedures, and known to everyone who chooses to participate in the lists, I'd guess that it is generally accepted as just. It's the difference between an honest cop and the RAMPART cops who are busily framing people where I live.
> It will be interesting to see if Greg's assertion that nothing here has > any effect is true.
It was a non sequiter to begin with -- it was in response to my suggestion that BlueNikki post my name to sruu, not aruu. And of course it's not true; people were banned for Email, and I have no doubt that if something we wrote here pissed off Levine he'd ban the offender, the moderators would "reluctantly" enforce the ban, and the rest of sruu would be in blissful ignorance. Though even if they weren't ignorant, they'd assume it was all for the best.
Anyways, I'm still amused by my local Antichrist status. A teen was shot in my church just three or four years ago, there are drug dealers who hang around by the pay phone right next to it, the place was recently hit by graffiti by the local Mara Salvatrucha gang, who are based in the next block, rifle-toting RAMPART cops want to use the church as an observation post, and someone burned down the church outbuildings just a few months ago and was never caught. But I at least know that there is one virtual place where I'm the chief badass.
>BluueNikki <bluueni...@1st.net> shaped electrons to say: >>alt.religion.unitarian-univ, "Richard Puchalsky" <rpuchal...@att.net>:
>>>Now, Nikki, you are familiar with the history involved. None of this should >>>surprise you.
>><blushes> Awww. :-p :-)
>>>Try posting "I quoted Rich Puchalsky" to sruu if you want a quick review of >>>that history.
>>No thanks, I don't have the big balls Gene has. ;-)) I always respect >>people more when they push the envelope or push the buttons of the >>group-mind, to make them more honest, SRUU is not one of the places I >>want to do that. >>nikki
>Posts to ARUU have ZERO effect on privledge to SRUU.
If you are speaking officially, as opposed to in your own person, please put that in the new rules. Where the boundaries are in terms of where speech is controlled is a crucial issue.
Lynn Calvin lcal...@interaccess.com UU Discussion also available on: news://alt.religion.unitarian-univ for unmoderated discussion UU-Community email list for moderated discussion on uua.org UUS-L mailing list Holding Lisa Hadler, Rich Puchalsky, and Richard Kulisz in my thoughts.
>If this attitude is true of UUs in general, which it may well be, >then shouldn't it be stated clearly as part of the explanatory material, >in particular as a qualifier on words like 'welcoming', 'diversity', and >'honor'?
Richard Puchalsky wrote in message ... >"GENE DOUGLAS" <GENED...@prodigy.net> wrote: >> Richard Puchalsky wrote in message >> >It's a free *and responsible* search for truth and meaning that you seem >to >> >be alluding to. Toleration does not mean "Sure, go on with that human >> >sacrifice .., we don't personally believe in human sacrifice, but since >> >that's your personal spiritual journey, feel free to slit that guy's >> >throat." >> > >> The difference here is in the violation of another person's rights. Do I >> have a right not to be offended by differing beliefs? Or not to be >> affronted by another's vigorously arguing those beliefs, despite what I >> believe to be proof to the contrary? That's a lot different from >> sacrificing a human, who may not be a competent volunteer. > >Marvin was spreading false rumors that would result in people getting beaten >up. I'd say that that goes farther than vigorously arguing his beliefs. >And by the way, I don't see what the competent volunteer part has to do with >whether human sacrifice is acceptible. > In most cases, the "sacrifice" would be unwilling, and his rights are violated. If he volunteers, I suppose violation of rights isn't the issue, though something else would be. I took an ethics class once, in which I decided that we reach conclusions in our gut first, and then engage in logic to explain why. I think this is one of those cases. As one supreme court justice once said, "I know it when I see it."
Thank you! I had certainly started to fill in major portions of this jigsaw puzzle, but your post is like being able to look at the picture on the cover of the box.
I did not recognize the name Marvin, but I think that some of his very first posts may have happened before the end of my previous sruu stint (that is not what casued me to leave, however -- Interramp merged with Mindspring and I couldn't stand them and at the same time I got free T1 web access through work but with no newsgroup privilege).
John has been nice and helpful to me in the past too, and certainly has done much for UUs on-line. At the very minimum I would hope that he would take steps to reverse any impediment he might have created to this unmoderated UU newsgroup. I still enjoy sruu, and would love to see something there like the changes you indicate. Maybe when we have a more effective Secretary of State than Albright <grin>.
Lynn Calvin <lcal...@interaccess.com> shaped electrons to say:
>>Posts to ARUU have ZERO effect on privilege to SRUU. >If you are speaking officially, as opposed to in your own person, please >put that in the new rules. Where the boundaries are in terms of where >speech is controlled is a crucial issue.
I'll work up a section about ARUU and include this comment of mine.
I'd also take exception to the concept that there is prior restraint in SRUU. Moderation is *ex post facto* and still rather minimal at that. Moderators send emails when they see something that verges toward some of the undesirable behaviors. Users *DO* have the option of ignoring moderator comment, at the risk of getting a "time out" if the behavior goes too much over the lines.
-- Gregory G. "Wolfe" Woodbury `-_-' Owner/Admin: wolves.durham.nc.us ggw at wolves.durham.nc.us U Errant co-moderator of: soc.religion.unitarian-univ "The Line Eater is a boojum snark." Hug your wolf. (Thanks Peter.)
Woodbury) wrote: >Lynn Calvin <lcal...@interaccess.com> shaped electrons to say:
>>>Posts to ARUU have ZERO effect on privilege to SRUU.
>>If you are speaking officially, as opposed to in your own person, please >>put that in the new rules. Where the boundaries are in terms of where >>speech is controlled is a crucial issue.
>I'll work up a section about ARUU and include this comment of mine.
>I'd also take exception to the concept that there is prior restraint >in SRUU. Moderation is *ex post facto* and still rather minimal at >that. Moderators send emails when they see something that verges toward >some of the undesirable behaviors. Users *DO* have the option of >ignoring moderator comment, at the risk of getting a "time out" if the >behavior goes too much over the lines.
How about private E-Mail exchanges with John Levine? What effect do they have on privilege to SRUU? (I ask because I seem to be in the middle of one right now-- not inititiated by ME I assure you.)
> How about private E-Mail exchanges with John Levine? What effect do > they have on privilege to SRUU? (I ask because I seem to be in the > middle of one right now-- not inititiated by ME I assure you.)
Be careful with John, he carries a big stick.:-)
Since the other modkin aren't seeing anything from that conversation it will have no effect unless/until JL infoms us of something.
GENE DOUGLAS wrote: > As to whether it is important, that depends on whether you believe that > speech should be controlled. Especially UU speech on a UU group. Part of > the past includes a moderator, Woodbury, saying that certain groups of > people in the US should have to earn their citizenship, in a discussion of > race, and then refusing to say who he meant by that.
Talk about holding grudges! IIRC I backed off and mostly retracted that comment. Furthermore this is a false inditement (sp?) conflating my moderator role with my role as a simple participant in a discussion. I consider it an unfair burden to have to label every post with comments as to whether my comments are "official" or not, especially when you don't apply the same rules to others.
alt.religion.unitarian-univ, David Barrett <david...@pop3.concentric.net>:
>How about private E-Mail exchanges with John Levine? What effect do >they have on privilege to SRUU? (I ask because I seem to be in the >middle of one right now-- not inititiated by ME I assure you.)
David, I do believe you that JL initiated the email exchange, and I strongly suggest you drop it, or filter his personal private emails to you as he does get a bit "Heated Under His Hat", so to speak.
I am one of the few that frequently emails people off Usenet, but I always do _try_ to keep my emails polite. It was JL that also initiated email exchanges on me, and I had a serious problem with his tones. That was a long ago, and I hope never to hear from him personally again. Hugs, nikki
"BluueNikki" <bluueni...@1st.net> wrote: > <david...@pop3.concentric.net>: > >How about private E-Mail exchanges with John Levine? What effect do > >they have on privilege to SRUU? (I ask because I seem to be in the > >middle of one right now-- not inititiated by ME I assure you.)
> I am one of the few that frequently emails people off Usenet, but I > always do _try_ to keep my emails polite. It was JL that also > initiated email exchanges on me, and I had a serious problem with his > tones. That was a long ago, and I hope never to hear from him > personally again.
I got banned for Email. And the moderators re-wrote the rules so that asking Levine not to Email you any more is grounds for banning. Read the sruu FAQ, it's right there. The moderators ban anyone who quotes me, not because the moderators ever voted to ban me, but simply to carry out Levine's wishes.
So I suggest that anyone who wishes to particpate in sruu grovel to Levine whenever he Emails you. In return, you will be allowed to continue to participate in a discussion group. How does that deal sound?
