New soc.religion.unitarian-univ rules
GENE DOUGLAS
They finally got tired of violating their own rules, so they broadened them
to say, "we'll do as we damn well please." Now when they act outside of
past standards, they are within present standards.
No quote marks are on the quote below. Comments will be marked with "/" or
( ).
THE CHARTER OF SOC.RELIGION.UNITARIAN-UNIV
(section omitted)
INTRODUCTION TO SOC.RELIGION.UNITARIAN-UNIV
(section omitted)
Moderation Policy
(section omitted)
In practice, the automoderator software package will strip all
crossposting to other newsgroups from the ``Newsgroups: '' line, then
approve and insert the received articles into the newsgroup. All posts
must come from registered members. The moderators may, from time to
time, hand-moderate (i.e. review before approving) posts from some
individuals. Currently (as of early 2000) this is not being done.
(They now assume the right to censor in advance. No way for the membership
to know what was criticized, or even that it was, and no means for judgment
by the membership on fairness of the action.)
The moderation guidelines are intended mainly to regulate the "noise
level" of the newsgroup. Vigorous discussion and critical examination
of the issues raised in conversation is highly encouraged. Personal
attacks and inflammatory (flaming) remarks are not tolerated.
To these ends, here are a few "bullet points" that give examples of
the guidelines that the moderators may apply in evaluating articles
posted by the members:
(section omitted)
* Irresponsible and blatant disrespect for other members may result
in a cooling-off, or, in extreme cases, banning from posting to
the newsgroup.
(There they've justified what they did to Rich. However, they did that
before there was ever a rule saying they could. And the moderators have
denied that they ever did, blaming the action on a person, John Levine, who
isn't a moderator at all. Yet, they support his action just the same.)
Sanctions may be imposed by the moderators with the
overall history of the posters activities, it will not matter that
many or most postings are not abusive, any pattern of abuse may
result in moderator action.
(Here they don't even need to find the current post sufficiently offensive
to justify their response. They can refer to their overall opinion of the
person who is posting, and their past differences with him.)
Abuse is not exhaustively defined - a principle of ``we know it
when we see it'' will be applied. Without long laundry lists of
things defined as abuse, a feeling of what might be acceptable to
the community and the moderation team is the operative definition.
Examples of abuse might include:
(Now they don't even need rules. They can go by their feeling of what
somebody else might be thinking. And they don't need to say what abuse is.
It's whatever they feel it is at the moment. In the past, they have said
that my inclusion of the alt.group's address in a message, or even in my
signature, was "spamming." Just make up a definition of their own.
* Threats
* Personally directed invective against other posters or their
friends, families, or associates.
* Circumventing the moderation system or assisting others in the
circumvention of the moderation system.
(I wonder. Does that including posting on a different group, such as this
one?)
* Use of email to harass or abuse newsgroup members.
* Explicit or vulgar language is not forbidden. However, the use of
such language may tip the balance when considered in combination
with other factors.
The guidelines will be applied with a liberal interpretation in
sympathy with the Principles of the UUA. The principles are taken as
statements of intent, not statements of law.
(In the past, their liberal interpretation has been in contradiction with
UUA principles.)
Administrative communications, such as comments, complaints and
inquiries, should be mailed to the moderators, and not posted to the
group.
(In that way, when a moderator is being a jackass, nobody should know, and
he and they, can continue to be jackasses. Better they should posted here,
where everybody can make their own judgment.)
Posting requires that the member accept occasional e-mails from the
moderators. Refusal of email from the moderators, or reporting them to
their ISPs may be grounds for cooling or banning.
Since Usenet is a communications medium, you should be open to email
dialog as a response to your posting. If such email turn into
harassing or illegal activity, the matter should be reported to the
moderators or the offender's ISP for action or assistance.
Warning e-mail from a moderator is defined as not being harassment.
Complaints about e-mail from moderators should be sent to:
so that the rest of the moderators may evaluate any claims about other
moderators' actions.
As of Monday April 26, 1999, there is a ``moratorium''[2] on
meta-discussion in the newsgroup.[3] Such discussion is a constant
generator of complaints to (and about) the moderators, and most
newsgroups members who have given the moderators their opinion about
such discussions have stated that they want it to stop appearing in
the newsgroup. A new mailing list for such policy discussion is
available from the moderation site. The sruu-policy mailing list is
handled by the majordomo[4] server at iecc.com. To subscribe send a
message to the address:
(And of course, if the moderators don't approve of statements sent to the
mailing list, they have the technical ability to remove them. And they have
also asserted above, the willingness to censor in advance. Better to post
on aruu, where nobody will mess with your right to say it.
that contains a command of the form:
subscribe sruu-policy your_email_address
end
If you would rather receive the messages as a daily digest, substitute
sruu-policy-digest into the command given. This begins the usual
mailing list subscription dialog process. You will be asked to confirm
your request for the mailing list, and then the message will be
processed and you will begin receiving messages from the mailing list
shortly thereafter.
Additional comments about netiquette are included below in this
document.
Moderation Procedures
The moderators read all postings in the newsgroup. When they notice
unacceptable conduct by a group member as a first step, they will send
e-mail warnings. (Failure to accept the mail, or the discovery that an
email address is not valid will result in posting privleges being
suspended until the e-mail address works again.)
If the moderators don't seem to be on their toes, and posters see
unacceptable behavior occurring, email may be sent to:
to bring it to their attention. This address sends to all the
moderators.
Stage two moderation, when posters fail to voluntarily behave
themselves in response to e-mail from the moderators, consists of
fixed-term, progressive "time-out" intervals. These intervals apply to
all postings from the person during the time-out period.
Two or more moderators must agree to impose a time-out on a member.
Time-out nominations from a single moderator expire after three days.
The first time-out assigned is 3-days long. During the time-out, all
postings from the e-mail address of the member are rejected by the
mod-bot. Rejected postings will be returned to the sender by email.
A second time-out within a 1-year period increases the length of the
timeout to 1 week. Each subsequent time-out within a 1-year window is
a week longer than the previous one, up to a maximum of 3 months.
After one year of no time-outs, the length of the time-out for any
given member is reset to 3-days.
This table shows the cooling off times for each time-out within a
year:
first 3 days
second 1 week
third 2 weeks
fourth 3 weeks
fifth 4 weeks
. . . . . .
fourteenth 13 weeks
Members placed in time-out are notified via e-mail. No public
announcements of actions taken will be made in the newsgroup. [6]
Usenet and Internet e-mail occasionally lose messages, and the
moderators can have no control over what happens to messages on their
way to or from the moderation system. Notification will be done on a
best-effort basis.
Why Auto-Moderation?
The concept of an auto-moderator was talked about for a long time on
Usenet. This group was the first formal USENET group to actually use
an automoderator program (the mod-bot) for its operation.
The auto-moderation method was proposed and approved due to a
sense-of-the-net feeling that another un-moderated soc.religion
newsgroup would not be approved by the Usenet powers-that-be[7], and
yet the "character" of a UU newsgroup would be best achieved by as
minimal a set of moderation policies as possible. The current
auto-moderation software attempts to meet this goal; allowing posts to
occur nearly as freely as an unmoderated group with minimal delay, yet
allowing the newsgroup readership and moderators to protect the group
from deliberate or inadvertent attacks of spamming, abusive members or
other net.mayhem.
(Such as John Levine's forging an unfavorable description of the alt. group
which would then be read by prospective subscribers, even though he was not
involved in its formation, and was actually opposed to it.)
Since the creation of this newsgroup, other newsgroups have developed
automated moderation methods, and a number of auto-moderation software
packages are available for use.
The Cast and Crew of Soc.Religion.Unitarian-Univ
The current moderators of s.r.u-u are:
Lance A. Brown bro...@niehs.nih.gov
Holli Emore holli...@mindspring.com
Michael Tino shar...@eruuf.org
Gregory "Wolfe" Woodbury g...@wolves.durham.nc.us
(Not a commendable lot.)
-
GeneDou...@prodigy.net
Spammer bait: postm...@prodigy.net postm...@compuserve.com
postm...@aol.com
--
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.
--
Just because you're paranoid, it doesn't mean they're NOT out to get you...
--
DEATH to all fanatics.
--
BluueNikki
> Abuse is not exhaustively defined - a principle of ``we know it
> when we see it'' will be applied. Without long laundry lists of
> things defined as abuse, a feeling of what might be acceptable to
> the community and the moderation team is the operative definition.
> Examples of abuse might include:
>
>(Now they don't even need rules. They can go by their feeling of what
>somebody else might be thinking. And they don't need to say what abuse is.
>It's whatever they feel it is at the moment. In the past, they have said
>that my inclusion of the alt.group's address in a message, or even in my
>signature, was "spamming." Just make up a definition of their own.
Gene, if that is true, then the modkins are doing what is the biggest
pet peeve of mine: ASSUMPTIONS. I do think the modkins are smart
enough that they cannot assume what one is saying or thinking when one
posted whatever opinions, even if a post may "irk" them, they have to
be willing to see past that and try not to assume anything. Easier
said than done, though......but still, I do expect that from them.
However, the idea that modkins may not even recognize their own
assumptions scares the crap out of me-- does that mean I cannot
constructively criticize anyone anymore in SRUU? Does it mean I
have to walk on eggshells in SRUU? Does it mean I cannot point out
one's faults in their reasonings when I see it? :-(
Just curious.
nikki
Richard Puchalsky
> Gene, if that is true, ...
Now, Nikki, you are familiar with the history involved. None of this should
surprise you.
Try posting "I quoted Rich Puchalsky" to sruu if you want a quick review of
that history.
BluueNikki
>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
G. Wolfe Woodbury
Posts to ARUU have ZERO effect on privledge to SRUU.
--
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.)
Dirk Coburn
is about as minimal as one can be, and that the moderators are human but
well-intentioned and fairly broad-minded. There certainly was not this issue
when I last frequented the groups in 1995-97. I have just come back in the last
couple of weeks. Can someone update me on what has changed the discussion of
moderation? Is it a specific event? A specific change in moderator? A widely
acknowledged issue? Or one that interests mostly those of us (I am one often,
but I guess maybe not as regards sruu) who reflexively envision improvements to
a process or system, sometimes without giving as much weight as others to
considerations of practicality? I am not taking sides or making judgments or
trying to provoke invective, but rather looking to know the context of this
discussion. Thanks for any help you can provide.
--Dirk
Greg Shenaut
One of the fastest ways to get this question answered is to ask it on s.r.u-u,
especially if you also ask what what in the heck a.r.u-u regular Rich Puchalsky
could have to do with it.
Greg Shenaut
Dirk Coburn
do. That is why I asked the question here. If it is something that involving Rich,
and if he does not care to share it, that is also fine.
BluueNikki
cannot post there) then go for it. You may also want to look into
the archives of ARUU (please check out Gene D.'s sig file for the URL)
and see what posts there are on the moderation.....there has been
several posts/discussions here on this topic in the past...please
check it out before you do anything at SRUU. I would hate to see you
moderated. Also the discussions here may help you decide how you feel
about the whole issue. Good Luck, Dirk!
nikki
Richard Puchalsky
> From the context of your initial post in the thread, I am not sure this is
what I will
> do. That is why I asked the question here. If it is something that
involving Rich,
> and if he does not care to share it, that is also fine.
>
If you don't want to go through Dejanews, simply post "I quoted Rich
Puchalsky" to s.r.uu, or any identifiable quote of mine. My name is a magic
incantation that will summon the history to you. Surely you couldn't get in
any trouble for simply mentioning my name, or asking about moderation
policy, on s.r.uu -- could you? That doesn't sound very reasonable.
Dirk Coburn
some information to my e-mail address. It does seem to me that I was being
invited to trigger unwittingly a reaction based on what Gene and Rich know and I
don't. Whatever may have happened on sruu and however one may agree or disagree
with it, that seems a poor way to treat people who are new to the issues and
might be sympathetic or might not.
I have looked through the moderation documents and I find them reasonable. As
with almost any constitutional/statutory system, they are open to human error.
I do not know if that was the case here, and I will not take the opaque
suggestions that have been offered by Gene and Rich as to how to find out if it
was the case. These are voluntary associations, not the stuff of which tyranny
is made. And not the stuff that calls for sagebrush rebellions.
Peace
--Dirk
Richard Puchalsky
> Sorry I asked. I guess I was a little naive. Thank you to those who have
sent
> some information to my e-mail address. It does seem to me that I was
being
> invited to trigger unwittingly a reaction based on what Gene and Rich know
and I
> don't. Whatever may have happened on sruu and however one may agree or
disagree
> with it, that seems a poor way to treat people who are new to the issues
and
> might be sympathetic or might not.
Unwittingly? After Nikki explicitly warned you what would happen? And
after the s.r.uu moderation documents explicitly tell you what will happen
if you start discussing moderation? And after we told you that the whole
story was on Dejanews if you cared to look?
Like most people who write "Peace" after every post, you are simply being
arrogant and trying to play the victim at the same time.
Dirk Coburn
annoys you. I can understand that. But if you look at my experience here, the
invitations by you and Gene to go try something feels more like you want not to
inform and persuade me as it does that you want me to experience something
unpleasant and get angry, letting my emotion do the job.
Richard Puchalsky wrote:
> "Dirk Coburn" <dirkc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> > Sorry I asked. I guess I was a little naive. Thank you to those who have
> sent
> > some information to my e-mail address. It does seem to me that I was
> being
> > invited to trigger unwittingly a reaction based on what Gene and Rich know
> and I
> > don't. Whatever may have happened on sruu and however one may agree or
> disagree
> > with it, that seems a poor way to treat people who are new to the issues
> and
> > might be sympathetic or might not.
>
> Unwittingly? After Nikki explicitly warned you what would happen? And
> after the s.r.uu moderation documents explicitly tell you what will happen
> if you start discussing moderation? And after we told you that the whole
> story was on Dejanews if you cared to look?
Yes unwittingly. I have spent a lot of time looking through the Dejanews
archive (which is slower than molasses in February) under "moderation" and have
still not found the answer to my original inquiry, nor the "whole story."
Someone was timed out for something, and informed people like you have neither
answered what that was nor said forthrightly "let's not go into that now."
Nikki very kindly and indeed "explicitly" warned me in a private message not to
take the invitation to post as suggested on sruu at face value, but her mail did
not tell me "explicitly" what would happen; she implied that I might be
moderated out. Her helpful message confirmed my instinct that your post and
Gene's were not particularly respectful of my request but instead sought to make
me an "unwitting" tool of working out your problems with whatever it is that
caused your problems -- I still don't know. If your behavior toward me here,
when I ask with reasonable calm and an open mind for information, is anything
like what triggered whatever action by the moderators you decry, then I am still
not sure what I think about your issue about moderation. But I know that I want
to trust you more than I do trust you now.
>
>
> Like most people who write "Peace" after every post, you are simply being
> arrogant and trying to play the victim at the same time.
In fact, you have it backward. I chose that post in particular as apt for a
conclusive "Peace" to signal that I did not want to polarize and get into
flaming. Other times, when I am trying to advance a polar position I do not say
"Peace." I am trying to be open-minded and yet trying to evaluate the
incomplete information I have been shown so as not to form a preclusive opinion
or take any premature action, either of which *would* indicate arrogance. I am
not a victim. I abhor victimology. I think you may be angry that I did not
make myself the victim of your opponents.
So if you don't like "Peace" how about "I don't trust you yet" then. Or better
"let's try to respect each other." Those are honest. I hope we can get past
this.
Dirk Coburn
post. The rest of my post stands.
Richard Puchalsky
> Rich, you may have discussed this to the point where a newcomer's
learning curve
> annoys you. I can understand that.
>
> So if you don't like "Peace" how about "I don't trust you yet" then. Or
better
> "let's try to respect each other." Those are honest. I hope we can get
past
> this.
>
A lot more honest than "Peace" ! At least the first alternate meaning.
Maybe you can get one of the other regulars to summarize the incidents for
you. Suffice it to say that every long-term poster here is here because of
principled disagreement with s.r.uu moderation. You should be able to ask
each of them for their own particular reason(s). I myself not only disagree
with s.r.uu moderation, I am banned for life from posting on s.r.uu, and the
moderators will temporarily ban anyone who quotes anything I write on any
subject, or even anyone who mentions my name. I invite you to decide for
yourself whether this is reasonable moderation policy.
If you read the current, official s.r.uu moderation policies carefully, you
will see that there are all sorts of unmentionable topics on that group.
Those s.r.uu policies had to be re-written three times, because the
moderators kept taking actions that were contrary to the charter and
policies, and felt the need to justify themselves later by changing the
policies to match the actions they had already taken.
Dirk Coburn
Richard Puchalsky wrote:
(snip)
>
> Maybe you can get one of the other regulars to summarize the incidents for
> you. Suffice it to say that every long-term poster here is here because of
> principled disagreement with s.r.uu moderation. You should be able to ask
> each of them for their own particular reason(s). I myself not only disagree
> with s.r.uu moderation, I am banned for life from posting on s.r.uu, and the
> moderators will temporarily ban anyone who quotes anything I write on any
> subject, or even anyone who mentions my name. I invite you to decide for
> yourself whether this is reasonable moderation policy.
Without knowing the history, banning for life certainly seems extreme. I know I
would hate that, and I am sorry it is the case for you. In fact, if your
behavior would convince me that the penalty was just, I guess I really don't
want to know about it. It is likely that either your cause deserves my support
or you should understudy for Anthony Hopkins in the stage version of Silence of
the Lambs? :-) (please step back from the bars when we talk <grin>)
One thing you should be aware of is that aruu will undoubtedly attract more like
me who have no idea of the history, and who are not here because of a problem
with sruu but rather because we saw aruu on the subscription list and wanted to
subscribe to both. This is probably a good thing, because it will help aruu be
more than just alt.sruu.problems.moderation. Not to that such topics are out of
place.
>
>
> If you read the current, official s.r.uu moderation policies carefully, you
> will see that there are all sorts of unmentionable topics on that group.
> Those s.r.uu policies had to be re-written three times, because the
> moderators kept taking actions that were contrary to the charter and
> policies, and felt the need to justify themselves later by changing the
> policies to match the actions they had already taken.
BTW, thank you for directing me to the archive, as slow and frustrating as it
is. I saw some names I remember from four and five years ago that were still
around to discuss moderation last year. Marie Houck, Gila Jones, Lisa Hadler.
Do any of them still pop up here? 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.
--Dirk
BluueNikki
>Marie Houck, Gila Jones, Lisa Hadler.
>Do any of them still pop up here? 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.
Dirk, sad to say, from what little I have found out, Lisa has decided
to leave the UU newsgroups for good. Have not heard from Marie Houck
as of late and Gila Jones decided to "leave" SRUU for a reason I
forgot. Probably to do with the fact that things "got ugly" for a
while last year.
I checked my outbox....I sent you no private email on this topic.
nikki
Dirk Coburn
decision in the archive since I posted. I hope she tries again, since I find
the groups on balance quite civil -- comparable to the last time I followed sruu
4-5 years ago. I met Gila at GA in either Fort Worth or Indianapolis, I forget
which.
When I started then, there were a couple of great old dyed-in-the-wool
rationalist humanists, both men, who had wonderful threads. They left when a
lot of spiritual threads started popping up. I miss them too.
As for the private mail message, I had a bot script harvesting newsgroup
responses in threads I had joined to my e-mail for a few days recently. But it
choked on a cross posted message and I removed it.
GENE DOUGLAS
Look at Rich Puchalski's website linked on the Deja portal (below). That's
probably the beginning. He was banned for life, by a non-moderator, John
Levine, who just happens to own the equipment and software. Moderators have
denied being able to do anything about it, but have since supported the
action. Now they have formalized it.
There was a lot of argument on the group, and they made a rule that you
can't criticize moderators or talk about group norms on the group. They
created a mail list for that, over which they have complete control.
I have defied the moderator's violating of their own rule several times, and
the last time I think I was kicked off the group for a dozen weeks or so.
Now they are hinting that they might just ban a person for life based, not
on his present actions, but past actions as well. In other words, they are
polishing their jackboots and perfecting the hobnails, zo ass to haff
komplete kontrrol.
Dirk Coburn wrote in message <38F216CC...@earthlink.net>...
>I have always thought (in part assumed, I guess) that the sruu moderation
system
>is about as minimal as one can be, and that the moderators are human but
>well-intentioned and fairly broad-minded. There certainly was not this
issue
>when I last frequented the groups in 1995-97. I have just come back in
the last
>couple of weeks. Can someone update me on what has changed the discussion
of
>moderation? Is it a specific event? A specific change in moderator? A
widely
>acknowledged issue? Or one that interests mostly those of us (I am one
often,
>but I guess maybe not as regards sruu) who reflexively envision
improvements to
>a process or system, sometimes without giving as much weight as others to
>considerations of practicality? I am not taking sides or making judgments
or
>trying to provoke invective, but rather looking to know the context of
this
>discussion. Thanks for any help you can provide.
>
>--Dirk
--
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...
--
GENE DOUGLAS
Dirk Coburn wrote in message <38F31D9C...@earthlink.net>...
cut
>
>I have looked through the moderation documents and I find them
reasonable. As
>with almost any constitutional/statutory system, they are open to human
error.
>I do not know if that was the case here, and I will not take the opaque
>suggestions that have been offered by Gene and Rich as to how to find out
if it
>was the case. These are voluntary associations, not the stuff of which
tyranny
>is made. And not the stuff that calls for sagebrush rebellions.
>
>Peace
>--Dirk
The moderation rules are not reasonable if you read between the lines, if
you know the cast of characters, and some history of what they have done.
Also, if you read the previous charter, and the one before that, and see how
it is drifted in this direction, you will see them tightening up the noose.
Incidentally, moderators are not chosen by the membership, they are chosen
by each other.
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.
Another element is a poster named Marvin who used to make conservative
arguments on the group, and attracted a lot of argument from people who
couldn't let him alone. The Final Solution was to just say that Marvin
should just shut up.
--
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...
--
GENE DOUGLAS
Dirk Coburn wrote in message <38F35E83...@earthlink.net>...
>Rich, you may have discussed this to the point where a newcomer's learning
curve
>annoys you. I can understand that. But if you look at my experience
here, the
>invitations by you and Gene to go try something
I haven't told you to try anything. But a couple of people have warned you
what will happen if you do. And that includes the moderators themselves.
feels more like you want not to
>inform and persuade me as it does that you want me to experience
something
>unpleasant and get angry, letting my emotion do the job.
Only if a 3-day freeze-out would get your goat.
Click on the Deja portal below, and then click on "Rich Puchalski."
>Someone was timed out for something, and informed people like you have
neither
>answered what that was nor said forthrightly "let's not go into that now."
>Nikki very kindly and indeed "explicitly" warned me in a private message
not to
>take the invitation to post as suggested on sruu at face value, but her
mail did
>not tell me "explicitly" what would happen; she implied that I might be
>moderated out. Her helpful message confirmed my instinct that your post
and
>Gene's were not particularly respectful of my request but instead sought
to make
>me an "unwitting" tool of working out your problems with whatever it is
that
>caused your problems -- I still don't know.
I repeat -- I didn't tell you to do anything.
If your behavior toward me here,
>when I ask with reasonable calm and an open mind for information, is
anything
>like what triggered whatever action by the moderators you decry, then I am
still
>not sure what I think about your issue about moderation. But I know that
I want
>to trust you more than I do trust you now.
>
>>
>>
>> Like most people who write "Peace" after every post, you are simply being
>> arrogant and trying to play the victim at the same time.
>
>In fact, you have it backward. I chose that post in particular as apt for
a
>conclusive "Peace" to signal that I did not want to polarize and get into
>flaming. Other times, when I am trying to advance a polar position I do
not say
>"Peace." I am trying to be open-minded and yet trying to evaluate the
>incomplete information I have been shown so as not to form a preclusive
opinion
>or take any premature action, either of which *would* indicate arrogance.
I am
>not a victim. I abhor victimology. I think you may be angry that I did
not
>make myself the victim of your opponents.
>
>So if you don't like "Peace" how about "I don't trust you yet" then. Or
better
>"let's try to respect each other." Those are honest. I hope we can get
past
>this.
--
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...
--
sarah clark
Richard Puchalsky wrote:
<snip>
> Wasn't it Pat Robertson who said that the Antichrist was a "living Jewish
> male" ?
Jerry falwell, i could not believe it. he also stated the antichrist was
teaching at harvard,
then he asked alan dercowitz why he couldnt take a joke.
> According to the sruu moderators, I have demonic powers that are so
> severe that even my name may not be mentioned.
this is just dumb. and not what i think of as uu, not
having gone thru the history yet, it strikes me as extreme.
Richard Puchalsky
> Dirk, sad to say, from what little I have found out, Lisa has decided
> to leave the UU newsgroups for good.
She never posted here, but I wouldn't characterize her leaving of s.r.uu as
voluntary. She was tossed out because she refused to toe the line, and
because the moderators didn't like her anti-UU comments and so decided to
censor her.
"Toe the line" in this case meant that the moderators demanded the right to
send her abusive Email while receiving none in return. She also said that
she'd write a letter to the World, which the moderators promptly classed as
an "illegal threat". For all I know they complained to her ISP.
Now you know why I don't like reviewing this history. It's incredibly
tawdry, and the moderators claim to be representatives of the UU general
will.
Richard Puchalsky
> Without knowing the history, banning for life certainly seems extreme. I
know I
> would hate that, and I am sorry it is the case for you. In fact, if your
> behavior would convince me that the penalty was just, I guess I really
don't
> want to know about it. It is likely that either your cause deserves my
support
> or you should understudy for Anthony Hopkins in the stage version of
Silence of
> the Lambs? :-) (please step back from the bars when we talk <grin>)
Wasn't it Pat Robertson who said that the Antichrist was a "living Jewish
male" ? According to the sruu moderators, I have demonic powers that are so
severe that even my name may not be mentioned.
Well, it's flattering in a certain way, but it does seem a bit overboard to
not just ban me, but to ban anyone who even mentions me. Gene Douglas has
been (temporarily) banned from sruu at least four times simply for quoting a
paragraph from one of my non-controversial aruu posts.
But I'm not recruiting support for a cause. I consider the sruu moderators
to be amply punished -- they have to be themselves. SRUU itself doesn't
need our protection; the people there are satisfied with the state of
affairs and enjoy the restrictions on freedom of speech that keep them
feeling nice. The only thing I'm still concerned about is that people may
think that sruu is representative of UUism as a whole -- or even worse, that
it may actually *be* representative of UUism as a whole.
>
> One thing you should be aware of is that aruu will undoubtedly attract
more like
> me who have no idea of the history, and who are not here because of a
problem
> with sruu but rather because we saw aruu on the subscription list and
wanted to
> subscribe to both. This is probably a good thing, because it will help
aruu be
> more than just alt.sruu.problems.moderation. Not to that such topics are
out of
> place.
>
We don't really spend all our time tlaking about sruu moderation here.
Every now and then, they do something new, Gene posts about it, and there is
another round of posts about it.
As for explaining the history each time -- well, there's a reason that no
one wants to do it.
BluueNikki
prairienet.org said that she is "leaving"....I took it to mean that
she is leaving Voluntarily. However, I checked her out and found she
is on another ISP. You may be correct....she was kicked off one ISP.
Rich, I thought she was a troll, causing trouble for SRUU posters.
JMHO.
However, that is not the issue here. Dirk, I do recommend you do a
little research on SRUU moderation history and form your own
conclusions and go from there. DejaNews is not known for its easy
navigation! :-(
alt.religion.unitarian-univ, "Richard Puchalsky" <rpuch...@att.net>:
>She never posted here, but I wouldn't characterize her leaving of s.r.uu as
>voluntary. She was tossed out because she refused to toe the line, and
nikki
Richard Puchalsky
> Well, I am unsure about that. One of her last messages under ISP
> prairienet.org said that she is "leaving"....I took it to mean that
> she is leaving Voluntarily. However, I checked her out and found she
> is on another ISP. You may be correct....she was kicked off one ISP.
I don't think that she was actually kicked off her ISP, it's much more
likely that she just left. I do think that the moderators likely wrote to
her ISP. They at least threatened to. But I certainly don't think that you
could characterize her leaving sruu as voluntary.
> Rich, I thought she was a troll, causing trouble for SRUU posters.
> JMHO.
Her "causing trouble" mainly seemed to consist of writing things that sruu
regulars didn't like. The sruu people then supported the moderators in
censoring her. Wouldn't the world be nice if we could just silence everyone
we didn't like? :-:
SRUU's charter specifically said that auto-moderation was going to be used
to stop spam and cross-posting -- not to regulate content. The faint-hearts
on SRUU decided that they wanted a junta to regulate content as well. They
got one. Now their troublemakers have been disappeared, and they're all
happy.
Richard Puchalsky
> Look at Rich Puchalski's website linked on the Deja portal (below).
When I moved from one ISP to another, I stopped maintaining that site. I
don't think it's worth my time to keep up a Web page on the sruu junta. Now
that the members of sruu have firmly come down on the side of censorship,
it's pointless. Since it's pointless, I'd rather not have a linkable site
that could be used by a non-UU to denigrate UUsim.
Dirk Coburn
overheated and down on "hypocritical" UUs compared to UCCs, expressing herself
in ways that went beyond polite disdain and into sometimes extreme invective.
Then she would calm down for a while. Usually, however, she had something
interesting to say.
Saw a bunch of great attempted posts by you in the archives, BTW.
Richard Puchalsky wrote:
> "BluueNikki" <bluue...@1st.net> wrote:
> > Dirk, sad to say, from what little I have found out, Lisa has decided
> > to leave the UU newsgroups for good.
>
> She never posted here, but I wouldn't characterize her leaving of s.r.uu as
> voluntary. She was tossed out because she refused to toe the line, and
BluueNikki
>Her "causing trouble" mainly seemed to consist of writing things that sruu
>regulars didn't like. The sruu people then supported the moderators in
>censoring her. Wouldn't the world be nice if we could just silence everyone
>we didn't like? :-:
That would be nice, Rich, but its not what I want. My opinion of LH
is strictly my own, and I own that opinion. It, in no way, makes me
want to "silence" her. :-) Everywhere I go, Rich, there will be
people I am not gonna like at all, or have "low opinions" of...but
does it make me want to shut them up? Naaaah! ;-) If I don't like
what they say, I could just ignore them. :->
nikki
BluueNikki
will be a lot more in SRUU and ARUU there.
nikki
Ed B.
In the case of Marvin it was not that he posted conservative opinions.
He had one favorite topic that he knew nothing about. He constantly
posted misinformation about that topic. He consistently ignored
citations of fact, lied about what he had said, continually repeated
himself then contradicted himself and deliberately mischaracterized what
other people had said.
The moderators did nothing about that.
The group tried to ignore his posts but he would then introduce his
tired old misinformation into another thread that had nothing to do with
the subject.
We tried arguing with him and pointing out where and why he was wrong in
what he was saying but it did no good, he continued to repost things
that had already been disproved.
In desperation a group of posters got together and wrote a disclaimer
that was posted in response to each one of Marvin's posts to alert
newcomers that Marvin did not represent the opinion of the other
posters. The alternative would have been to continue arguing with
Marvin and we were tired of that.
Marvin, seeing that he was getting nowhere, finally gave up and left.
It was not the moderators' doing.
--
Love and Peace Ed B.
"The sun can play tricks with your eyes on the highway
The moon can lay sideways till the ocean stands still
but a person can't tell his best friend he loves him
Till time has stopped breathing you're alone on the hill."
John Prine "He Was In Heaven Before He Died"
Dirk Coburn
sarah clark
"Ed B." wrote:
<snip>
>
> Marvin, seeing that he was getting nowhere, finally gave up and left.
> It was not the moderators' doing.
so it is YOU have driven him to pollute talk.origins!
Ed B.
>
> "Ed B." wrote:
> <snip>
>
> >
> > Marvin, seeing that he was getting nowhere, finally gave up and left.
> > It was not the moderators' doing.
>
> so it is YOU have driven him to pollute talk.origins!
Is that really the name of a newsgroup? If it is, and if we are talking
about the same Marvin, then yes, I am part of the group that caused him
to leave. After close to a year of his one note symphony, being tired
of seeing others leave rather than put up with his antics, we decided to
do something about it.
Greg Shenaut
> We tried arguing with him and pointing out where and why he was wrong in
> what he was saying but it did no good, he continued to repost things
> that had already been disproved.
> In desperation a group of posters got together and wrote a disclaimer
> that was posted in response to each one of Marvin's posts to alert
> newcomers that Marvin did not represent the opinion of the other
> posters. The alternative would have been to continue arguing with
> Marvin and we were tired of that.
> Marvin, seeing that he was getting nowhere, finally gave up and left.
> It was not the moderators' doing.
Personally, I was offended by that action of the s.r.u-u group much
more than I was by anything Marvin ever did. In fact, to me the
most annoying action of Marvin was to keep creating new threads
instead of staying in one or two--this created the impression that
the group was overwhelmingly devoted to his threads, while in fact,
as was pointed out, he was basically a one trick pony. (His
explanation was that he was using a newsreader that didn't handle
threads.)
This also made it hard for people to ignore his one or two logical
threads, because there would often be five or six different titles,
with new ones coming into existence daily--this difficulty was
undoubtedly part of the reason why people were so upset.
I think that Marvin's main issue was never really dealt with, btw.
He was pointing out that even though UUs claim to honor diversity
and to be inclusionary, some people are unwelcome in UU churches
because of their beliefs. I think that is true, and that many UUs
lack a kind of critical self-inspection that can prevent them from
acknowledging it. The actions of s.r.u-u, both with respect to
Marvin *and* with respect to moderation, illustrate this hypocrisy,
IMHO.
Greg Shenaut
Ed B.
That was what Marvin claimed to be the issue. If you read all his
messages in their entirety that proved to be false. Marvin claimed he
had to resign from his congregation because they wouldn't give in to his
minority opinion that same gender marriages should not be performed in
any congregation in a public manner and that Gay and Lesbian couples
should not show their affection in a public way because it was wrong to
show children that Gay men and Lesbians were normal.
sarah clark
"Ed B." wrote:
> sarah clark wrote:
> >
> > "Ed B." wrote:
> > <snip>
> >
> > >
> > > Marvin, seeing that he was getting nowhere, finally gave up and left.
> > > It was not the moderators' doing.
> >
> > so it is YOU have driven him to pollute talk.origins!
>
> Is that really the name of a newsgroup?
yes, it is, it is about the origins of life. the cretionists were
tying up sci.bio.evolution so t.o was created. it is kind of a
rough group but it is home!
but you can imagine marvin is out of place there.
> If it is, and if we are talking
> about the same Marvin, then yes, I am part of the group that caused him
> to leave. After close to a year of his one note symphony, being tired
> of seeing others leave rather than put up with his antics, we decided to
> do something about it.
well, pretty much anyone can talk about anything there.
marvin just popped in yesterday, that is why i asked. i
told the inmates to ignore him.
>
Ed B.
Well, Sarah, I went and took a look at that newsgroup. Quite a few
prolific writers there! Almost 2300 messages in April alone! Just for
the record the Marvin that began posting yesterday is a different
Marvin. He left sruu over a year ago. I know he was posting somewhere
else after that but I don't remember where.
Richard Puchalsky
> Greg Shenaut wrote:
> > I think that Marvin's main issue was never really dealt with, btw.
> > He was pointing out that even though UUs claim to honor diversity
> > and to be inclusionary, some people are unwelcome in UU churches
> > because of their beliefs. I think that is true, and that many UUs
> > lack a kind of critical self-inspection that can prevent them from
> > acknowledging it. The actions of s.r.u-u, both with respect to
> > Marvin *and* with respect to moderation, illustrate this hypocrisy,
> > IMHO.
>
> That was what Marvin claimed to be the issue. If you read all his
> messages in their entirety that proved to be false. Marvin claimed he
> had to resign from his congregation because they wouldn't give in to his
> minority opinion that same gender marriages should not be performed in
> any congregation in a public manner and that Gay and Lesbian couples
> should not show their affection in a public way because it was wrong to
> show children that Gay men and Lesbians were normal.
>
I don't like all of this talk about someone who isn't here, but since it's
been brought up, I should make a few points of fact:
1. Marvin leaving the group had nothing to do with the moderators. They
never banned him.
2. I don't think the "pledge" posted after Marvin's posts had any effect on
making him leave either. I think that he left after finally getting bored
of saying the same thing over and over.
3. Marvin was not just a homophobe (they aren't rare), he also spread a
rumor about gay people that would clearly have the effect of getting gay
people beaten up. Marvin's rumor was similar to the "blood libels" used in
medieval anti-Semitism.
4. I never supported banning Marvin, but I considered it to be perfectly
acceptible to tell him off. The moderators banned me for telling him off,
since I was being insulting and Marvin was being "polite".
I disagree with Greg Shenaut's implication that a commitment to diversity
would mean welcoming people no matter what their beliefs. We don't work to
have a non-racist congregation and then invite a few Ku Klux Klan members to
join so that we will have more of a diversity of belief between racists and
non-racists. Some beliefs are just cause for rejecting the person holding
the beliefs.
So does that mean that the moderators should have banned Marvin? No. A
congregation is not a Usenet group, and the moderators had no business
moderating for either content or style, according to the charter. Instead
they embarked on a series of ad hoc actions and revisions, none following
the then-existing rules or simple rules of fairness. Given that they were
determined to break the rules, I find it very revealing of their mindset
that they chose to find style objectionable rather than content.
Of course they started trying to censor content later, as when Greg Woodbury
tried to get someone's personal Web site taken down because it denigrated
UUism and was on a University personal Web site area.
David Barrett
<rpuch...@att.net> wrote:
>
>I disagree with Greg Shenaut's implication that a commitment to diversity
>would mean welcoming people no matter what their beliefs. We don't work to
>have a non-racist congregation and then invite a few Ku Klux Klan members to
>join so that we will have more of a diversity of belief between racists and
>non-racists. Some beliefs are just cause for rejecting the person holding
>the beliefs.
That argument does not address the issue of whether we claim to have a
greater commitment to diversity than we in fact have. 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.
Dave Barrett
Dirk Coburn
diversity is real. With regard to the "isms" the question is not diversity but
inclusion. Will we include and work with people who many of us believe need to
work through a journey from where they are to a better place? I personally think
that there is some reasonable limit on inclusion in one's own church. This gets
back to the spirituality/politics issue. Church should IMO nurture the spiritual
strength to go out and deal with prejudicial isms and phobias in an appropriately
loving and constructive way, and also in a confrontative way where that is
appropriate. But that work may be best done in the political arena outside our
spiritual community.
Ed B.
>
> On Fri, 14 Apr 2000 01:37:56 GMT, "Richard Puchalsky"
> <rpuch...@att.net> wrote:
> >
> >I disagree with Greg Shenaut's implication that a commitment to diversity
> >would mean welcoming people no matter what their beliefs. We don't work to
> >have a non-racist congregation and then invite a few Ku Klux Klan members to
> >join so that we will have more of a diversity of belief between racists and
> >non-racists. Some beliefs are just cause for rejecting the person holding
> >the beliefs.
>
> That argument does not address the issue of whether we claim to have a
> greater commitment to diversity than we in fact have. 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.
It is not a question of being tolerant of homophobes and racists. In my
experience we are tolerant of them. Marvin, a former poster to sruu and
the person the last few posts have been speaking of, was not just
homophobic. That part of him, although not to my liking, was
tolerable. What was not tolerable was his insistence that his
congregation not allow public same gender marriages because they made
him uncomfortable. He also said that same gender couples should not
openly share celebrations of their life together during "Joys and
Concerns" because it would be sending the "wrong" message to children.
At one point he also said he would be reluctant to let Gay men and
Lesbians teach in RE classes. He resigned his membership in his
congregation because they didn't give in to his homophobic demands.
Greg Shenaut
> David Barrett wrote:
>> But if ... 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.
> It is not a question of being tolerant of homophobes and racists. In my
> experience we are tolerant of them.
This is not what I have observed (or practiced, for that matter)
in the UU context.
> Marvin, a former poster to sruu and
> the person the last few posts have been speaking of, was not just
> homophobic. That part of him, although not to my liking, was
> tolerable. What was not tolerable was his insistence that his
> congregation not allow public same gender marriages because they made
> him uncomfortable. He also said that same gender couples should not
> openly share celebrations of their life together during "Joys and
> Concerns" because it would be sending the "wrong" message to children.
> At one point he also said he would be reluctant to let Gay men and
> Lesbians teach in RE classes. He resigned his membership in his
> congregation because they didn't give in to his homophobic demands.
Isn't this pretty much just a specific case of what is normally
spoken of as 'homophobia'? I'm really not interested in defending
Marvin, or even discussing him personally. I just think that he
raises an issue that UUs have been somewhat reluctant to address.
I'm not tolerant of racism or homophobia [in the folk sense of the
term], and most UUs I know (you may be an exception) aren't either.
That means that there are certain individuals whose beliefs would
make them unwelcome in most UU churches, at least by most of their
members. There isn't anything truly wrong with this, IMHO, but
it's not what the stated principles of UUism proclaim.
Maybe we should hedge things and talk about "most people" being
welcome in our churches (and newsgroups): there can certainly be
diversity, even great diversity, without all-inclusiveness. Or,
we could say that "all people" are welcome, but that there are
certain topics about which some people are not welcome to express
their opinions.
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.
Greg Shenaut
sarah clark
"Ed B." wrote:
> Well, Sarah, I went and took a look at that newsgroup. Quite a few
> prolific writers there! Almost 2300 messages in April alone!
we had more in march, we had a buncha threads crosposted into
alt.atheism. that group gets alot of traffic too!!!
> Just for
> the record the Marvin that began posting yesterday is a different
> Marvin. He left sruu over a year ago. I know he was posting somewhere
> else after that but I don't remember where.
i never read this marvin's stuff, and from what i hear
that marvin was saying i probably would get kicked out
of sruu myself for what i might say.
sarah clark
Greg Shenaut wrote:
<snip>
> Isn't this pretty much just a specific case of what is normally
> spoken of as 'homophobia'? I'm really not interested in defending
> Marvin, or even discussing him personally. I just think that he
> raises an issue that UUs have been somewhat reluctant to address.
>
> I'm not tolerant of racism or homophobia [in the folk sense of the
> term], and most UUs I know (you may be an exception) aren't either
> That means that there are certain individuals whose beliefs would
> make them unwelcome in most UU churches, at least by most of their
> members. There isn't anything truly wrong with this, IMHO, but
> it's not what the stated principles of UUism proclaim.
>
> Maybe we should hedge things and talk about "most people" being
> welcome in our churches (and newsgroups): there can certainly be
> diversity, even great diversity, without all-inclusiveness. Or,
> we could say that "all people" are welcome, but that there are
> certain topics about which some people are not welcome to express
> their opinions.
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.
Ed B.
>
> Ed B. <huma...@cts.com> wrote:
> > David Barrett wrote:
> >> But if ... 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.
>
> > It is not a question of being tolerant of homophobes and racists. In my
> > experience we are tolerant of them.
>
> This is not what I have observed (or practiced, for that matter)
> in the UU context.
>
> > Marvin, a former poster to sruu and
> > the person the last few posts have been speaking of, was not just
> > homophobic. That part of him, although not to my liking, was
> > tolerable. What was not tolerable was his insistence that his
> > congregation not allow public same gender marriages because they made
> > him uncomfortable. He also said that same gender couples should not
> > openly share celebrations of their life together during "Joys and
> > Concerns" because it would be sending the "wrong" message to children.
> > At one point he also said he would be reluctant to let Gay men and
> > Lesbians teach in RE classes. He resigned his membership in his
> > congregation because they didn't give in to his homophobic demands.
>
> spoken of as 'homophobia'? I'm really not interested in defending
> Marvin, or even discussing him personally. I just think that he
> raises an issue that UUs have been somewhat reluctant to address.
No, not necessarily. Although it is homophobia it was tolerated in SRUU
and is tolerated in many UU congregations. What is not tolerated, and
was not tolerated from Marvin in his congregation was Marvin's
insistence on his congregation institutionalizing his homophobia. From
Marvin's own words his congregation took no action against him for his
views. Marvin claimed he resigned his membership because *he* could
*not* tolerate the congregation allowing Gay men and Lesbians to be
public about their lives. The congregation *was* tolerant, Marvin *was
not*.
As for SRUU we tolerated him, debated the issue with him and only took
the action we did out of frustration with his intransigence. He
continued to post untruths and half truths even when they were proven
wrong. When we tried to ignore his position he introduced the issue
into any thread that happened to be lively. We finally took the step of
posting a disclaimer every time he posted on the topic. We tolerated
Marvin, we did not tolerate his attempt to hi-jack SRUU.
I have heard it said many times and I will repeat it. UUs tolerate
everything but intolerance. That is what we faced with Marvin.
> I'm not tolerant of racism or homophobia [in the folk sense of the
> term], and most UUs I know (you may be an exception) aren't either.
> That means that there are certain individuals whose beliefs would
> make them unwelcome in most UU churches, at least by most of their
> members. There isn't anything truly wrong with this, IMHO, but
> it's not what the stated principles of UUism proclaim.
The first principle says "We, the member congregations of the Unitarian
Universalist Association, covenant to affirm and promote the inherent
worth and dignity of every person."
Nowhere does it say that any individual is bound by that nor does it say
we should tolerate intolerance in our congregations. The person who is
intolerant may have dignity and may have worth but that does not give
them the right to use the principles to insist that we allow them to
practice their intolerance in our congregations. They have the right to
not associate with any BGILT members; they DO NOT have the right to
insist that the congregation stifle its BGILT members. That is what
Marvin tried to do. He said so with his own words.
> Maybe we should hedge things and talk about "most people" being
> welcome in our churches (and newsgroups): there can certainly be
> diversity, even great diversity, without all-inclusiveness. Or,
> we could say that "all people" are welcome, but that there are
> certain topics about which some people are not welcome to express
> their opinions.
Marvin was free to express his opinion and did so ad nauseum. We simply
did not allow his opinion to be the only opinion expressed. Each and
every time he expressed it many of the other posters, including myself,
expressed our opinion. Had we not done so any newbie to SRUU would have
only read Marvin's opinion. We did not want Marvin speaking for SRUU.
> 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.
>
> Greg Shenaut
--
GENE DOUGLAS
The moderators did not do anything directly about Marvin, but I think he
contributed to a psychological climate such that many passive members with
little true committment to freedom and diversity were more willing to see a
Mussolini style moderation come over sruu, and to remain silent about, or in
agreement with it.
Principle went out the door, and was exchanged for comfort. I am somehow
reminded of a movie called Logan's Run, in which a society was perfectly
willing to accept a dictatorship, so long as each person individually led a
comfortable life, and did not question what happened to others.
--
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...
--
GeneDou...@prodigy.net
Spammer bait: postm...@prodigy.net postm...@compuserve.com
postm...@aol.com Ju...@postmaster.com
Greg Shenaut
> The moderators did not do anything directly about Marvin, but I think he
> contributed to a psychological climate such that many passive members with
> little true committment to freedom and diversity were more willing to see a
> Mussolini style moderation come over sruu, and to remain silent about, or in
> agreement with it.
> Principle went out the door, and was exchanged for comfort. I am somehow
> reminded of a movie called Logan's Run, in which a society was perfectly
> willing to accept a dictatorship, so long as each person individually led a
> comfortable life, and did not question what happened to others.
Yes, but replace 'a society' with 'the majority of a society'.
And in some cases, it doesn't even have to be the majority: in
South Africa under Apartheid, for example.
Greg Shenaut
Richard Puchalsky
> <rpuch...@att.net> wrote:
> >I disagree with Greg Shenaut's implication that a commitment to diversity
> >would mean welcoming people no matter what their beliefs. We don't work
to
> >have a non-racist congregation and then invite a few Ku Klux Klan members
to
> >join so that we will have more of a diversity of belief between racists
and
> >non-racists. Some beliefs are just cause for rejecting the person
holding
> >the beliefs.
>
> That argument does not address the issue of whether we claim to have a
> greater commitment to diversity than we in fact have. 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,
> 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.
There is some question about how important someone's ideas might be if they
never carry them out. But in the case that we're currently using as an
example, the person was trying to carry them out.
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.
David Barrett
>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.
>
>Greg Shenaut
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"
Dave Barrett
David Barrett
>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
David Barrett
>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
Greg Shenaut
>>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.
Greg Shenaut
Greg Shenaut
> "David Barrett" <davi...@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'?
Greg Shenaut
sarah clark
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.
Richard Puchalsky
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
> Richard Puchalsky <rpuch...@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.
GENE DOUGLAS
David Barrett wrote in message
<4s9jfso4b44b6t20u...@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
GENE DOUGLAS
David Barrett wrote in message
<3iajfs076l8i6htam...@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?
GENE DOUGLAS
Richard Puchalsky wrote in message
<3tlK4.11067$fV.9...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>...
>"David Barrett" <davi...@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 DOUGLAS
Richard Puchalsky wrote in message
>"Greg Shenaut" <gr...@bogslab.ucdavis.edu> wrote
>> Richard Puchalsky <rpuch...@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.
Richard Puchalsky
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.
Richard Puchalsky
> 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.
Lynn Calvin
wrote:
> 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
lca...@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.
Richard Puchalsky
> 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.
Lynn Calvin
wrote:
>BluueNikki <bluue...@1st.net> shaped electrons to say:
>>alt.religion.unitarian-univ, "Richard Puchalsky" <rpuch...@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.
David Barrett
>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,
>'honor'?
>
>Greg Shenaut
Yes it is and yes it should.
David Barrett
GENE DOUGLAS
Richard Puchalsky wrote in message ...
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."
Dirk Coburn
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>.
--Dirk
G. Wolfe Woodbury
>>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.)
David Barrett
Woodbury) wrote:
>Lynn Calvin <lca...@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.)
David Barrett
Gregory G. Woodbury
>
> 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.
-Greg
Gregory G. Woodbury
> 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.
BluueNikki
<davi...@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
Richard Puchalsky
> <davi...@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.)
>
> 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?
Richard Puchalsky
> 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.
Bullshit. You used your power as a moderator to get me banned again,
because I kept asking what you meant. You never addressed the comment. Why
bother when you could silence the questioner?
Before you continue with "IIRC", remember that the whole thing is on
Dejanews. I can and will quote you if you persist in this lie.
David Barrett
<wood...@niehs.nih.gov> wrote:
>David Barrett wrote:
>>
>> 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.
>
>-Greg
You seem to be more accepting of that situation than I would be.
Doesn't it bother you a little that he has power above and beyond the
agreed upon rules and policies?
David Barrett
David Barrett
wrote:
>alt.religion.unitarian-univ, David Barrett
><davi...@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
Thanks for the kind thoughts but I think it would bother me less than
it appears it would bother you to not be able to post to sruu again.
This kind of strikes me as a situation where those with the right
stuff (as I fancy myself) don't back down from petty tyrants and 2 bit
dictators.
David Barrett
David Barrett
<rpuch...@att.net> wrote:
>"BluueNikki" <bluue...@1st.net> wrote:
>> <davi...@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?
>
Asking him to not EMail me again are the magic words? Thanks. Time
to strike a blow for freedom.
David Barrett
BluueNikki
<davi...@pop3.concentric.net>:
>Thanks for the kind thoughts but I think it would bother me less than
>it appears it would bother you to not be able to post to sruu again.
>This kind of strikes me as a situation where those with the right
>stuff (as I fancy myself) don't back down from petty tyrants and 2 bit
>dictators.
The main reason I post to SRUU is: My friends are there. I don't
like the moderation system at all, but I care about my friends, and
that is reason enough for me to stick around, regardless.
YMMV, and do what you feel is right for yourself. :-)
nikki
GENE DOUGLAS
>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.
>
>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?
>
person has a belief which harms nobody, but is opposed by somebody with an
opposite belief, then that person with the opposite belief does do harm, if
successful.
>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.
>
There's a time and place for everything. There's a time in a UU church for
expressing opinions, and a time not to do so. To expect one to always keep
his candle under a basket, bite his tongue, etc. in the face of differing
opinions would be unreasonable. Where actions are concerned, there are
board meetings, majority votes, etc., to settle such questions.
>> 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.
>
There is a right, as expressed in our principles, to have differing
opinions, including very differing and controversial opinions. I can
remember when the first Pagans visited a church I attended, and advocated
forming a chapter. One speaker said she was a witch. The talk for the next
few weeks was of the absurdity of it, as well as the harm to PR and
membership it would cause. Today that congregation contains a Pagan
chapter.
>> >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.
>
There is a principle in law, that if you itemize things to be included in a
concept, you automatically (though perhaps unintentionally) exclude
everything not included in the list. Surely, freedom of speech and thought
are at the very top of an implied list, whether itemized or not.
And I notice that you inserted the word "political," for some reason. The
fact is that philosophy implies action, which implies political effect of
that philosophy. (Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell know this very well.)
Likewise, every political philosophy derives from a philosophy of existence
and ethics.
GENE DOUGLAS
G. Wolfe Woodbury wrote in message ...
>Lynn Calvin <lca...@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
to permanently evict a person, based not just on his current post, but the
moderators opinion of him overall.
GENE DOUGLAS
John Levine owns the equipment and the program. John Levine does whatever
he wants to do. He is on a sewer commission in his town, and is somewhat
proud of his ability to cut off the water of somebody who offends him. John
Levine is the one who evicted Rich, when he was not a moderator, and when
there was no rule saying this was possible. John Levine, for some reason,
purports to be a UU.
Gene
cut
>
>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 Barrett
GENE DOUGLAS
The *whole* point is -- THAT's what got Rich kicked off the group
permanently. Talk about holding a grudge. He's still kicked off now!
Gene Douglas
Gregory G. Woodbury wrote in message <38FC9903...@niehs.nih.gov>...
>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.
GENE DOUGLAS
Lynn Calvin wrote in message <38fc8a52....@nntp.interaccess.com>...
cut
>
>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.)
I find it amusing that the new moderators, including the Canadian Christion,
had never participated in the newsgroup at all, before being handpicked to
do moderating.
>
>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.
>
For a time during that period, the moderators were censoring in advance.
>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.
>
And of course, John Levine has control of what can actually go into that
mailing list.
>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.
Meanwhile, John Levine tried to sabotage aruu by submitting an
uncomplimentary description of it, as if he were one of the founders. It is
my understanding that this description appears on the screens of persons
lookling at titles, to decide if they want to subscribe.
>
> 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>).
>
And now they're threatening to ban me for life if I'm not impressed by
their standard bannings.
>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.
>
As a child, John Levine was the one who owned the baseball.
>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.)
>
What limits would those be? Don't be too persistent in your arguments?
Don't be too critical of things most of us would protect?
>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.
>
I'd be willing to bet you were elected by the membership. And that you
have a limited term of office.
>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.)
>
ditto.
>(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
It would only have an effect if the moral conscience of the moderators --
err, that is, the owner, is pricked. If the only issue is power, not
conscience, then of course he has the power to say, "screw 'em."
GENE DOUGLAS
Richard Puchalsky wrote in message ... cut
>
>> 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.)
>
people or putting them in jail, it isn't that big a deal.
>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.
>
That Russian general with the deep voice. He said something like, 5% of the
population are intelligent and politically active, 5% are idiots who are
politically interested, and 90% don't give a damn. That makes it easy for
that 90% to be controlled by whomever would choose to do so.
GENE DOUGLAS
Better yet, post the e-mail here. I know that's called incredibly rude, but
that's sometimes the idea. When e-mail is abusive, or just plain stupid, it
is more likely if one can perform his acts in darkness. If he knows
everybody will see it, he is more likely to be responsible. One of the
stupidest I can think of at the moment is a moderator e-mailing me for
aesthetic reasons, suggesting how many .sigs would be about right.
Gene Douglas
David Barrett wrote in message ...
>On Tue, 18 Apr 2000 23:10:07 GMT, "Richard Puchalsky"
><rpuch...@att.net> wrote:
>
>>"BluueNikki" <bluue...@1st.net> wrote:
>>> <davi...@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?
>>
>
>Asking him to not EMail me again are the magic words? Thanks. Time
>to strike a blow for freedom.
>
>David Barrett
GENE DOUGLAS
Gregory G. Woodbury wrote in message <38FDABD6...@niehs.nih.gov>...
>David Barrett wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, 18 Apr 2000 11:34:45 -0400, "Gregory G. Woodbury"
>> <wood...@niehs.nih.gov> wrote:
>> >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.
>
>> Doesn't it bother you a little that he has power above and beyond the
>> agreed upon rules and policies?
>
Strange, since you have always enthusiastically embraced and defended it.
but I understand the reality of how Usenet
>moderated newsgroups work (in gory detail) and accept *that*.
Some time ago I posted an example from a moderated Muslim newsgroup, which
seemed to work very well, at least in principle.
There are
>always those who may not understand all the details of any process and
>who
>will seek to insist that their explanation is the "one true way" despite
>all evidence to the contrary.
Spammer bait: postm...@prodigy.net postm...@compuserve.com
postm...@aol.com Ju...@postmaster.com ab...@prodigy.net
David Barrett
<wood...@niehs.nih.gov> wrote:
>
>I may not like the situation, but I understand the reality of how Usenet
>moderated newsgroups work (in gory detail) and accept *that*. There are
>always those who may not understand all the details of any process and
>who
>will seek to insist that their explanation is the "one true way" despite
>all evidence to the contrary.
I have read my EMail newsgroups and have NEVER seen in any other
newsgroup any talk about a person who owns some piece of hardware used
in the newsgroup's operation making decision outside of the newsgroups
rules that the moderators have to accept. That situation is not a
Usennet moderated newsgroup reality.
When the moderators agree that there is no provision in the rules
for permanently banning someone but that they have to accept the
situation that Richard has been banned by John Levine they are either
being ignorant of how Usenet newsgroups work (the newsgroup could be
moved to different hardware) or they are lying (they agree and support
the illegal permanent banning of Richard but want to pretend that the
newsgroup is governed by rules and procedures)
David Barrett
BluueNikki
>Anyways, I'm still amused by my local Antichrist status. <.............>
>But I at least know that there is one virtual place
>where I'm the chief badass.
Well, I LIKE some 'badasses', Rich. :-p ;-) <giggling>
nikki
Lynn Calvin
<wood...@niehs.nih.gov> wrote:
>David Barrett wrote:
>>
>> 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.
>
To make it clearer, John is not a moderator, but has the capability to ban
anyone if he chooses, and has done so on at least one occasion that we
know of. The moderators have chosen to ratify this action, but there
other choice appeared to be moving the newsgroup moderation elsewhere
which no one seems willing to do.
Lynn Calvin
wrote:
>
> Lynn Calvin wrote in message <38fc8a52....@nntp.interaccess.com>...
>
> >
> >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.
> >
> I'd be willing to bet you were elected by the membership. And that you
>have a limited term of office.
Nope. Full moderation, review of every posting before it is posted to the
mailing list is a lot of work and having the time and the temprament makes
it a matter of recruitment, not election. Finding someone with the
connectivity and commitment to check for messages to process once or twice
a day , plus the requirement to be more or less available because any
rejection gets cc'd to the other moderators immediately, and we want to
not delay things, makes it more a matter of finding someone willing to do
it. We are supposed to have limited terms, with one renewal to prevent
burnout or staleness, but it is hard work. Plus for the list in question
the UUA Electronic Communications Office reserves the right to approve
moderators.
There is an appeal process up within the UUA, but we'd have to be pretty
out of line for them to overrule us. In fact, I suspect we're much more
tolerant than the UUA Office of Public Affairs.
The difference I see is that those have been the rules on that mailing
list from the beginning. And full moderation is one of the common forms
for electronic communication, both on Usenet and in email lists.
>
> >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.)
> >
> ditto.
>
> >(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
>
>It would only have an effect if the moral conscience of the moderators --
>err, that is, the owner, is pricked. If the only issue is power, not
>conscience, then of course he has the power to say, "screw 'em."
Well, yes.
GENE DOUGLAS
(I didn't mention this on the sruu group, but I take issue with Dave's
statement that "this is Soc.Religion-UU, not a court of law. " Actually,
the kid who owns the marbles has corrupted the group, and it is no longer
"UU" in nature.)
(Unmarked lines below are quotes.)
In article <8e5hc4$1v9a$1...@newssvr04-int.news.prodigy.com>, "GENE DOUGLAS"
<GENE...@prodigy.net> writes:
>
> Of course, you realize that this post itself is what could get you
banned.
> --
Gene, let it go. This stuff goes in circles and distracts us from
discussing
"things" and "ideas" and current events. We should not spend our time
discussing John Levine, or any other personality here. That can become
offensive, rude, and off-topic, if you ask me.
If we want to debate rules, become a constitutional lawyer, and discuss the
rules with other constitutional lawyers. But, this is Soc,religion.UU, not
a
court of law.
Take your case to the proper forum, and you know where that is.
Regards,
Dave
--
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
--
Why do we push the remote-control buttons harder when the
batteries are dead?
sarah clark
GENE DOUGLAS wrote:
> (I didn't mention this on the sruu group, but I take issue with Dave's
> statement that "this is Soc.Religion-UU, not a court of law. " Actually,
> the kid who owns the marbles has corrupted the group, and it is no longer
> "UU" in nature.)
>
> (Unmarked lines below are quotes.)
yah, i saw that gene, i thought it was pretty sorry.
i suppose there is a moratorium on meta-discussion, but
that seems to me kind of like the dysfunctional family
looking at the pink elephant in front of the tv, and
talking about how good nypd blue is tonight.
<snip>
GENE DOUGLAS
sarah clark wrote in message <39078A62...@hal-pc.org>...
G. However, I would get banned for about 50 days, and he for about 3, so
perhaps they will ban us both in order to display their even-handedness. DG
ranted on, with arguments against an argument that was never made there.
That was curious, to say the least.
--
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."
--
GENE DOUGLAS
Correction: That's Dave64052, not Dave of G. I'm getting all these Daves
mixed up. Zip code Dave appears to be somebody else.
GENE DOUGLAS wrote in message
<8e9ab6$1hl6$1...@newssvr03-int.news.prodigy.com>...
GENE DOUGLAS
(Interesting that zip code Dave insists on arguing, while demanding that the
arguing stop. And he's the only one doing so on sruu, and while denying
that he is arguing. And I note that I did not bring the topic up on sruu.
He claims that discussing that topic is a disruption, as he continues to
disrupt, though it is obvious that others have the option of not replying
and of not even reading from a thread that doesn't interest them.
Gene)
(Unmarked lines below are quoted.)
In article <8e7u7m$3j8e$1...@newssvr04-int.news.prodigy.com>, "GENE DOUGLAS"
<GENE...@prodigy.net> writes:
>If I kept you, by some manner of compulsion,
>from discussing something else, then if somebody wants to reply to you,
you
>are keeping them from doing so. Apparently the others are doing a good
job
>of discussing something else.
>Gene
Yes, your bringing up the whole can of worms again, and again, is a
disruption.
Give it up, you know where the proper forum is.
We do have great discussions going on here, but they aren't about soc.r.uu
"policy", except when you bring them up again.
I'm cutting myself off from this now, as YOU prove the point, how silly
future
discussion of this topic is.
My reply to you was not to argue, just to let everyone know that there's a
better place to discuss policy, and rules of soc.r.uu. Read the moderation
FAQ
and you can find where this is.
Regards,
Dave
sarah clark
GENE DOUGLAS wrote:
> (Interesting that zip code Dave insists on arguing, while demanding that the
> arguing stop. And he's the only one doing so on sruu, and while denying
> that he is arguing. And I note that I did not bring the topic up on sruu.
> He claims that discussing that topic is a disruption, as he continues to
> disrupt, though it is obvious that others have the option of not replying
> and of not even reading from a thread that doesn't interest them.
that is what i do with threads i do not like - i
mark em all read.