I just want to add my 2¢ that I don't think it's constructive to participate in debate over the decision to ban members based on their demonstration of repeated abusive, disruptive, dishonest (etc.) behavior.
> I just want to add my 2¢ that I don't think it's constructive to > participate in debate over the decision to ban members based on their > demonstration of repeated abusive, disruptive, dishonest (etc.) behavior.
> I just want to add my 2¢ that I don't think it's constructive to > participate in debate over the decision to ban members based on their > demonstration of repeated abusive, disruptive, dishonest (etc.) behavior.
> Agree on all points. That time and place works for me.
> Cheers,
> Rick!
> Robert Whitlock wrote:
> > Dear Docents,
> > I just want to add my 2¢ that I don't think it's constructive to > > participate in debate over the decision to ban members based on their > > demonstration of repeated abusive, disruptive, dishonest (etc.) > behavior.
I am opposed to Jeff's obfuscation and abusive rhetoric and advocacy of violence and militarism as a means to resolve differences.
For example, his signature line is a quote from President Bush. This is not something that I am interested in having representation for on OlyBlog. I want OlyBlog to be an alternative to the media status quo - I don't want OlyBlog to be a place that facilitates acrimonious and divisive/derisive debate.
Dialogue is good. Fierce and unreasonable disagreement is not.
Jeff's advocacy of the rhetoric of a war against terrorism is not constructive to a dialogue that seeks understanding and nonviolent solutions. The rhetoric of a war against terrorism is essentially racist and classist, seeking to pit the global haves against the global have-nots.
We live in an age of globalism. Let's (as a nation) start acting like global citizens, not global bullies!!!
----- Original Message ---- From: Rob Richards <tornd...@gmail.com> To: olyblogdocents@googlegroups.com Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2008 12:27:36 PM Subject: Re: commentary, criticism, banning, etc.
OBTW,
Did anyone change Jeff Brigham's status so that his comments have to be moderated? He's asking me about it and I don't anything about it.
RR
On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 12:15 PM, Rick McKinnon <mckinnon.r...@comcast.net> wrote:
Agree on all points. That time and place works for me.
Cheers,
Rick!
Robert Whitlock wrote:
> Dear Docents,
> I just want to add my 2¢ that I don't think it's constructive to > participate in debate over the decision to ban members based on their > demonstration of repeated abusive, disruptive, dishonest (etc.) behavior.
I will never support taking action against a blogger because of who they quote or where on the spectrum their opinions lie. I want to make that very clear. I mean it when I say I'm not biased. I mean it and I live it. Disagreement is not a violation of the social contract no matter how fierce it is. Abuse of others is. JustPlnOnry is an example of someone who is abusive to others without contributing anything to the blog. The Fire Inside is an example of someone who contributes a lot to the blog, and has different values than I do. Jeff Brigham is kind of towing the line, he has definitely been inappropriate, but so have I, and so have you. He also contributes content to the blog more than other users do. We've always been forgiving of slip ups if the person is generally not abusive and contributes more than just comments, that's how I would describe Jeff.
I feel that to carry the title of docent, you MUST put your personal beliefs aside and look only at behavior. Perhaps what you wrote here was out frustration, but I feel you're, in a way, at risk of becoming what you're railing against. At least that's what I'm getting out of it, I'd love to hear some clarification of things I may not be reading correctly.
RR
On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 12:36 PM, Robert Whitlock <robwhitlock1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I am opposed to Jeff's obfuscation and abusive rhetoric and advocacy of > violence and militarism as a means to resolve differences.
> For example, his signature line is a quote from President Bush. This is > not something that I am interested in having representation for on OlyBlog. > I want OlyBlog to be an alternative to the media status quo - I don't want > OlyBlog to be a place that facilitates acrimonious and divisive/derisive > debate.
> Dialogue is good. Fierce and unreasonable disagreement is not.
> Jeff's advocacy of the rhetoric of a war against terrorism is not > constructive to a dialogue that seeks understanding and nonviolent > solutions. The rhetoric of a war against terrorism is essentially racist and > classist, seeking to pit the global haves against the global have-nots.
> We live in an age of globalism. Let's (as a nation) start acting like > global citizens, not global bullies!!!
> Bert!
> ----- Original Message ---- > From: Rob Richards <tornd...@gmail.com> > To: olyblogdocents@googlegroups.com > Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2008 12:27:36 PM > Subject: Re: commentary, criticism, banning, etc.
> OBTW,
> Did anyone change Jeff Brigham's status so that his comments have to be > moderated? He's asking me about it and I don't anything about it.
> RR
> On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 12:15 PM, Rick McKinnon <mckinnon.r...@comcast.net> > wrote:
> > Agree on all points. That time and place works for me.
> > Cheers,
> > Rick!
> > Robert Whitlock wrote:
> > > Dear Docents,
> > > I just want to add my 2¢ that I don't think it's constructive to > > > participate in debate over the decision to ban members based on their > > > demonstration of repeated abusive, disruptive, dishonest (etc.) > > behavior.
> > > Thirdly, are we going to re-schedule a meeting for this (next) > > > weekend? I propose Sunday, April 27th: 10AM at B&B (Capitol Way > > location).
What I meant to say is that I want OlyBlog to be an alternative to the views that are all too often espoused and supported in the mainstream media environments, views that substantiate the notion that the President is protecting the American people from harm. When in reality, the President is actually enabling and creating an environment where people all around the world want to do harm to the "America" that we all love (albeit to varying degrees and in varying ways.)
President Bush is doing harm to America.
I don't like to see the hateful, racist rhetoric of "global police agent 'America'" espoused on OlyBlog. It is all too present in other places.
That's all I am saying. I don't want to offer that view point any further degree of legitimacy.
Further, I have concerns about Jeff Brigham that I am purposefully choosing not to discuss on this list - and that I would prefer to raise at an in person meeting.
Obviously my dealings with Jeff come with a certain amount of bias. It is my belief that his activities are antithetical to the purposes of understanding and community. Jeff's apparent belief that "might makes right" runs counter to the vision of an intentional and inclusive community, and his participation is divisive and harmful to the purposes of constructive dialogue.
Personally, I think these concerns are adequate to launch an investigation into banning in re: the OlyBlog user account of Jeff Brigham.
----- Original Message ---- From: Rob Richards <tornd...@gmail.com> To: olyblogdocents@googlegroups.com Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2008 12:50:16 PM Subject: Re: commentary, criticism, banning, etc.
I will never support taking action against a blogger because of who they quote or where on the spectrum their opinions lie. I want to make that very clear. I mean it when I say I'm not biased. I mean it and I live it. Disagreement is not a violation of the social contract no matter how fierce it is. Abuse of others is. JustPlnOnry is an example of someone who is abusive to others without contributing anything to the blog. The Fire Inside is an example of someone who contributes a lot to the blog, and has different values than I do. Jeff Brigham is kind of towing the line, he has definitely been inappropriate, but so have I, and so have you. He also contributes content to the blog more than other users do. We've always been forgiving of slip ups if the person is generally not abusive and contributes more than just comments, that's how I would describe Jeff.
I feel that to carry the title of docent, you MUST put your personal beliefs aside and look only at behavior. Perhaps what you wrote here was out frustration, but I feel you're, in a way, at risk of becoming what you're railing against. At least that's what I'm getting out of it, I'd love to hear some clarification of things I may not be reading correctly.
RR
On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 12:36 PM, Robert Whitlock <robwhitlock1...@yahoo.com> wrote: not it - but I am in full support.
I am opposed to Jeff's obfuscation and abusive rhetoric and advocacy of violence and militarism as a means to resolve differences.
For example, his signature line is a quote from President Bush. This is not something that I am interested in having representation for on OlyBlog. I want OlyBlog to be an alternative to the media status quo - I don't want OlyBlog to be a place that facilitates acrimonious and divisive/derisive debate.
Dialogue is good. Fierce and unreasonable disagreement is not.
Jeff's advocacy of the rhetoric of a war against terrorism is not constructive to a dialogue that seeks understanding and nonviolent solutions. The rhetoric of a war against terrorism is essentially racist and classist, seeking to pit the global haves against the global have-nots.
We live in an age of globalism. Let's (as a nation) start acting like global citizens, not global bullies!!!
Bert!
----- Original Message ---- From: Rob Richards <tornd...@gmail.com> To: olyblogdocents@googlegroups.com Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2008 12:27:36 PM Subject: Re: commentary, criticism, banning, etc.
OBTW,
Did anyone change Jeff Brigham's status so that his comments have to be moderated? He's asking me about it and I don't anything about it.
RR
On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 12:15 PM, Rick McKinnon <mckinnon.r...@comcast.net> wrote:
Agree on all points. That time and place works for me.
Cheers,
Rick!
Robert Whitlock wrote:
> Dear Docents,
> I just want to add my 2¢ that I don't think it's constructive to > participate in debate over the decision to ban members based on their > demonstration of repeated abusive, disruptive, dishonest (etc.) behavior.
I hate to say this, but the role of docent may not be for you if that's what you want to do. Unless the other docents share your views, in which case, it's not for me.
I see OlyBlog as a place where we get to confront other viewpoints through reason. I welcome TFI's opinion, and I'd welcome JPO's and even Tschida's if they could just be nice about it and have reasoned discussion as opposed to arguments. I'm here to learn about my world and I don't think that happens by closing doors.
I don't think you are wrong for feeling the way you do. In fact our views are pretty well aligned politically and socially. Except, I guess, when it comes to Olyblog. We should keep this dialog going, it's very constructive. I'd also love to hear from others on this.
RR On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 1:58 PM, Robert Whitlock <robwhitlock1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> What I meant to say is that I want OlyBlog to be an alternative to the > views that are all too often espoused and supported in the mainstream media > environments, views that substantiate the notion that the President is > protecting the American people from harm. When in reality, the President is > actually enabling and creating an environment where people all around the > world want to do harm to the "America" that we all love (albeit to varying > degrees and in varying ways.)
> President Bush is doing harm to America.
> I don't like to see the hateful, racist rhetoric of "global police agent > 'America'" espoused on OlyBlog. It is all too present in other places.
> That's all I am saying. I don't want to offer that view point any further > degree of legitimacy.
> Further, I have concerns about Jeff Brigham that I am purposefully > choosing not to discuss on this list - and that I would prefer to raise at > an in person meeting.
> Obviously my dealings with Jeff come with a certain amount of bias. It is > my belief that his activities are antithetical to the purposes of > understanding and community. Jeff's apparent belief that "might makes right" > runs counter to the vision of an intentional and inclusive community, and > his participation is divisive and harmful to the purposes of constructive > dialogue.
> Personally, I think these concerns are adequate to launch an investigation > into banning in re: the OlyBlog user account of Jeff Brigham.
> Sincerely, > Bert
> ----- Original Message ---- > From: Rob Richards <tornd...@gmail.com> > To: olyblogdocents@googlegroups.com > Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2008 12:50:16 PM > Subject: Re: commentary, criticism, banning, etc.
> I will never support taking action against a blogger because of who they > quote or where on the spectrum their opinions lie. I want to make that very > clear. I mean it when I say I'm not biased. I mean it and I live it. > Disagreement is not a violation of the social contract no matter how fierce > it is. Abuse of others is. JustPlnOnry is an example of someone who is > abusive to others without contributing anything to the blog. The Fire > Inside is an example of someone who contributes a lot to the blog, and has > different values than I do. Jeff Brigham is kind of towing the line, he has > definitely been inappropriate, but so have I, and so have you. He also > contributes content to the blog more than other users do. We've always been > forgiving of slip ups if the person is generally not abusive and contributes > more than just comments, that's how I would describe Jeff.
> I feel that to carry the title of docent, you MUST put your personal > beliefs aside and look only at behavior. Perhaps what you wrote here was > out frustration, but I feel you're, in a way, at risk of becoming what > you're railing against. At least that's what I'm getting out of it, I'd > love to hear some clarification of things I may not be reading correctly.
> RR
> On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 12:36 PM, Robert Whitlock < > robwhitlock1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > not it - but I am in full support.
> > I am opposed to Jeff's obfuscation and abusive rhetoric and advocacy of > > violence and militarism as a means to resolve differences.
> > For example, his signature line is a quote from President Bush. This is > > not something that I am interested in having representation for on OlyBlog. > > I want OlyBlog to be an alternative to the media status quo - I don't want > > OlyBlog to be a place that facilitates acrimonious and divisive/derisive > > debate.
> > Dialogue is good. Fierce and unreasonable disagreement is not.
> > Jeff's advocacy of the rhetoric of a war against terrorism is not > > constructive to a dialogue that seeks understanding and nonviolent > > solutions. The rhetoric of a war against terrorism is essentially racist and > > classist, seeking to pit the global haves against the global have-nots.
> > We live in an age of globalism. Let's (as a nation) start acting like > > global citizens, not global bullies!!!
> > Bert!
> > ----- Original Message ---- > > From: Rob Richards <tornd...@gmail.com> > > To: olyblogdocents@googlegroups.com > > Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2008 12:27:36 PM > > Subject: Re: commentary, criticism, banning, etc.
> > OBTW,
> > Did anyone change Jeff Brigham's status so that his comments have to be > > moderated? He's asking me about it and I don't anything about it.
> > RR
> > On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 12:15 PM, Rick McKinnon < > > mckinnon.r...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > > Agree on all points. That time and place works for me.
> > > Cheers,
> > > Rick!
> > > Robert Whitlock wrote:
> > > > Dear Docents,
> > > > I just want to add my 2¢ that I don't think it's constructive to > > > > participate in debate over the decision to ban members based on > > > their > > > > demonstration of repeated abusive, disruptive, dishonest (etc.) > > > behavior.
> > > > Thirdly, are we going to re-schedule a meeting for this (next) > > > > weekend? I propose Sunday, April 27th: 10AM at B&B (Capitol Way > > > location).
I haven't been all that active lately, but I just wanted to react to Rob W.'s vision for Olyblog, which I've seen him describe before. I understand the desire to create a place that is "an alternative to the media status quo," but I feel Rob W's application of this fairly broad description is not the right way to go.
To me, that would create another outlet like Works In Progress, but on the internet. My fairly broad vision for OB, would be more "get what we can take" with a hard tack towards very local stuff. Which is close to what we're getting, I think.
I probably won't be able to meet on Sunday, but I hope to be able to get together soon.
On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 2:39 PM, Rob Richards <tornd...@gmail.com> wrote: > Thanks for the clarity Rob,
> I hate to say this, but the role of docent may not be for you if that's > what you want to do. Unless the other docents share your views, in which > case, it's not for me.
> I see OlyBlog as a place where we get to confront other viewpoints through > reason. I welcome TFI's opinion, and I'd welcome JPO's and even Tschida's > if they could just be nice about it and have reasoned discussion as opposed > to arguments. I'm here to learn about my world and I don't think that > happens by closing doors.
> I don't think you are wrong for feeling the way you do. In fact our views > are pretty well aligned politically and socially. Except, I guess, when it > comes to Olyblog. We should keep this dialog going, it's very > constructive. I'd also love to hear from others on this.
> RR
> On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 1:58 PM, Robert Whitlock < > robwhitlock1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Hey Rob,
> > Perhaps I wasn't clear.
> > What I meant to say is that I want OlyBlog to be an alternative to the > > views that are all too often espoused and supported in the mainstream media > > environments, views that substantiate the notion that the President is > > protecting the American people from harm. When in reality, the President is > > actually enabling and creating an environment where people all around the > > world want to do harm to the "America" that we all love (albeit to varying > > degrees and in varying ways.)
> > President Bush is doing harm to America.
> > I don't like to see the hateful, racist rhetoric of "global police agent > > 'America'" espoused on OlyBlog. It is all too present in other places.
> > That's all I am saying. I don't want to offer that view point any > > further degree of legitimacy.
> > Further, I have concerns about Jeff Brigham that I am purposefully > > choosing not to discuss on this list - and that I would prefer to raise at > > an in person meeting.
> > Obviously my dealings with Jeff come with a certain amount of bias. It > > is my belief that his activities are antithetical to the purposes of > > understanding and community. Jeff's apparent belief that "might makes right" > > runs counter to the vision of an intentional and inclusive community, and > > his participation is divisive and harmful to the purposes of constructive > > dialogue.
> > Personally, I think these concerns are adequate to launch an > > investigation into banning in re: the OlyBlog user account of Jeff Brigham.
> > Sincerely, > > Bert
> > ----- Original Message ---- > > From: Rob Richards <tornd...@gmail.com> > > To: olyblogdocents@googlegroups.com > > Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2008 12:50:16 PM > > Subject: Re: commentary, criticism, banning, etc.
> > I will never support taking action against a blogger because of who they > > quote or where on the spectrum their opinions lie. I want to make that very > > clear. I mean it when I say I'm not biased. I mean it and I live it. > > Disagreement is not a violation of the social contract no matter how fierce > > it is. Abuse of others is. JustPlnOnry is an example of someone who is > > abusive to others without contributing anything to the blog. The Fire > > Inside is an example of someone who contributes a lot to the blog, and has > > different values than I do. Jeff Brigham is kind of towing the line, he has > > definitely been inappropriate, but so have I, and so have you. He also > > contributes content to the blog more than other users do. We've always been > > forgiving of slip ups if the person is generally not abusive and contributes > > more than just comments, that's how I would describe Jeff.
> > I feel that to carry the title of docent, you MUST put your personal > > beliefs aside and look only at behavior. Perhaps what you wrote here was > > out frustration, but I feel you're, in a way, at risk of becoming what > > you're railing against. At least that's what I'm getting out of it, I'd > > love to hear some clarification of things I may not be reading correctly.
> > RR
> > On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 12:36 PM, Robert Whitlock < > > robwhitlock1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > not it - but I am in full support.
> > > I am opposed to Jeff's obfuscation and abusive rhetoric and advocacy > > > of violence and militarism as a means to resolve differences.
> > > For example, his signature line is a quote from President Bush. This > > > is not something that I am interested in having representation for on > > > OlyBlog. I want OlyBlog to be an alternative to the media status quo - I > > > don't want OlyBlog to be a place that facilitates acrimonious and > > > divisive/derisive debate.
> > > Dialogue is good. Fierce and unreasonable disagreement is not.
> > > Jeff's advocacy of the rhetoric of a war against terrorism is not > > > constructive to a dialogue that seeks understanding and nonviolent > > > solutions. The rhetoric of a war against terrorism is essentially racist and > > > classist, seeking to pit the global haves against the global have-nots.
> > > We live in an age of globalism. Let's (as a nation) start acting like > > > global citizens, not global bullies!!!
> > > Bert!
> > > ----- Original Message ---- > > > From: Rob Richards <tornd...@gmail.com> > > > To: olyblogdocents@googlegroups.com > > > Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2008 12:27:36 PM > > > Subject: Re: commentary, criticism, banning, etc.
> > > OBTW,
> > > Did anyone change Jeff Brigham's status so that his comments have to > > > be moderated? He's asking me about it and I don't anything about it.
> > > RR
> > > On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 12:15 PM, Rick McKinnon < > > > mckinnon.r...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > > > Agree on all points. That time and place works for me.
> > > > Cheers,
> > > > Rick!
> > > > Robert Whitlock wrote:
> > > > > Dear Docents,
> > > > > I just want to add my 2¢ that I don't think it's constructive to > > > > > participate in debate over the decision to ban members based on > > > > their > > > > > demonstration of repeated abusive, disruptive, dishonest (etc.) > > > > behavior.
> > > > > Thirdly, are we going to re-schedule a meeting for this (next) > > > > > weekend? I propose Sunday, April 27th: 10AM at B&B (Capitol Way > > > > location).
