Re: When was the last time an extropian post changed your life?

Michael M. Butler (butler@comp*
Mon, 01 Dec 1997 20:59:23 -0800

At 09:14 AM 12/2/97 -0500, you wrote:

>I am rather appalled at the
>elitist attitude

May I point out that this is an interpretation, a judgement on your part,
and not a hard fact?

>some list subscribers are taking with regards to the
>list. So we have some newbies now and then, so we get spammed once in a
>while. If I were the powers that be, I'd keep the main list open and
>have higher level specialized lists for those who don't want to have
>their in boxes polluted by the tracks of ignorant plebes.

That might work too. I have no particular problem with that, provided that
it costs something of value, p front, not necessarily money but something
of value that must be redeemed, to join the "higher level" lists. PLEAS PAY
SPECIAL NOTE that "higher level" is again your interpretation, not
necessarily A Fact.

>Its not the
>cost that implies the "cult" flavor, its the isolationist attitude.

BZZZZT. Facts not in evidence.

>Those who don't want to be bothered with helping enlighten newbies to
>extropianism shouldn't have kept their subscription when the list went

Michael, where do _I_ fit in? Are you telling me, a person who never joined
until "the list went public", that I should never have joined? This doesn't
make any sense to me; Help me out here, please.

>Here's an interim suggestion: Have a free subscription period, of say 3,
>6 or 12 months. Then have a subscription rate for further membership to
>the list.

Here's a suggestion: Have a list where I can talk to people I trust and
respect, and other people can listen in. It's no more elitist than a panel
discussion on TV, and it only costs money if you want to subscribe with
write-privs to the list. And as I mentioned before, there's CRIT.

I don't see this as isolationist. Nor any more elitist than a gas station.
TANSTAAFL. My attention is worth something, AND SO IS YOURS. Get it? :)

>For those that complain about too much noise and too little substance,
>you should be pushing the list owners to police relevancy/ongoing
>stupidity more effectively. Subscribers should also police themselves.
>If you think someone is not on topic, first a) check the FAQ yourself,
>then b) email the relevant text in the FAQ to the offender.

Allow me to render a free translation: We should be perfect people, and
then any system would work.


>Many people here who are ardent libertarians seem to be rather welfarish
>in their attitude toward noise/signal on the list.

I suggest you look to the seeming. I am offering to pay my own way; a
moment ago you were advocating that the list owners do more "policing".
There are at least two ironies here.

>If you think someone
>is an ingnorant nincompoop, use personal email to go into long and
>sufficient detail to educate the novice as to his or her error.

That's fine, IF you want to. Feeling obliged, OTOH, seems like
lightly-veiled, well, does the word "welfarish" ring a bell?

>who are too stubbornly newbie for it to have any effect on usually dig
>themselves deep enough for some real fun once they get into rude enough

I don't want to play that game so much any more.

>If you are not taking personal responsibility for fixing up
>the signal to noise on the list, then its your fault. >

In your judgement. I believe I am taking personal responsibility by letting
the world (instead of just Max) know that I approve of the experiment.

>I find the threat
>of high subscription rates simply the moral equivalent of trade
>restrictions. Hardly libertarian.

Au contraire. The tragedy of the commons is being enacted out all around us.


Except in the extropy list, where we are supposed to give without end for
the good of the list, but it's still "free", but paying money for it is
sinful. *hunh*???

> Michael Lorrey

(NOTE: Robotlike replies to the above address will fail;
*noncommercial* communications are welcome; kindly
substitute a hyphen for the asterisk in the above address.
Sorry for any inconvenience.)