From: Kevin Freels (megaquark@hotmail.com)
Date: Mon Aug 18 2003 - 13:32:57 MDT
Pardon me for interrupting into what seems to me to be a family squabble.
As a mortgage broker, I rarely have anything useful to contribute to this
list. I follow that same interests as many of you, but I can only devote a
minimal amount of time to the things that I find intersting and wonderful
about humanity while many of you are experts in your fields.
I think that I may be in a unique position to contribute this time. This is
because I don't know anyone on this list. Although I haven't been around
long, I read each and every post.
One thing that I think nearly everyone here will agree with is that
diversity is a good thing. Both in terms of living organisms, and in human
society. Without this diversity, things would move forward much slower.
The largest appeal that this list has to me is the wide range of opinions on
a wild array of subjects. There are many nrilliant minds here. There are
people from all walks of life. Somepeople are sensitive, others are harsh.
Overall, the blend is excellent.
Some of you have pointed out that the list has rules and that these rules
need to be followed. Others trump the value of unimpeded free speech. I am
certain that the best road to follow is somewhere in the middle.
The expulsion of Mike Lorrey has caused quite a ruckus. It seems to be
having a cascading affect on the list. As people withdraw, more seem to be
coming closer to doing so. Many may have already left without the farewell
letter that Lee Corbin provided. This could very well drastically reduce the
diversity on this list.
At the same time, there are people who seem to have a justifiable grudge
against Mike.
It seems to me that the problem here is how best to protect everyone's
interest and at the same time, allow for differing opinions.
The expulsion of Mike Lorrey seems to have been too harsh. What I would
suggest is a different response to Mike's apparent rude comments. I suggest
a system of governing rules that provide a few steps between a warning and
expulsion. It would work like this:
1.) written warning
2.) short suspension (2 weeks)
3.) long suspension (1 month)
4.) Expulsion (with ability to make amends and ask for a vote to be brought
back to the list)
5.) Permanent expulsion
This would allow for the occasional venting if someone deemed it necessary.
We would all have to consider the cost-benefit of what we say on this list
without fearing removal from the list. It would also prevent people from
engaging in continuous personal attacks.
Finally, with the ability to appeal the first expulsion decision, it allows
a person who engages in thistype pf activity to work out their differences
with the offended party before coming back, and would only allow them back
if the majority of people felt that this person added value to the list.
I know this seems simple. I'm not fortunate to have a doctorate or work in
research. Some ofyou may see my post and assume that I am a "stupid". But I
couldn't just sit back and watch such a brilliant group of people act so
foolishly any longer.
Let me know what you think. Maybe we can petition for this type of change
and get some of these people back.
Kevin Freels
----- Original Message -----
From: <Dehede011@aol.com>
To: <extropians@extropy.org>
Sent: Monday, August 18, 2003 10:53 AM
Subject: Re: Lee Corbin's Goodbye
> In a message dated 8/18/2003 9:07:28 AM Central Standard Time,
> gregburch@gregburch.net writes: To return to the concept of free speech, I
urge subscribers
> to consider that ExI is not a government, and the values and rules
regarding
> governmental regulation of speech don’t necessarily translate into matters
of
> private list governance.
>
> Greg,
> I think you have just put your finger on the problem and also
> unknowingly shown that you do not understand what is going on. Let me
attempt to
> explain it to you.
> In accounting and I suppose in law there is a concept of ownership.
> As you pointed out this list has owners -- no one to my knowledge disputes
> that.
> In addition there is the concept of a Stakeholder. If we think of
> this as a grocery store there are not only the owners but also
stakeholders such
> as regular customers, suppliers, etc. These people have an interest in
the
> store also.
> We seem to be having a battle between the owners of this list and
some
> of the stakeholders. Right now a large group of them seem to be voting
with
> their feet.
> Frankly, Mike seems to have been singled out for his specific
> political opinions. If you don't agree I suggest you go back and read the
chortling
> that took place on this list when it was announced he was banned. Only
this
> time read the specifics of what was written
> On the other hand we have a blessed few on this list from the
idiotic
> wing of the left wing that are still as welcome as the flowers in spring.
> Last, if you read the comments Natasha included in email it seems
to
> imply that Mike was only the first. Who wants to live under that kind of
> threat?
> Ron Harrison
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Aug 18 2003 - 13:39:04 MDT