From: Horse (horse@darkstar.uk.net)
Date: Fri Jun 25 2004 - 01:58:19 BST
Hi All
Thanks to those that have supported my position. Much appreciated. I'm hoping that
there will be little for me to do with regard to warnings etc. mainly because it's not
something I enjoy doing. But I will do what's necessary to get the list back to a high
quality discussion forum. Sorry if this distresses some of you but I think this is worth
doing.
As Richard has made reasonable observations and comments I would like to reply to
them.
On 24 Jun 2004 at 6:59, Richard Loggins wrote:
[Richard Loggins]
Hello Horse,
I will try to keep this short but as you anticipated, I was pretty well annoyed by your
post.
[Horse]
My comments weren't directed specifically at you but at all those who had participated in
the name calling and ad hominem attacks that have been occurring recently. And not
just those directed at Paul Vogel either but the tendency on the list over quite a long
period to resort to low quality tactics when engaging in discussions on the MD list.
[Richard Loggins]
Your, "as for the rest of you, what were you thinking" - I should explain that there are
three approaches to a guy like Paul V,
[Horse]
Why limit it to 3 - I can think of at least 2 other ways, but anyway...
1)ignore him which is a tacit condoning of his views,
[Horse]
Not at all. Refusing to engage in low quality discussions with others is a perfectly
legitimate way of showing disapproval. If, instead of raising valid criticisms with me as
you have done, you had resorted to name calling and ad hominem attacks my refusal to
engage with you would be the equivalent of saying that I'm not interested in what you
have to say. Alternatively, I could say exactly that and leave it there. Paul Vogel knows
perfectly well that his views, which reflect those of cosmotheism (and it's founder
Pierce), are racist and unacceptable to most on this forum. His main aim is to aggravate
and annoy others - by ignoring him or saying explicitly that you will not engage with him
you deprive him of his objective.
[Richard Loggins]
2)argue with him in a reasoned, respectful manner which gives the impression that his
views are equally respectable or legitimate,
[Horse]
Come on Richard - give me a break. Do you really expect me to believe that you and
other members of this list, given your level of intelligence and ability to express yourself
so well, couldn't take Vogels arguments apart without even trying and without resorting
to insults. I've seen sheets of clear glass that are less transparent than his arguments.
Anyone with the intelligence of a door-knob can see them for what they are and all the
bullshit rationalization that is apparently standard procedure for cosmothugs now is not
going to make anyone think any differently. Ripping an argument apart without abuse
doesn't bestow respectability on the view in question. A low quality thesis is a low quality
thesis - irrespective of who holds it.
[Richard Loggins]
3)denounce him and his ideas by calling him names like bigot. I chose the last route
because if there ever was an appropriate time for ad hominem attacks, this is it.
[Horse]
In which case you play straight into Paul Vogels hands and he's won before he's even
started. Why do you suppose that the sort of bigotry that Paul Vogel has aligned himself
with succeeds. It's easy and it requires no thought is why - which is why it appeals to
people of low intellectual value. Don't think just react. When you resort to a similar level
of intellect (or lack of it) you lose by default.
[Richard Loggins]
(And by the way, if you hadn't noticed, this kind of MOQ evil happens ALL THE TIME
on this forum, not just the posts swirling around Vogel.)
[Horse]
I agree entirely which is why this sort of stupidity needs to stop and why I have taken the
position indicated in my post.
[Richard Loggins]
Your tough guy zero-tolerance proclamation against racism on the list is almost
shocking considering you've let some of the most overt racism I've ever witnessed go
on, unconstrained, for the better part of a week. What were you thinking?
[Horse]
What I was thinking (or hoping at any rate) was that members of this list would treat his
arguments with the contempt they deserve and either ignore them or argue rationally -
as indeed some did. Then watch his arguments collapse. Whereupon he would either
bugger off or start being really abusive. At this point I could have stepped in and
removed him. Instead, because some resorted to abuse, I have had to threaten to throw
normally rational folk off the list instead of just Vogel and get heavy with the rules and
regulations. A little more tact and reason and he would have been history as far as the
MD list is concerned.
[Richard Loggins]
Did it take the resignation of someone from your Steering Committee to snap you out
of it?
[Horse]
Nope. I was already on the case. In case you're wondering I have been quite aware of
Vogels views and activities for a long time. This isn't the first time he's been a member
of this list either. Additionally I have been approached by other list administrators
regarding Vogel in the last few years and am quite aware of his affiliation with other
white supremacist and racist groups and activities. Check out the archives at around the
end of 1998 and the beginning of 1999.
I subscribed him about two weeks ago as I had no legitimate reason not to. If I had
refused to subscribe him then I would have been criticised, if I had censored his posts I
would have been criticised. Basically any action I could have taken would have been
criticised by some list members so I let it go until I had good cause to step in knowing
full well that this would also be criticised. Sometimes you just can't win whatever you do.
[Richard Loggins]
Wake up and smell the coffee, buddy, your laissez-faire approach punctuated by fits of
iron-fisted 'i don't give a shit what you think of me, here's the rules' are not working.
[Horse]
The insults and attacks appear to have stopped don't they? Warnings, suspensions and
removals will also (I hope) reduce future occurrences. I will try and apply the rules fairly
in future as per my last post - if you think I am failing in this then let me know as and
when - can I be fairer than that?
In the past I have asked various members of the list refrain from abuse (polite emails
offlist) and this has had some success. But obviously not enough. I do expect members
to behave reasonably and overlook many instances of breaking the rules but if it takes a
more hard line approach then so be it. I look forward to being criticised for this as well! If
you have some better ideas I'm only too willing to listen.
[Richard Loggins]
The list has been spiralling into low-quality degeneracy for quite some time now,
and you need to do something (constructive) about it.
[Horse]
Fine, no problem. See above comment.
I hope the above has answered some of your questions satisfactorily. I would like to see
this list get back to high quality discussions. With the co-operation of members this is
entirely achievable - it all depends on what "the rest of you" want and whether you're
willing to come along for the ride, which could get rough at times.
Thanks for your time
Horse
PS
Platt, my apologies for not addressing your post tonight re: 'wind-ups'. I shall get to it
tomorrow night.
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Jun 25 2004 - 04:36:50 BST