Those who tend to impose seem to agree there indeed was a democratic
consensus. Those who impose less, differ. If a new consensus shows
more current visitors here favor a more relaxed atmosphere I don't see
how the old majority can rationalize an escape, even though others
don't give all that much thought to a democratic majority.
There is another view to it: IME 99% of the controlling/censoring posts come
from a minuscule group of people. Say less than 10 posters.
Which begs two derivations:
1) without those 10 people, the group's atmosphere would be a lot more pleasant.
Then just *Who* is the problem here?
(It is *my* considered opinion <g> that the 10-hood are. Not the impure ones)
2)from a psychological, help-thy-neighbour point of view, how are those 10
people different from the rest of us?
(help-thy-neighbour, I know what you think. But those 10 do, don't they? LOL)
Well "it is *my* considered opinion" that their difference is some sort of
hypertrophy of the need to control and the tendency to publicly put down
others.
In the 10-some, this so desirable characteristic is also combined with a self-
serving tendency to distort reality and delude themselves: things like
believing and trying to make others believe that "the gang of 10" is "the
majority", or starting a sentence with "since this group is going to pot"
(then policing is obviously NEEDED, isn't it?) and so on.
Any dissenting views are just disregarded. Noticed that none of the censorship
advocates answered my <
[email protected]> higher in
this thread? That was cute.
Once those characteristics are noted, what words come to mind: control freak?
anal-retentive? fascistoid? crackpot? God-almighty-appointed-savior? YMMV.
YMMV. What comes to *my* mind is that this groups needs a self-appointed purity
militia a lot less than the self-appointed purity vigilantes need psychotherapy.
Point is, the censoring does NOT help. The netcops create more unpleasantness
than they cure. Period.
This is a good time for lurkers to express their views. One per
customer though please! <G>. Do you favor a strict interpretation? Or
a more relaxed one?
It was going on when I came here and I'd be surprised it it does not
continue after I'm gone. A risk of excessive noise to alleviate noise
on a long term basis seems to be a good risk.
Basically, what we need to "cure" is only less-than-10 problems.
I've never recommended adware or spyware (to the best of my
knowledge), yet there might be someone out there that chooses to use a
combination of these (...) That's not my call.
And I don't really think it is the group at large decision either. If
that is the problem offer up a solution or simply pass it up.
Absolutely. There is one specific application for which IME an adware/shareware
is heads and shoulders above the rest. When I decide to mention that, it is my
considered decision.
And I don't need --nor accept-- some fundie purity freak to try and censor me.
Maybe we could organize a collection to finance those less-than-10 therapies?
I don't think we need or will ever achieve a watertight situation. I think
it is rational to hope that we understand and respect the differences though.
"Respect the differences" ? One wishes...
DAN
I guess a