From: Patsloane-AT-aol.com
Date: Sat, 8 Nov 1997 01:02:45 -0500 (EST)
Subject: PLC: LA Requested by George


> Subj:	      Re: Off-list discussion
>  Date:	97-11-04 21:05:44 EST
>  From:	johnwb-AT-ll.u-ryukyu.ac.jp (John Whalen-Bridge)
>  Sender:	PHIL-LIT-AT-postal.tamu.edu (Philosophy and Literature)
>  Reply-to:	johnwb-AT-ll.u-ryukyu.ac.jp (John Whalen-Bridge)
>  To:	PHIL-LIT-AT-postal.tamu.edu
>  
>   Dear Off-list, smokey backroom discussion, backwater, cabal Folk:
>  
>  I pretty much agree with Andreas' response to Davis S.  A few of AR's
>  comments call for elaboration.
>  
>  1)  Should we be "defended" by moderators?
>      I don't think I need to be "protected from" George Trail--I can defend
>  myself--but how often do I want to HAVE to defend myself?  I can do it if
I
>  have to, but some people are in the habit of making it a regular chore.
>  
>  2)  Should some people ever be unsubbed?
>      I also agree that certain people lower the quality of discussion on a
>  regular basis and so should not be surprised when they are shown the door.
>  The PhilLitCrit people are patting themselves on the back about how well
>  they are handling George Trail--and Andreas is exactly right when he says
>  that this attention-grabbing behaviour is NOT the purpose of the list.
 The
>  list isn't supposed to be that, whatever it IS supposed to be.  Moderators
>  and others recommending Anabuse--my Gawd!  I argued before that the
problem
>  for moderators was that someone like GT establishes a _pattern of
behavior_,
>  and then when a decision is made to unsub someone over any particular
>  offense (Nabokov = toad, say), that minute particular looks in and of
itself
>  like a slight reason.  Andreas, you could have defended your action better
>  than to have said "I MUST defend Nabokov against toad-callers!", yes?
>  George Trail calls someone a nitwit, Michael Chase responds
>  that George is an asshole, GT responds to MC....  You might say we don't
>  need to be defended, but I for one think that GT's overall effect, which
>  includes reducing Michael Chase to namecalling, is clearly
>  a reduction of the list's overall quality.
>      By the way, so what if GT didn't believe Nabokov was a toad?  Ronald
>  Reagan probably believed all those speeches he made, but that doesn't make
>  his economic policies less disastrous.
>  
>  3)  As for the goals of Phil-Lit, I don't see the list as an extension of
>  the journal.  If that were so...why not just subscribe to the journal, try
>  to get the journal to have more "forum" sessions?  It ain't that.  I think
>  of it as a sort of "salon."  One expects witty banter, an occasional shiv
in
>  the ribs if one has left oneself exposed even, but not a dopey drunken
>  sophomore boys' club-verging-on-a-12-step-meeting.  Andreas was right to
>  unsub George Trail.  I think that actions of this sort should be reported
>  publically, and only after a review panel of some sort has looked over the
>  problem and worked out the justification.  A little more thought in this
>  direction would have saved us from some of the present troubles.
>  
>  4)  Should we sacrifice Andreas to the gods?
>      Finally, I think Andreas is a darling sweet man.  I could be wrong
about
>  this, but that's what I think.  I say this because I've noticed the shift
in
>  his public image, which I'm certain are due entirely to the fact that he
has
>  become a moderator and due not at all to a)anything particular he has said
>  b)his general style of communication, or c) something else that I can't
>  think of now but wish I could because it's nice to give three reasons.
>      Remember the moment in the movie "Sea of Love" when Pachino says to
>  Barkin "The minute anyone's in trouble, I'm DADDY!"  If you become a cop
or
>  a moderator or a teacher (Pink Floyd:  "Teacher leave those kids alone!"),
>  you face a certain amount of ignorant abuse of this sort.  I've found it
in
>  the strangest places.  About ten years about a high-level Buddhist teacher
>  was to visit Los Angeles, and my teacher asked me to see to the material
>  details (rent the building, organize timing and parking, make sure the
>  fire-laws are obeyed, etc.)  Also I had to make sure that flocks of
>  enthusiastic devotees didn't overrun this 85-yr-old man or his retinue.  I
>  was a moderator of sorts, but most of the people who came for the
teachings,
>  and these were devout Buddhists mind you--very pious and delighted to make
a
>  show of their enlightenment--were BRIMMING with hatred for me.
>  I had stepped into the postion of "Vajra-cop."  How ironic, as Alanis
>  Morrisette might say.
>  
>  
>  Because of experiences with political situations, and because of my
>  oh-so-academic findings about politics in my scholarship, I'm quite
>  sympathetic with the moderators.  To me it is a given that someone will
>  object EACH AND EVERYTIME a moderator takes some sort of actions.  The
>  moderator is in a political position, and, as Henry Adams writes in THE
>  EDUCATION OF HENRY ADAMS, "politics is and always has been, whatever its
>  professions, the organization of hatreds."  To some people this means that
>  one must always shy away from political situations, since they are
hateful.
>  To me this means that people who involve themselves in political
situations
>  should know all the risks and should do their best to avoid/minimize the
>  unpleasantness.  One could rework Adams' definition to make it more
positive
>  by saying that politics is the organization--as opposed to the
>  disorganization--of hatred.  The moderators have rightfully been charged
>  with not being organized enough about how to, say, unsub people.  The
>  blanket policy of "no unsubbings" (like pretending we can have politics
with
>  no conflict whatsoever) was a mistake.  There have been a number of good
>  concrete suggestions posted about how to improve the situation.
>  
>  I'm not making this up,
>  
>  John Whalen-Bridge
>  
>  
>  
>  -----Original Message-----
>  
>  
>  Dear David,
>  thank you for your comments: replies below.
>  
>  andreas
>  
>  On Wed, 5 Nov 1997, David Savory wrote:
>  
>  >
>  > Andreas,
>  > you state that this is your moderation policy
>  >
>  > >Anyone can say whatever they like, as long as they
>  > >are polite, it doesn't go into flamewars, and they are discussing in an
>  > >open and honest manner.  People should tolerate and respect each others
>  > >opinions.
>  >
>  > and then you remind us GT
>  >
>  > >wrote once
>  > >(paraphrasing) "I tell ya, man, Nabokov was a toad!"
>  >
>  > How, in light of your own moderation policy, can you
>  > justify rebuking GT for casting amphibious aspersions
>  > on Nabokov?
>  
>  Read my policy again. People shouldn't start flamewars; they should be
>  open and honest; they should tolerate others' opinions and respect each
>  other.
>  
>  I wrote very clearly: Trail was trying to start a flamewar. He was not
>  honest: he doesn't really belive that (as he told me himself.) There is
>  hardly any question of him respecting others: his purpose was to provoke
>  people and see what they would say.
>  
>  > >Now, some of you will think "free speech!" This is not a "free speech"
>  > >issue. Trail was not "saying" anything.
>  >
>  > With respect, this is not for you to decide. I resent that you
>  > feel GT poses some threat to me that I should be shielded
>  > from.
>  
>  We don't want phil-lit to turn into a forum for Trail. That's exactly what
>  has happened to Lilly's list.  You're invited to visit Reg Lilly's list,
>  where Mr. Trail can be found in full session. He's ridiculing people and
>  in return, being called an asshole. That list today has a number of
>  messages which discuss Trail in a very poor light. Trail has placed
>  himself at the center of everything.
>  
>  What I am doing is preventing phil-lit from degrading into a free-for-all
>  with Trail at the center.
>  
>  > I resent the immoderate moderation of Phil-Lit even more.
>  
>  This is strongly exaggerated. Asides from Trail, I've not removed anyone.
>  
>  I've given a very clear explanation of Trail's history, the amount of
>  trouble he has caused, and the escalating steps that were taken because of
>  him.
>  
>  Occasionally, I've sent polite, private emails asking people not to be so
>  agressive in their argumentation. That's hardly "immoderate moderation."
>  
>  > Am I the only one who
>  > has noticed that Phil-Lit's moderation policies have caused
>  > more problems than they've solved?
>  
>  It's been the exaggerated overreaction by A SMALL NUMBER OF PEOPLE that
>  has been the problem. They see general issues, such as "free speech", but
>  they don't have to deal with the everyday reality of managing a list and
>  having to deal with a person who is a troublemaker. I can well understand
>  their concern for free speech, but I also see that they don't have to deal
>  with Trail.
>  
>  > If Phil-Lit the listserv
>  > is meant to be an electronic extension of Phil-Lit the journal,
>  > then I would expect the moderators to act like editors, but
>  > if the listserv is meant to be independent of the journal and
>  > take full advantage of the internet, then the moderators
>  > would, frankly, be foolish to curtail the right people feel
>  > they have to speak freely.
>  
>  Good distinction. I've not thought this out myself. How do others feel?
>  
>  Should the list be a "letters to the editor" kind of thing, with
>  discussion of the journal (hopefully), or is it only loosely related to
>  the journals?
>  
>  
>  
>  



     --- from list phillitcrit-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---