[Vision2020] Tyranny Of The Masses: Gmail

[Tbertruss at aol.com]

Bill et. al.

How do Vision2020 list members determine what subjects meet this guideline 
below, including working definitions, applied fairly and consistently, of 
"redundant" and "of interest?"

And is this really the wisest guideline for the list?

Bill wrote:

Fourth, discussions which become redundant and of interest to only a handful
of subscribers should be taken off the V2020 list.
------------------
If ten people out of the hundreds on the Vision2020 list all post one post on 
a given subject in a day, it may appear this subject is of great interest, 
yet there could be a hundred on the list who couldn't care less, yet don't post 
their opinions.  It is clear that 90%+ of the subscribers rarely if ever post, 
so how can we determine how many find a subject of interest?

Why post info on sporting events in another state, hundreds of miles away, on 
Vision2020, that everyone can get from radio, newspapers, TV, Internet, etc.? 
 Isn't this a "redundant" use of Vision2020 that has little to do with 
critical serious issues?  Yet because so many people have a deep emotional 
attachment to sports, it seems we don't read demands on Vision2020 that these sorts of 
posts be stopped, yet it is clear that whether the Mariners win, lose or 
disappear has nothing to do with Moscow's future.

Consider that there are topics that should be critical for discussion that 
often generate very little interest, like Exxon/Mobil's recent record setting 
profits/price gouging, unless you think 3 dollar a gallon gas, soaring diesel 
costs, and the expected high heating oil costs this winter, are not of concern 
for local residents.  Yet I did not read much discussion recently, if any, on 
this specific subject on Vision2020, unless I missed it.  

Some of the apparently most interesting subjects are discussed with great 
redundancy.  Should popularity of a subject be the main criteria for the 
subject's worthiness for discussion?  

Vision2020 sometimes follows the "infotainment" model, where the goal is 
coffee break gossip and chatter among a small group of "in crowd" locals, not 
substantive discussion of critical issues.  This is all good and well, but if this 
is tolerated, where is the fairness when other subjects not as popular are 
attacked?

I don't think proclamations or outings of people's sexual orientation, or arm 
chair psychoanalytical dissection of Vision2020 participants, though no doubt 
they generate "interest," are what Vision2020 should concern itself with, 
though persecution or prejudice against people for their sexual orientation is 
another matter entirely.  

Sometimes Vision2020 reads like nastier version of "Dear Abby."  Good grief!

Most of the salient facts and issues in the Christ Church discussion have 
already been sliced and diced ten different ways, and much of the discussion on 
this subject long ago became redundant, though no doubt of continuing great 
interest:

Whether homosexuality is "sinful," or whether women should be able to 
participate in society on an equal footing with men, are old human rights issues that 
have been dissected endlessly, redundantly, by the greatest minds.  I doubt 
Vision2020 can offer anything new to these human rights discussions, so should 
these discussions be taken off list?

I don't think the complaints about Vision2020 content follow any consistent 
application of rules that are fair to all the sorts of subjects that get 
attention on the list (though the expectation of a one or two post a day limit, with 
reasonable exceptions, is clear enough).  

Many discussions are "junk," yet are of great interest, many are redundant 
and still interesting, and some are critical and not redundant, yet don't 
generate interest.

Let's not make Vision2020 an example of the "tyranny of the masses" that Alex 
de Tocqueville warned about:  

http://www.tocqueville.org/

Some issues are critical for discussion and should be allowed, though they 
may not be popular, and may even be redundant.  

The attack against science and reason being carried out in the USA by 
religious extremists, all the way to the Federal government blocking the reporting 
and analysis of independent scientific results, is all the more reason to allow, 
indeed, to encourage, in depth discussion of the tools of critical thinking, 
analysis and knowledge claims, like the discussion on induction.

http://www.waronscience.com/book.php

As I pointed out at the Moscow Public Library, when someone suggested that 
new book acquisitions be determined by the potential popularity of the proposed 
title, given how many people check out the original translated work of Plato, 
should popularity be the guideline for replacing a lost copy of "The 
Republic?"  Should we skip that for a book on a celebrity or sports star?  We already 
know what will be more popular.

Infotainment indeed!

Ted Moffett

PS Those who find discussions of no interest can simply ignore them.  And why 
bother with deleting e-mail?  Set up a dedicated Yahoo (free 1 gig storage) 
or Gmail (free 2.5 gig storage) account for Vision2020, read the posts and 
subjects of interest, post as you wish, reply as you wish, ignore all else, and 
move on... Of course this approach assumes reliable subject headings matching 
content, so I think this should be a critical informal (all the rules are 
informal) Vision2020 rule:  

Keep the subject heading matching the content of your post.

PSS Reply off list using the return e-mail address above, put "Gmail" in the 
subject heading, and I can send invitations for a limited number of Gmail 
accounts, perhaps not to all replying.  Gmail is still only by invitation, unless 
you have a mobile phone with text messaging:

https://www.google.com/accounts/SmsMailSignup1

Ted Moffett
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20051113/4718dce6/attachment.htm