<HTML><FONT FACE=arial,helvetica><HTML><FONT SIZE=2 PTSIZE=10 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0"><BR>
Bill et. al.<BR>
<BR>
How do Vision2020 list members determine what subjects meet this guideline below, including working definitions, applied fairly and consistently, of "redundant" and "of interest?"<BR>
<BR>
And is this really the wisest guideline for the list?<BR>
<BR>
Bill wrote:<BR>
<BR>
Fourth, discussions which become redundant and of interest to only a handful<BR>
of subscribers should be taken off the V2020 list.<BR>
------------------<BR>
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?<BR>
<BR>
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.<BR>
<BR>
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. <BR>
<BR>
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? <BR>
<BR>
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?<BR>
<BR>
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. <BR>
<BR>
Sometimes Vision2020 reads like nastier version of "Dear Abby." Good grief!<BR>
<BR>
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:<BR>
<BR>
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?<BR>
<BR>
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). <BR>
<BR>
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.<BR>
<BR>
Let's not make Vision2020 an example of the "tyranny of the masses" that Alex de Tocqueville warned about: <BR>
<BR>
<A HREF="http://www.tocqueville.org/">http://www.tocqueville.org/</A><BR>
<BR>
Some issues are critical for discussion and should be allowed, though they may not be popular, and may even be redundant. <BR>
<BR>
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.<BR>
<BR>
<A HREF="http://www.waronscience.com/book.php">http://www.waronscience.com/book.php</A><BR>
<BR>
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.<BR>
<BR>
Infotainment indeed!<BR>
<BR>
Ted Moffett<BR>
<BR>
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: <BR>
<BR>
Keep the subject heading matching the content of your post.<BR>
<BR>
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:<BR>
<BR>
<A HREF="https://www.google.com/accounts/SmsMailSignup1">https://www.google.com/accounts/SmsMailSignup1</A><BR>
<BR>
Ted Moffett</FONT></HTML>