<div>B. J. Swanson et. al.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>I did an approximate count of the number of posts from May/June 2008 with the words "Everyone Deserves Death" in the subject heading. There were variations on the wording introduced by different subscribers, such as "[Idaho Atheists] Everyone Deserves Death, simply "Everyone Deserves Death" and "Say What? Everyone Deserves Death." </div>
<div> </div>
<div>There were far more posts than I suspected. My count is probably off a post or three: 63. I counted 11 participants in this thread, some posting only once or twice. This thread was not dominated by a disagreement only between two people. Averaging 63 posts over 15 days, comes to 4.2 posts per day. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>What is amazing is that within about the first 24 hours this "thread" started late May 17, it generated 18 posts though late May 18, according to Vision2020 archive times. You are correct that this thread "exceeds 10-15 per day," as you wrote, at least for one day, though many of these posts that first day were not directly dealing with the exact subject heading. A number of different topics were addressed, such as posting private e-mail to Vision2020, Internet privacy rights, and fake identities of Vision2020 participants. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>However, that one day outburst of posts included at least nine different Vision2020 subscribers commenting... Hardly an example of Vision2020 being used as "a personal blog for just a few." as you wrote.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>In total in this thread over two weeks, some posts were insulting, some thought provoking. Many of the posts were explicitly educational about religious issues based on solid research, with Ralph Nielsen and Chas both presenting interesting facts and well reasoned arguments. I learned a few things. I posted 8 times over a two week May/June period in this thread. Anyone can count the contributions of others.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>I can understand objecting to this quantity of posts (63) on one subject heading, that was a bit abstract and theological, and not linked directly to only local issues, over a two week period. And 18 posts in one day!</div>
<div> </div>
<div>I often totally skip posts on a given subject heading. Very easy. If 15 posts on the Seattle Mariners appear in one day, I may ignore these posts, thinking they are a waste of bandwidth. But ignoring them does not waste but a second or two of my time, as I scan the daily subject headings on Vision2020. The Mariners fans no doubt consider this topic a matter of life and death!</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Your objection to certain threads on Vision2020 was not merely that the tone or quantity of the posts was questionable. You objected to "unwinnable arguments." If all arguments that are viewed as "unwinnable" were taken "Off List, " there would be a rather limited topic list. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>Arguments on topics that could be deemed "unwinnable," that have graced Vision2020 repeatedly, include the Iraq war, climate change, religion, sexual and gender ethics, MSD property tax funding, local water resource use, and local smart managed growth vs. pro-business development (it seems these two viewpoints disagree confusingly on how to define and apply their labels, with the pro-development crowd insisting they promote smart growth, and the managed smart growth view insisting they are not anti-business, like the pro-development crowd labeled them during the last Moscow City Council election, involving the GMA vs. MCA disagreements, with "endless" contentious discussion on Vision2020).</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Perhaps a monitor would have shut the "Everyone Deserves Death" thread down the first day, before 18 posts under this thread posted in 24 hours. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>But might the quantity, and even the insults within, these posts reveal that the topic arouses great passion; and thus was an indication of the importance of this subject to many people? Vision2020 will inevitably include a percentage of "junk" (in my opinion) posts. I accept this as the price of the freedom of an unmoderated list; and find this cost so far to be acceptable given the benefits of unfettered discussion. Topics arousing great passion will generate passionate responses, some of them impolite, given human foibles.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Those who object to Vision2020 being unmoderated are free to start their own moderated community list serve. In the Internet Information Age, this is rather easy.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>If only the cat herding would result in the cats keeping their posts to a 2 or 3 a day limit, except for occasional alley cat fights; and regularly matching subject headings to post content.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>B. J. Swanson wrote:</div>
<div> </div>
<div><a href="http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/2008-June/054451.html">http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/2008-June/054451.html</a></div>
<div> </div>
<div>If you want to continue these unwinnable arguments, how about taking them off Vision 2020?<br>------------------------------------------</div>
<div>Vision2020 Post: Ted Moffett<br><br> </div>
<div><span class="gmail_quote">On 6/21/08, <b class="gmail_sendername">B. J. Swanson</b> <<a href="mailto:bjswan@moscow.com">bjswan@moscow.com</a>> wrote:</span>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid">
<div lang="EN-US" vlink="purple" link="blue">
<div>
<p><span style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt; COLOR: #1f497d">Ted,</span></p>
<p><span style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt; COLOR: #1f497d"> </span></p>
<p><span style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt; COLOR: #1f497d">Please let me clarify again. The only reason I objected to the "Everyone Deserves Death" thread along with the others mentioned was because of the sheer VOLUME and numerous personal insults, not the topic itself. When the number of posts on a topic exceeds 10-15 per day, it's usually because it has degraded into disrespect including what I would call egotistical spam, ie "I know more than you… you're dumb, etc." Those kinds of posts contribute nothing to the discussion. That's what I find objectionable. Overall, it's just asking for basic respect for others. </span></p>
<p><span style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt; COLOR: #1f497d"> </span></p>
<p><span style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt; COLOR: #1f497d">B. J. Swanson</span></p>
<p><span style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt; COLOR: #1f497d"> </span></p>
<div style="BORDER-RIGHT: medium none; PADDING-RIGHT: 0in; BORDER-TOP: #b5c4df 1pt solid; PADDING-LEFT: 0in; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0in; BORDER-LEFT: medium none; PADDING-TOP: 3pt; BORDER-BOTTOM: medium none">
<p><b><span style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt">From:</span></b><span style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt"> Ted Moffett [mailto:<a onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)" href="mailto:starbliss@gmail.com" target="_blank">starbliss@gmail.com</a>] <br>
<b>Sent:</b> Saturday, June 21, 2008 1:10 AM<br><b>To:</b> vision 2020<br><b>Cc:</b> <a onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)" href="mailto:donovanjarnold2005@yahoo.com" target="_blank">donovanjarnold2005@yahoo.com</a>; Bev Bafus; <a onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)" href="mailto:kfreitag@roadrunner.com" target="_blank">kfreitag@roadrunner.com</a>; B. J. Swanson; Warren Hayman<span class="q"><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [Vision2020] Respect Vision 2020</span></span></p></div>
<p> </p>
<div>
<p>Trying to moderate Vision2020 is like herding cats...</p></div>
<div><span class="e" id="q_11aab68a470e9449_3">
<div>
<p> </p></div>
<div>
<p>First, I don't delete Vision2020 posts. No need for deleting posts with Gmail's huge storage and free accounts available to anyone, nearly. I suggest, as I have before, that Vision2020 subscribers get a Gmail account, just for Vision2020, if deletion of posts or storage is a problem. I have stored in my Gmail account a few years worth of Vision2020 posts, which I can search via Gmail's e-mail account search algorithms, sometimes very useful. </p>
</div>
<div>
<p> </p></div>
<div>
<p>I just went through a weeks worth of posts in short order, even with dial-up. This might be unmanageable if there were thousands of posts in a week... I should not even mention this possibility... Yikes.</p></div>
<div>
<p> </p></div>
<div>
<p>Complaints about Vision2020 list serve conduct have never succeeded in stopping egregious content or behavior, in the long run. The tragedy of the commons? An argument against unmoderated list serves? Sometimes, the complaints come from those who rarely put themselves on the line, to present content that takes on an unpopular cause, in vigorous discussion. The voice of Democracy is a loud, raucous, sometimes irrational, sometimes impolite, sometimes downright insulting, voice... But it can be authentic, in a way that polite moderated discourse is not. Vision2020 should be valued, I think, even for some of the content that is being complained about... Even for content I complain about. It may be unpleasant and impolite, but it rings true to the nature of real human conservation.</p>
</div>
<div>
<p> </p></div>
<div>
<p>It has been discussed before that a quick back and forth dialog between two people is sometimes necessary to allow the creative fires of the moment to find expression, when more than three posts a day (I thought two posts a day was the agreed upon limit?) might provide illumination to the topic. Occasionally. Certain Vision2020 list participants take advantage of this rationale.</p>
</div>
<div>
<p> </p></div>
<div>
<p>B. J. Swanson thinks the "Everyone Deserves Death" thread was objectionable. Given it explored the religious thinking behind some of the most dangerous behavior the human race is facing at this time in history, this thread did not even scratch the surface of exploring this issue, nor it's critical importance in impacting everyones life. Again, this may be an expression of the often held belief that discussions of religion are off limits to Vision2020, as if exploring these fundamental ideological and ethical issues, that are entwined in every action in our lives, from the local to the state to the national and international level, are not appropriate.</p>
</div>
<div>
<p> </p></div>
<div>
<p>Sometimes what is considered off limits to discussion are exactly the very issues that are most critical to illuminating the vectors of power and control over peoples lives.</p></div>
<div>
<p> </p></div>
<div>
<p>What I find most objectionable are the personal insults... I don't mind two people posting twenty times in a week on one topic if this does not degenerate into ugly personal insults. Who can say whether or not someone may be following this exchange, even if they do not post a response? If there were twenty of these discussions going on at once, it would be difficult to follow. But this does not seem to happen, just as a thousand posts a week do not seem to happen, why I am not sure, given the possibility. I wonder why Vision2020 does not draw responses from all over the world, given the fact, unless I misunderstand, that anyone on the Internet globally could post?</p>
</div>
<div>
<p> </p></div>
<div>
<p>Not keeping post content matching subject headings is a time waster. After all, if a subject does not interest you, you can use the subject heading to ignore that thread. Why complain? Just ignore! But if people post various responses to a given subject heading under various and sundry other subject headings, then it is easy to miss the full discussion, and waste time opening posts that are discussing subjects of no interest to the subscriber.</p>
</div>
<div>
<p> </p></div>
<div>
<p>Trying to herd cats...</p></div>
<div>
<p> </p></div>
<div>
<p>Ted Moffett<br><br> </p></div>
<div>
<p><span>On 6/16/08, <b>Warren Hayman</b> <<a onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)" href="mailto:whayman@roadrunner.com" target="_blank">whayman@roadrunner.com</a>> wrote:</span> </p>
<div>
<div>
<p><span style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt">Hello again All,</span></p></div>
<div>
<p> </p></div>
<div>
<p><span style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt">Now that two dogs are not vying for the attention of my hands and causing an inadvertent "send" click, let me begin again.</span></p></div>
<div>
<p> </p></div>
<div>
<p><span style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt">My concern was neither the content nor context of postings. Rather, the sheer volume of what amounts to a couple of people texting each other multiple times quickly, and thus, from my perspective, cluttering the inboxes of hundreds in what seems to be minute elaborations of grammatical tropes, perspectives, and one-upmanship. Some of the posts make even Achilles and Agamemnon at the beginning of the <em><span>Iliad</span></em> appear rational.</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p> </p></div>
<div>
<p><span style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt">Supreme Court rulings, for example, have cogency, coherency, and relevance even here in Moscow. I would hesitate to call any one topic unimportant or irrevelant, and enjoy the opportunity to learn from all of them. I don't learn much at all from two or three folks engaging in vitriol-- take it off-list, maybe? Talk it out at a downtown venue? Or at least give it a day to reflect prior to reply. This may have been the operant mindset within Ms. Swanson's <em><span>ad nauseum</span></em> phrase earlier today-- not the topoi themselves, but the iteration and reiteration of minutiae directed toward not all, but only one or two others at most.</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p> </p></div>
<div>
<p><span style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt">I'm not trying to advocate censorship here. Rather, I ask for the simple consideration of all of the others entangled within the thread by proxy of the listserve itself. Think twice before posting, and consider the entirety of the audience?</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p> </p></div>
<div>
<p><span style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt">Says the guy who hit the send button by mistake,</span></p></div>
<div>
<p> </p></div>
<div>
<p><span style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt">Warren Hayman</span></p></div>
<div>
<p> </p></div>
<blockquote style="BORDER-RIGHT: medium none; PADDING-RIGHT: 0in; BORDER-TOP: medium none; PADDING-LEFT: 4pt; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0in; MARGIN: 5pt 0in 5pt 3.75pt; BORDER-LEFT: black 1.5pt solid; PADDING-TOP: 0in; BORDER-BOTTOM: medium none">
<p> </p></blockquote></div></div></span></div></div></div></blockquote></div><br>