<div>Trying to moderate Vision2020 is like herding cats...</div>
<div> </div>
<div>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. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>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.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>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.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>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.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>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.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>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.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>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?</div>
<div> </div>
<div>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.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Trying to herd cats...</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Ted Moffett<br><br> </div>
<div><span class="gmail_quote">On 6/16/08, <b class="gmail_sendername">Warren Hayman</b> <<a href="mailto:whayman@roadrunner.com">whayman@roadrunner.com</a>> wrote:</span>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid">
<div bgcolor="#ffffff">
<div><font face="Palatino Linotype" size="2">Hello again All,</font></div>
<div><font face="Palatino Linotype" size="2"></font> </div>
<div><font face="Palatino Linotype" size="2">Now that two dogs are not vying for the attention of my hands and causing an inadvertent "send" click, let me begin again.</font></div>
<div><font face="Palatino Linotype" size="2"></font> </div>
<div><font face="Palatino Linotype" size="2">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>Iliad</em> appear rational.</font></div>
<div><font face="Palatino Linotype" size="2"></font> </div>
<div><font face="Palatino Linotype" size="2">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>ad nauseum</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.</font></div>
<div><font face="Palatino Linotype" size="2"></font> </div>
<div><font face="Palatino Linotype" size="2">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?</font></div>
<div><font face="Palatino Linotype" size="2"></font> </div>
<div><font face="Palatino Linotype" size="2">Says the guy who hit the send button by mistake,</font></div>
<div><font face="Palatino Linotype" size="2"></font> </div>
<div><font face="Palatino Linotype" size="2">Warren Hayman</font></div>
<div><font face="Palatino Linotype" size="2"></font> </div>
<blockquote style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"> </blockquote></div></blockquote></div>