Francis:
I don't question your good intentions, but as reasonable and appropriate
as your admonishment appears on the surface, I suggest that you may want
to reconsider the implications your words. Specifically, I respectfully
request that you consider what might happen if you appoint yourself
watchdog, censor, policeman, judge and jury for the content on the
pcp-discuss list:
To begin with, I submit that any attempt by anyone to censor the
contributions of this list's participants is likely to lead to one of
two unintended and unfortunate consequences: First, in my experience,
when an individual attempts to assert that some area is not a proper
topic of discussion, the discussion itself often reverts to arguing
about what is and is not proper. This almost invariably leads to a
process of choosing up sides. It also often results in the emergence of
an adversarial tenor in the discussions. Such an adverse attitude places
more stock in winning arguments than it does on exchanging ideas and
building mutual understanding. As a result, if we let censorship become
a regular feature of our discussions, the level of exchange amongst us
could be in danger of deteriorating into a polarized personal war of
words.
The second probable outcome of encouraging any kind of top down or
unilateral censorship is a sharp reduction of contrasting opinions and
ideas. I'm sure would agree that it would be sad if we lost the diverse
discussions that seem to blossom in these fertile grounds from time to
time. I think that both of these consequences would be detrimental to
the value and enjoyment of subscribing to this list and participating in
its exchanges.
Next, as perhaps you are aware, some of us feel that the agenda you seek
to advance is at odds with some of the diverse views held by other
contributors and subscribers to this list. I have no doubt that you
would never let your personal bias cause you to censor or admonish
anyone without a good reason. And I'm sure that you would never
arbitrarily try to censor me or keep me from expressing my personal
views.
I'm also sure that it won't come as a big surprise to you that many of
the other participants on this list are well aware that you don't have
much respect for my views. So when you single me out and attempt to
censor some minor transgression such as this, they may begin to wonder
if you are being heavy handed, arbitrary and are abusing your position
to advance your personal agenda. What's more, if you continue to play
the role of self appointed chief censor and it then becomes obvious that
you seek to silence those with whom you disagree, I submit that your
credibility will suffer.
Most subscribers to this list still respect your ideas, work and efforts
in your chosen field. But if you persist as a self appointed official
censor, your approval ratings could quickly drop off the charts. Is
that what you really want? And do you really want to garner the undying
wrath of everyone you bring to task?
It is very understandable that you might take a proprietary interest in
the contents of the pcp-discuss list server and that this, in turn,
would cause you to try to direct the discussion from time to time. In
addition, as I recall, you don't put much stock in the notion of free
will and free speech. So perhaps it is easier for you to justify your
actions as being in the best interest of the pcp list.
But as I've tried to point out, from a practical standpoint, I'm sure
you can appreciate that the job of censor could potentially be very
destructive to your personal credibility and your professional
reputation. So I would hope that this realization will cause you to
think twice the next time you are moved to take it upon yourself to
dictate what is and is not acceptable content on the pcp-discuss list
server.
Norman K. McPhail
Francis Heylighen wrote:
> I would like to remind our estimated subscribers that this is a
> mailing list about cybernetic philosophy, not about present
> politicial debates. Applying cybernetical reasoning to analyse the
> Florida situation is an appropriate subject for a PCP-discuss
> message, but discussing the apparent motivations of the candidates,
> the pecularities of the US legislation, and one's personal political
> preferences is not. I can understand the temptation to get from the
> one into the other, but please keep your discussions focused on
> cybernetics.There are more than enough other channels to discuss the
> political situation. Also take into account that for people outside
> the US this is not necessarily interesting or even understandable.
========================================
Posting to pcp-discuss@lanl.gov from "Norman K. McPhail" <norm@socal.wanet.com>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Dec 05 2000 - 19:38:31 GMT