On Fri, 31 Jan 1997 08:35:15 -0500, Brian D. Harper wrote:
BH>Now let me turn to another question. What recourse do we have
>when an un moderated group is abused in this fashion? Of course,
>there may be some or even many who don't view this as an abuse. To
>check out how people feel I'd like to conduct a little straw poll.
>Send me a private e-mail giving your opinion on whether Steve is
>abusing the group with this policy. No need to give your reasons, a
>simple yes or no will do. I am particularly interested in hearing
>what lurkers think about this. All replies will be held in
>confidence, though I will post the overall results back to the
>group.
I protest about this policeman, judge and jury approach. Brian is
missing his calling - he should be an electoral official in Serbia!
BH>It was indicated to me privately that a better approach might be
>to give the results to Steve privately rather posting them to the
>group. I agree, so that is what I plan to do.
Good. I hope Brian sends them to me and I will then post them to the
Group myself.
BH>I guess public hangings are no longer politically correct :).
Nevertheless, that's what Brian has tried to do. But it seems he had
a little difficulty rounding up a lynch mob?
BH>Actually, its not too clear whether the vote will come out as I
>anticipated.
This is illuminating. Having set it all up to get the maximum
advantage of surprise, Brian's "anticipated" electoral
victory has failed to materialise!
BH>Right now its split 50/50, but the sample size is
>rather small {2} :).
How embarrassing for Brian. Sounds like most people couldn't care,
one way or the other. Or they see right through Brian's transparent
attempt to silence dissent.
BH>also, in giving the following excerpt:
>
>====================================================
>The group will be self-policing with respect to propriety of
>discussion topics and the spirit in which discussions are
>conducted. Only in extreme cases will the list manager step in.
>=====================================================
>I did not mean to imply in any way that the list manager should
>step in in this case. I believe in the present case that this would
>only make matters worse.
Hmmm. I wonder what the "list manager" thought of Brian's
self-appointment to the role of "net policeman"?
In any event, there is nothing in the above policy that my posts
don't comply with. I try to conduct all my posts with "propriety"
and a right "spirit". Besides, Brian's own "straw poll" is arguably
itself not a proper discussion topic.
On Fri, 31 Jan 1997 20:35:07 -0500, Brian D. Harper wrote:
BH>In view of concerns expressed to me privately I want to clarify
>another point. I obviously cannot speak for everyone who is
>concerned about the mail bomber but I can say that I have
>absolutely no intention of trying to drive Steve off the group with
>this. I think this would be very deleterious to this group.
I find this difficult to believe Brian would not exactly be distraught if
I was driven off the group with his little show of cyberspace
`democracy'.
BH>My hope was that if there is some type of consensus, especially
>among lurkers or others who Steve would not consider an adversary,
>then perhaps Steve would change his practice voluntarily. If he
>chooses not to, that's fine. He can continue on his merry way.
As it turned out there was no "consensus" and it could be argued
that the majority actually like (or at least don't object to) my
comprehensive posts. But I will change my practice voluntarily and
post more frequently, if for no other reason than to give Brian and
Co. one less thing to complain about. And the pigs flew off into the
sunset....!
On Tue, 04 Feb 1997 20:17:42 -0500, Brian D. Harper wrote:
BH>In a previous post I had indicated that I was not going to make
>public the results of the poll, sending them instead to Steve
>privately. I had also come to the decision at that time that I
>would post them publicly in the event that there was no consensus
>view emerging. This is, I believe, fairest to Steve since the
>accusations were made publicly. I couldn't really let on that I
>was going to do this as people could easily put two and two
>together (i.e. that things went against Steve) if no results were
>posted.
>
>The result of the poll was very close to 50-50. Thus I will
>conclude that there is no consensus from the group that Steve's
>posting practices are abusive.
This is most unsatisfactory:
1. Brian calls an `election' that I knew nothing about thus denying
me the natural-justice opportunity to put my case.
2. He posts his one-party State `election material' putting only his
case.
3. He appoints himself as the `returning officer', promising he will
make the results public.
4. When the result doesn't go quite the way he "anticipated" he
announces that "The result of the poll was very close to 50-50"
Now "people could easily put two and two together (i.e. that things
went..." strongly *for* "...Steve) if no results were posted". I
therefore call upon Brian to do the right thing and post the actual
results: a) number of people who finally voted; b) number who voted
`yes' and number who voted `no'. So that electoral justice can be
not only done, but seen to be done, ideally the votes should be
counted by an impartial scrutineer, preferably one who did not
participate. But I won't insist on it.
BH>This is the last you'll hear from me on this.
This is convenient.
BH>For Steve;
>
> "Say yer prayers, varmint" -- Yosemite Sam ;-).
I already do:
"In my anguish I cried to the LORD, and he answered by setting me
free. The LORD is with me; I will not be afraid. What can man do to
me?" (Ps 118:5-6)
On Wed, 05 Feb 1997 10:38:50 -0600, Steve Clark wrote:
SC>Is it reasonable for individual reflectorites to request that Steve Jones
>not respond to their posts unless he does so in a more timely fashion and
>only responds to individual posts rather than to collections of messages?
Steve misses the point that even according to Brian's biased poll, at
least 50% of the Reflector has no problem with my posts. But I had
already decided to respond "in a more timely fashion". But if I
"responds to individual posts rather than to collections of messages"
I will then be accused of posting too many messages! But if I post
more often the "collections" will be smaller.
On Wed, 5 Feb 1997 13:20:48 -0500, Bill Hamilton wrote:
[...]
BH>That's reasonable. I think Steve's problem is that he feels he
>must respond to more posts than he can reasonably respond to. I
>think the situation would be vastly improved if he would respond
>only to the one or two posts that seem most in need of a response.
>I personally don't mind taking up an old subject on occasion. But
>if I got a dozen or so responses to what I said several weeks ago
>dumped on me at once, my response might not be as temperate as yours
>and Glenn's have been.
I don't "dump" my posts on anyone. I address most of my posts to the
*Group*. And the "problem" is mine and mine alone. No one has to read
my posts or reply to them. At least 50% of the Reflector apparently
like reading my posts, so it is a bit presumptuous for the other 50%
to demand that I "respond only to the one or two posts that seem
most in need of a response".
I get posts from people in other countries like Poland and Russia who
have trouble getting books and they use my quotes as a substitute.
Only this week, I was asked if my testimony could be read out in
radio broadcast in Russia. Since I am "surrounded by such a great
cloud of witnesses" (Heb 12:1) I intend (Lord willing) to "run with
perseverance the race marked out for" me, and will not be deterred
by no doubt well-meaning (but IMHO misguided) attempts to hobble me.
In any event, the point is that most of my posts *are* just responses
to critiques of my posts, usually from several TEs at once. What
Bill is suggesting is that they can each post an attack on my
position (and in some cases my person), and yet I am: 1. not allowed
to answer more than "one or two posts"; and moreover; 2. they must be
individual, not not collective, posts. This would mean that the vast
majority of posts to me I would not be allowed to answer!
The real problem is that this Reflector is `evolving' into a
newsgroup, as was originally foreseen by most of us when the list
ceased to be a private mailing list controlled by Phil Johnson
and became an automatic subscribed list managed by Terry Gray.
On Wed, 05 Feb 1997 16:16:24 -0500, Brian D. Harper wrote:
[...]
BH>Well, I said you wouldn't hear from me again on this and here I am
>back again already :).
Yes.
BH>I consider this a separate item though from the issue of whether
>or not Steve is abusing the group. While not being abusive of the
>group I still feel very strongly that Steve's practice is unfair to
>certain individuals, namely those who might attempt to have a
>discussion with him.
Here is Brian, who trumped up a charge that I am "abusing" the
group, called a snap `poll' that I have no opportunity to answer the
charge or present my case, appointed himself as the returning
officer, counted the votes and announces the result was "50-50",
complaining that *I* am "unfair"!
Brian's problem is not that he attempts to have a "discussion" with
me - he wants to oppose me:
-------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 22 May 1996 23:21:38 -0400 (EDT)
To: evolution@calvin.edu
From: "Brian D. Harper" <bharper@postbox.acs.ohio-state.edu>
Subject: Re: Of PhDs, priests and logic
Cc: sjones@iinet.net.au
[...]
4) I think the actions of many creationists are doing great harm
to the church and I want to oppose those as best I am able.
[...]
-------------------------------------------------------
but finds the going a bit tough!
BH>Every person needs to decide for themselves how to react to
>Steve. I think that SC's suggestion is perfectly reasonable. I
>also think that people to whom Steve J has replied have every right
>to state publicly how they are going to treat his posts.
That's fine by me. Its what I have been saying all along. If you
don't like my posts, don't even read them. There are others who
apparently do like reading them.
BH>The reason is that a failure to respond may be taken as a
>concession or as an unwillingness to discuss issues.
Unfortunately for Brian, that conclusion will reasonably be drawn by
many. But I don't mind if he doesn't respond to my postsl. I will
still respond to his posts, where I feel it is necesssary.
On Wed, 05 Feb 1997 19:52:12 -0600, Glenn Morton wrote:
GM>Concerning the poll and Stephen's large mail dumps. I would
>suggest that those who see this as no problem should remember an old
>saying said by someone famous a long time ago. "Do unto others as
>you would have them do unto you."
It is difficult to believe that Glenn can write this with a straight
face! It's a pity he does not take his own advice.
But as for doing to others what I would have them do to me, I have
absolutely no problem if people post large combined messages
infrequently. I have never complained about other people's posting
styles, and it would never occur to me to do so. The answers simple -
if Glenn doesn't like my "mail dumps", he doesn't have to read them.
They are not even addressed to him, but to the Group.
>GM>As one of the targets of these dumps, I find it difficult to deal
>with and would not do that to someone else. As much as I write, if I
>>saved it up for 3 weeks and then dumped it all out there, that would
>leave me with the last word on many issues and totally overwhelm
>others. This would not be acceptable.
The point is that it is Glenn's "As much as I write" that is one of
the main problems. The majority of my posts are replies to Glenn's
posts. If he didn't post so much, and then berate creationists
for not answering, the problem would be a lot less. It sometimes
takes a long time to research Glenn's posts in order to provide a
worthy reply.
GM>I wonder if those who voiced an opinion that it is OK for Stephen
>to engage in these bombing runs would be so sanguine if they were
>the target.
They *are* the "target". My posts are usually to the Group, not to
Glenn.
GM>Considering that the other two people who are also subjected to
>this are also complaining, I somehow I doubt that those who see it
>as no problem would feel the same if Stephen's multitudinous and
>lengthy posts were aimed at what they had said weeks ago.
What has "what they had said weeks ago" *really* got to do with it?
If they said it then, presumably they still mean it a few weeks
later?
>GM>I have both publically and privately asked Stephen to post in a
>timely fasion and stay involved but he has chosen to ignore that.
Actually I haven't.
GM>While we all fail in doing to others what we should, when someone
>is asked to be polite and respond in a timely fashion and then they
>fail to do that, what does that say about that person's
>consideration for his fellow man?
Since I am now doing what Glenn says, it must show that he does have
"consideration for his fellow man"! Maybe Glenn will be a little bit
more considerate in return?
God bless.
Steve
-------------------------------------------------------------------
| Stephen E (Steve) Jones ,--_|\ sejones@ibm.net |
| 3 Hawker Avenue / Oz \ Steve.Jones@health.wa.gov.au |
| Warwick 6024 ->*_,--\_/ Phone +61 9 448 7439 (These are |
| Perth, West Australia v my opinions, not my employer's) |
-------------------------------------------------------------------