On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 8:27 AM, ornamentalmind <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
Chris, did you ever get your finances back in order?
> On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 10:17 AM, leerevdoug...@googlemail.com <
On Apr 28, 7:31 am, Chris Jenkins <digitalprecip...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Heh, I would if I thought it would make a difference. He's pounded with his
> new law practice, and legal blog.
> l...@rdfmedia.com> wrote:
> > Blow horn Chris, send up the call for the mighty owner to come claim
> > back his crown.
> > Kierkecraig, keikercraig!
> > On Apr 28, 3:04 pm, Chris Jenkins <digitalprecip...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Aw shucks, Gabs. Keep this up and I might get the impression you like me.
> > ;)
> > > It's an interesting analogy you pose, but Minds Eye is not Germany, or
> > > Poland, or France, Italy, or even the U.S. My desire to hand over the
> > reins
> > > has nothing to do with any sense of guilt, and I note with some pride the
> > > influence I've had in growing and moderating the group over the last five
> > > years. As Lee noted above, the hallmark of our moderation has been how
> > > little it's ever been used. Despite the cries of Fascist
> > authoritarianism, I
> > > bet most current users can't remember the last person we banned.
> > > I do remember, however, the voices I truly miss around here; Atalante,
> > > Archytas, ThePeasantKing, and many others who along the way have
> > contributed
> > > the carefully articulated thoughts that make this group great.
> > > I would love to see the group grow and thrive again, and have been happy
> > > with how conversation has grown recently. However, there's a lot that
> > goes
> > > into group ownership which never gets talked about on here, things that I
> > > haven't been able to keep up with, like promoting the group in other
> > places
> > > to grow membership, and injecting quality conversation starters to keep
> > the
> > > pump primed. As the number of active users has dwindled, many of the
> > > conversations became broken records to me, rehashing the same obstinate
> > > points and unyielding positions over and over and over again. I recognize
> > > this to be my fault; in the last year, I've been struggling to get my
> > > business up and running, and working on many different media projects. I
> > > simply haven't had the time needed to be a good steward of the group, in
> > all
> > > the ways which though un-noticed, are critical to its growth, and to new
> > > ideas and conversations being explored.
> > > I have no intention of unsubscribing, and as life becomes more
> > manageable, I
> > > hope to rejoin the conversation regularly. However, someone else needs to
> > be
> > > at the reins, someone who loves the group enough to make the time to
> > > advertise it, grow it, start new conversations, introduce new people and
> > new
> > > ideas, and truly break out of the quagmire of thought which occurs among
> > > those who have had the same conversation a thousand times.
> > > And yes, I do enjoy the position of senior editor for Obnoxi.us, and hold
> > a
> > > higher editorial standard than is generally found in forum conversation.
> > > It's a different medium, with a different purpose, and clarity of
> > language
> > > is important. Given the analogy you've used (Hitler, et al), I think you
> > can
> > > un-ironically call me a grammar nazi.
> > > I've always enjoyed a good open argument with you, Gabs, and take nearly
> > as
> > > much pleasure in it as I do in those rare moments you and I completely
> > agree
> > > on something. I've also enjoyed butting heads with Orn over the years,
> > > although I'm not sure I can point to any moments we've completely agreed
> > on
> > > something. :^D
> > > Chuck, the trope of the Reluctant King is an eternal meme for a reason;
> > > they're the best kind. Those that actively seek power are generally
> > poorly
> > > suited for it. I knew Francis would decline the position, but it's that
> > > humility, even temper, and sincere diplomacy which make me think of him
> > as
> > > the perfect caretaker for this list. You seem to have the right attitude,
> > > and with three votes, you're the current board leader. I'll give it til
> > > Sunday at 10:00PM EST for everyone to weigh in, and then hand it off.
> > > On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 7:43 AM, gabbydott <gabbyd...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > Let me try to show you by defining this Google group "Minds Eye" as our
> > > > common reality. It comes in the form of the English language. Now the
> > > > English language is not my native language, which qualifies me for not
> > > > having been exposed to a prescriptive moral when it comes to violating
> > > > innate English language principles and rules. There is no shadow in
> > that
> > > > area that I need to be shown to learn to embrace. Coming from a German
> > > > background, a statement from Chris in which he doesn't reflect his role
> > in
> > > > this community and the impact he has had to shape the present form of
> > it -
> > > > only saying: I'm out of it, it doesn't matter to me, it's your
> > community -
> > > > is like me here in Berlin saying: Hitler was not German, he was
> > Austrian
> > > > (check his birth certificate for factual evidence) therefore you
> > Austrians
> > > > are the root of all evil, it doesn't matter to me. Coming back to
> > viewing
> > > > the prescriptive power of language at work, note how Chris has
> > established
> > > > structures in his new/old project in which he alone controls the
> > grammar of
> > > > the site and the grammar of the foreign content. The grammar of a
> > language
> > > > is its bones with the words as the surrounding flesh - it's not the
> > dark
> > > > shadow that you can make disappear by hanging the lamp right above your
> > > > head. And yet Chris has never avoided an open argument with me over
> > what the
> > > > world should like, which is why he will remain my American hero, and
> > Orn and
> > > > Molly cowards.
> > > > On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 5:03 AM, Chuck Bowling <
> > > > aardvarkstudio.chu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >> What is a prescriptive moral?
> > > >> On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 3:57 PM, gabbydott <gabbyd...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > >>> Where does that leave the prescriptive moral which I find is really
> > under
> > > >>> discussion here?
> > > >>> On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 9:22 PM, Chuck Bowling <
> > > >>> aardvarkstudio.chu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >>>> The term "morality" can be used either
> > > >>>> 1. descriptively to refer to some codes of conduct put forward by
> > a
> > > >>>> society or,
> > > >>>> 1. some other group, such as a religion, or
> > > >>>> 2. accepted by an individual for her own behavior or
> > > >>>> 2. normatively to refer to a code of conduct that, given
> > specified
> > > >>>> conditions, would be put forward by all rational persons.
> > > >>>> The above definition of morality was taken from the Standford
> > > >>>> Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
> > > >>>> It seems to me that while the interpretation of the individual may
> > be
> > > >>>> subjective, the overall goal of a code of conduct is to objectify
> > behavioral
> > > >>>> expectations within the group or society.
> > > >>>> On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 6:14 AM, leerevdoug...@googlemail.com <
> > > >>>> l...@rdfmedia.com> wrote:
> > > >>>>> In short then a flawed human is flawed only on measures of
> > subjective
> > > >>>>> morality. I contend that there exists no such thing as objective
> > > >>>>> morality.- Hide quoted text -
> > > - Show quoted text -