Sunday, March 29, 2015

Re: Mind's Eye Re: Is free speech free?

Allan you have always been good at understanding the role of the moderator, not as an imposition of authority, but one of maintaining decency. I think Chris only asked me because I was always pleading for it. I accepted because I wanted to see the group continue and Neil became the reluctant moderator, I think, for the same reason, after turning down the offer many times. Trouble is, anyone in a position of perceived authority becomes a target for the perpetually angry or attention seeking. For most of our tenure together we did little to no moderating, letting the group work out their own differences. The weeks leading up to the current problem reflected the fact that this mode of moderation was ineffective, and that some of the tools and steps previously employed should be taken to ensure the groups longevity I'm not sure that it has, but I haven't seen anyone attack anyone else since RP deleted his account and the accounts of Gabby's that we could identify as related to her were put on moderation. What happens from here time will tell.

Everyone here is free to come and go as they please (except those on moderation for reasons outlined in the Welcome post). We all get tied up in our professional lives from time to time and engage in this space more or less accordingly. Engagement and response is not required of anyone, as the list of thousands of ME members will tell us. I will welcome Andrew back into the dialogue, with Francis, Chris, Rigsy, Pat or anyone who has the inclination and ability to join in the dialogue without viscous attack. I do wonder if, like Neil says, ad hom has become such a part of our cultures that we are numb to it. If so, listening to this group now will be like watching a 50s movie in black and white with a slower pace, snappy repartee, nothing exploding and no one being murdered. After the herd based, sensational swill Hollywood has been releasing for decades, we won't be conditioned for it!

On Sunday, March 29, 2015 at 3:02:33 AM UTC-4, Allan Heretic wrote:
I am glad the two of you took the jobs.  Thank you.

تجنب. القتل والاغتصاب واستعباد الآخرين
Avoid; murder, rape and enslavement of others

-----Original Message-----
From: Molly <>
Sent: Sun, 29 Mar 2015 1:27 AM
Subject: Re: Mind's Eye Re: Is free speech free?

Yes, I know. I brought it to the attention during my interview for this job and was told that my other qualities were so outstanding that, if I was willing to take a lesser salary, the job was mine. Of course, Chris was saying this while I was feeling the breeze of his exit. Will be interest to find out what the "norm" is for Internet group moderation. In my experience there is an enormous range of functionality, civility and integrity of information exchanged. Feel better.

On Saturday, March 28, 2015 at 7:20:46 PM UTC-4, archytas wrote:
You know Molly, sometimes you come without sugar!  Good job you are balanced by sweet little old me!

The free speech thing is intractable without a huge readjustment of approach.  I've been in a few university chats on big-data-data-driven approaches (the areas were criminal database search and evidence-based planning) that might handle the fuzzy-historic and changing dynamic contexts.  I can't remember a response from these moderation experts on anything to do with miscarriages of justice, so one can only wonder how they get into curtain shade level issues on moderation.  This latter is a common issue in chat rooms we sweep from time to time to look at content.

Common decency (which is uncommon) seems a better way to me.  More on that after this 'flu retreats further.    .  

On Saturday, March 28, 2015 at 9:57:34 PM UTC, Molly wrote:
Wish you all the best, Andrew, and won't waste anyone's time commenting on points here. You may have come into the group with a mistaken notion of the role of the moderators and expectation can be a powerful derailment itself. Bless your heart.

On Saturday, March 28, 2015 at 4:33:23 PM UTC-4, andrew vecsey wrote:
Dear members. I would like to say goodbye to you and wish you all the best in the future. I am sure to drop by every once in a while and see how you are getting along, but I will try my best not to participate in this group any longer. Like I pointed out in a past post, the only reason I did stay in this group as long as I did was that I did find a few gems in the piles of shit I had to wade thru. It was not  easy and it was very frustrating. Right at the start I was labeled a troll, and later, my posts if they were not ignored were mainly complaints to my person and not the ideas I was trying to have a discussion on. Before I sign off, and parachute away, I would like to make some last comments. 

For me, free speech is the freedom to state your opinion, whatever it is. In such an internet news group such as this, we can all speak at the same time and there is no need of any protocols. It is respectful if we all listen to what is being said by all members. I find that there is a lack of respect in this group. Respect is also assuming  that all members are humans with a heart beat and with feelings and want to be listened to and to be taken seriously. Otherwise it is meaningless to have a discussion. Members who remain silent to serious accusations of their fellow members by accusers, especially when the accusers are moderators, are loudly and clearly shouting their agreement with the accusers. So having said that, I protest the accusations made about Gabby and her aliases, the unfair treatment of RP as well as accusations made about Ash not being a person worthy of respect.

As far as free speech is concerned, I see that in this group, free speech is just not possible because the moderators limit it on purpose, Freedom, in order for it to have meaning has to be unconditional.  That means that free speech is being able to say anything you want to say, even if its talking about Jihadis or bullying others with words. The role of moderation I believe is to keep the discussion from being derailed. The simple solution to derailment is to move the bullying and derailing practices to a separate topic which could be easily ignored by those wishing to ignore it.

Once again I sincerely wish you all the very best from the depth of my beating heart.
Andrew Vecsey,     

On Saturday, March 28, 2015 at 4:54:50 PM UTC+1, archytas wrote:
"At a minimum, speech will have to be limited for the sake of order. If we all speak at once, we end up with an incoherent cacophony. Without some rules and procedures we cannot have a conversation at all and consequently speech has to be limited by protocols of basic civility......

I guess Molly and I don't want to exclude any views in principle, but this is impossible in practice. .....We don't talk about the Jihadis, though I have occasionally let one in.   ................. I assume the only real people left in here are me, Molly, Allan and Tony - apologies to Ash and Andrew if they have actual pulses.  ..........

On Saturday, March 28, 2015 at 3:00:35 PM UTC, Allan Heretic wrote:
Free speech  does not mean you can say what ever you want..


You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to
For more options, visit


You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to
For more options, visit


Post a Comment