Text 4745, 103 rader
Skriven 2005-01-10 01:39:06 av Matt Bedynek (1:106/1)
   Kommentar till text 4707 av Michiel van der Vlist (2:280/5555)
Ärende: Pee-Four
================
Hello Michiel.

09 Jan 05 10:41, you wrote to me:

 >> I guess it depends on your outlook.  When one breaks the
 >> rules one has to be willing to accept the consequences of
 >> that action.  At least I have and I guess that is why I
 >> have only received two citations since I started driving.

 MvdV> And again the difference in culture is illustrated. You stop for red
 MvdV> lights because of the cop that might catch you and give you a fine.

 MvdV> I stop because running red lights is dangerous! With or without a cop
 MvdV> watching.

I do not know whether you are being presumptuous or ignorant here.  I find it
odd that someone of your intelligence could make such a comment without any
corresponding data.  No physisist I know ever makes an assumption.  :-)

 >> How presumpuous of you.  Who are you (or me) to define the
 >> task of the moderator?  I say simply provide a secure
 >> environment for the moderator to operate and if he chooses
 >> to operate your way then so be it.

 MvdV> That's not a moderator, that's a dictator.

A dictator controls all aspects of behavior and forbids choice.  You are not
forced by the moderator to participate in his echo.  You are not being forced
to carry on this discussion with me.  You have a choice and the moment that
choice is taken away can you then label someone a true dictator.

 >> In a discussion I once had with a psychologist over
 >> conflict scenarios and discipline, he suggested that
 >> sometimes you just have to spank your child when common
 >> sense and reason do not give in to compromise and order.

 MvdV> When I had to spank my child, I considerd that a failure on my part.

Nobody is perfect.  Besides, you can no more control the actions of your child
than I can control yours.  Children will always disobey and test their limits.
If a participant is a shithead then no amount of reason will work with that
person.  So have you have spanked your child?  Using your logic, I guess that
makes you a bad parent and should have your child taken away.  Right?

 >> So what we have here are two schools of thought.  You want
 >> it your way and others want it their way.

 MvdV> And as the two methods are incompatible, we will never find a way that
 MvdV> suits all.

That means when you are in an echo moderatored by someone who uses a stricter
doctrine you should repect them and when I particpate in an area moderated by
you or those who share yours I will respect it.  There is an example of the
live and let live idealogy you suggested but I guess it is not universal?

 >> So, when the incident that occured in fn_sysop you showed that
 >> you were not willing to compromise and would settle for nothing
 >> less than "you way".

 MvdV> What incident?

Were you not part of the group that attacked the moderator?  Maybe to a lesser
degree but everyone shared some level of participation.

 MvdV> I am always willing to compromise. The problem however is that what I
 MvdV> see as a compromise often is not recognised as such by the other side.
 MvdV> Conversely what they offer as a compromise often isn't.

Then you are not as different as you think.  It is like making a trade.  Most
people who make an offer or trade usually do so when they think they are
getting the better end of the bragain and have something to gain.

 >>  MvdV> Of course it didn't. For it to work you first have
 >>  MvdV> to adopt it.

 >> In other words, either we are with you are against you.

 MvdV> Those are your words, not mine.

Yes.  They are.  But that is what it sounds like.

 MvdV> I merely say that EP1 can only work for those that adopt it. You
 MvdV> choose not to adopt it, so of course it didn't work for you.

And my method with allow you to resolve disagreement with me if you adopt it.

 MvdV> In fact you (as in you guys from Z1) did not adopt any echomail policy
 MvdV> at all and even declared echomail outside P4. Your choice of course.
 MvdV> But by your own words, you have to face he consequences of your
 MvdV> actions. And the consequence of rejecting all rules is chaos.

I believe P4 should apply to echomail.  In fact, had policy been applicable,
some in your zone might have been the recipient of a complaint over their
behavior in fn_sysop.  I can bet that their would have (temporarily) been a
drastic shift in principle and stance on policy application to echomail. People
are people.  They cite rules and regulations when they stand to gain.

Matt

e-mail: matt [at] thunderdome.us | icq: 16568532 | yahoo: mbedynek

---
 * Origin: ..::[ high speed feeds - http://fido.thunderdome.us/ ]::.. (1:106/1)