Zane,

Hi..

PMFJI...


>David,
>
><<<
>I certainly prefer self-control over external control. Unfortunately, there is not enough self-control of the type that DavidF recently described being put into action here.
>>>>
>
>Translation: Other people are not behaving the way you would prefer.

They may not be behaiving the way I think they ought. Is that automatically bad somehow, simply becaseu I state it?

But I need to behave the way they do right? The problem with this approach is that there is no end of people who proclaim that their set of rules is the right way to go. The problem also is that there are precious few who are really able to explain from start to finish why they have chosen which "rules" they prefer. Can you? I can but I can guarateee that most here wouldn't like my explanation simply because a lot of people do not want to know.

Let me give you a clue..

"You shall not lie"
"You shall not steal"
"You shall not desire anything that causes you to get your priorities out of whack"

The sad fact here is that we have gotten to the point where no one cares to have any standard and whenever one is proposed the usual mindless response is "Freedom of Speech", which is intelelctually vacant and, quite frankly, oftentimes a bunch of baloney.

It's like the stupid statement (perhaps proclamation of personal stupidity *g*), "There are no absolutes." which, of course, is an absolutist statement. *bg*

Duhhhh... "g*

IOW, here's what I'm seeing happening. Person A says, "We ought to have a series of standards that benefit the community as a whole." Call them whatever you'd like but it is the absence of the adherence to a common set of rules that defines anarchy.

So, who is to say which set of rules is the "right" set? In the case of the Universal Thread it's really simple; Michel get to say. Period. Now, you or I might not like whatever set he decides upon and I'd surely wish him well in his pursuit of how best to implement these said rules but it is his call and his alone at the end of the day. It really doesn't matter what I think or you think or what anyone else thinks...

Except...

What Michel decides will certainly determine who might stay, whether voluntarily or not.

That Michel listens to sysops, advisors, message posters is a plus, not a requirement though. Other than how his decisions effect membership.

>
><<<
>Any society, including online communities, must have enforceable standards or live with the anarchy that ensues without them.
>>>>
>
>And that's a bad thing? Visit the offramp sometime, see what happens when people are free.

No, rules are a good thing. The problem is this; are the rules internal or external? If internal what do you do if they are different between individuals? Easy, you establish an external set of rules. This is either done voluntarily or with the threat of force. Kind of like stopping at a stop sign. The law says "Stop" but what isn't said is the second half of that command, "or else." Or else what? Or else you get a ticket. Here it's "Do this, don't do that," with either the threat of being tossed over the railing or with a culture that is cohesive enough to not need external reminders.

IMO the internal-only approach simply won't work for obvious reasons; different cultural expectations from all the various members, individual ethical and moral standards held by each, and so forth. So, having a set of rules, well placed, is IMO a good thing.

>
><<<
>You and I may know that it's wrong to destroy someone else's property or reputation, but there are also enforceable laws dealing with those things in case we don't exercise enough self-control.
>>>>
>
>So you think that speech can be the same as destroying property? Guess you don't have much regard for the idea of freedom of speech.

Don't be stupid here. Of course speech can be harmful. Just ask the fellow who this last week put a bogus message on the Internet regarding some stock. It drove the price down enough for him to commit a fraud whereby someone else was damaged. Fraud, in the telling of a lie in order to gain/abuse the property of someone else is most certainly speech that could destroy that property.

The problem with the notion of the freedom of speech is that it should be coupled with the notion of personal responsibility. Surely you are not advocating that people should be say anything they want without any regard whatsoever to the consequences of what they say? Don't misunderstand me here.. I think everyone should have total freedom to make an absolute idiot out of themselves spouting half truths, innuendoes and outright hateful speech. I certainly will not engage in such behavior BECAUSE I have an internal gyroscope. A lot of people simply don't follow the one they have though, being insensate to their own internal state of being.

Thing is, having NO rules is just as bad as having TOO MANY rules or BAD rules. Who gets to decide the rules? Michel, with the resulting membership a demonstration of his ability to choose which rules are the best by voting with their feet.

>
><<<
>From dictionary.com:
>>>>
>
>Oh puleeeze! Anarchy is freedom, go read some websites and learn to understand what the word means, your dictionary definition is pathetic.
>
>Zane

Well, glad you are such an expert that your definition is better than the one David quoted. It's nice to be in the company of such a smart person that you can simply discard what someone else quotes because you don't like it. *g*

Or, are you just too full of yourself and actually think that what you think is what everyone else should think. Or me too for that matter. This is, of course, the problem Zane. By what standard is your position or my position "right"? I can give a reason for my position and I'd bet you can as well. Thing is, if they turn out different how does the difference get resolved? Personally I think there's a lot to be said for common sense, restraint, good manners, considering the other person to being better than one's self, and so forth. These are qualities of character not commandments on paper and if that's what you are after then I'm 100% with you.

What qualities though? *g*

My suggestion would be to go to The Oxford English Dictionary and find out what the real experts have to say about the definition of the word(s).

My Oxford English defines "Anarchy" as - "without a chief or head", first date of 1611 (though the word, with a Greek origin obviously goes back much further), "Absence of government; a state of lawlessness", "Absence or non-recognition of authority and order in any sphere (emphasis mine), "non-recognition of moral law; moral disorder" (which is where I see most of today's troubles actually), and "unsettledness or conflict of opinion"

What David said makes pretty good sense to me.

Unless you're an anarchist. *g*

Best,

DD