From: Blunderov (squooker@mweb.co.za)
Date: Wed Aug 06 2003 - 02:44:27 MDT
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-virus@lucifer.com [mailto:owner-virus@lucifer.com] On Behalf
Of joedees@bellsouth.net
Sent: 06 August 2003 12:49 AM
To: virus@lucifer.com
Subject: RE: virus: Re:Notice and Proposal of Importance to all Virians
[Blunderov]
> Many parliaments have the institution of "Speaker" who enforces the
> rules of parliamentary debate. Members who transgress are expelled
> from the chamber if they refuse to withdraw any remark, or behave in a
> manner, that is considered "unparliamentary". (The speaker also has
> the power to demand an apology.)
>
> Could we have a system like this? If a member of the CoV transgressed
> the agreed rules he/she could be suspended from posting for a certain
> time.
>
> Of course the rules * would have to be very clear. The task of
> 'Speaker' could be rotated, perhaps randomly. There might have to be
> an appeal mechanism.
>
> Quite possibly this has all been tried before and failed, but just in
> case it hasn't...
[joedees]
I sincerely wish that such a system had been in place all the times that
hermit has gratuitously slandered my mother, whom he has never met,
[Blunderov1]
A theoretical Speaker would be obliged to call upon a member of the
congregation to withdraw any ad hominem comments. An apology would also
very likely be demanded.
[joedees]
but I unfortunately doubt its efficacy with him. He has sworn never to
apologize for his tasteless and malignant remarks, and refused to
promise not to slander her again. In fact, when I asked for such a
promise, he responded by attacking her further. Do you really think
that
he would submit himself to such a system? Do you really think he could
ever bring himself to apologize for the vile mischaracterizations he has
already made concerning her,
[Blunderov1]
A theoretical Speaker would probably be compelled to call upon you to
withdraw this remark on the grounds that it is 'poisoning the well' = a
sort of hybrid ad hominem/logical fallacy. Eg: "How can we trust
anything this man says; he is an admitted atheist".
I suggest that we adopt a policy of 'tabula rasa'. It would be
counterproductive to attempt to address all previous slights, insults
and ad hominems, whether real or imagined. Let us move on.
[joedees]
or be compelled to do so by a "Speaker"? I sincerely doubt it.
[Blunderov1]
I don't think compliance would be a problem; bouncing any subsequent
posts from a refusenik to Lucifer (for the stipulated time) would
achieve the aim of censure. Any similar remarks made upon return would
simply attract the same tariff.
[joedees]
As far as hermit is concerned, rules seem to be only devices to be
created, used, abused and twisted for use against other people; they do
not apply to him.
[Blunderov1]
Once again a theoretical speaker would probably require you to withdraw
such a remark. It would be considered unparliamentary I think. (Or
perhaps in our case 'unvirian'?) If you wished to cite a specific
instance, or instances, of a rule/s being broken it would probably be
allowed.
[Blunderov]
> * Speaking for myself, a rule that would like to see implemented is a
> reasonable(?)ceiling on "cut and paste" posting. I would expect to see
> a lot more original thinking and writing from such an intelligent
> group of people than is sometimes the case. I don't think that there
> should be any limit placed on citing links in support of an argument.
[joedees]
A condition by which I am willing to abide if all other do;
[Blunderov1]
Nobody would be 'above the law'. A theoretical speaker would be required
to be impartial. As I previously remarked, it would probably be sensible
to have a mechanism of appeal to ensure this.
[joedees]
after all, it was hermit, and not me, who began the practice.
[Blunderov1]
The congregation would have to decide whether it was within the remit of
a theoretical speaker to intervene in instances of 'tu qoque'. My
feeling is that this would probably not be necessary.
It is worth noting that the title 'Speaker' is not without irony; he/she
is, for obvious reasons, not permitted to 'speak' on any matter other
than procedural issues. For this reason, and also because it is likely
to be a very demanding task, it seems to me to be vital that the duty,
if instituted, be rotated amongst the congregation in some equitable
way.
Regards
Blunderov
--- To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Aug 06 2003 - 02:45:27 MDT