On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 09:07:18PM -0300, Cecilia Tanaka wrote:
On Jun 22, 2016 8:39 PM, "juan" <juan.g71@gmail.com> wrote:
Your absurd and duplicious apology for censorship, hypocritically
dubbed 'moderation', has been duly noted.
Yeah, you censor people in other to protect your poor
retarded audience. Touching.
No, they were not my audience at all. My ego never was not so pretentious. They were people trying to learn more about programming, electronics, security, better ways of buying components, even living in a corrupt country, full of injust imposts and taxes... A little about everything, Juan. Some of us talked about phylosophy, History, poetry... And all of the group asked to moderate that guy. It was not my decision. Democracy, my dear.
:) There is room in the world for private or semi-private clubs where the democracy of the club prevails. The benefit of this over capital-D democracy, as Juan has succinctly pointed out wrt the Debian example, is that no one HAS to join that club. I don't HAVE to die for the cause of Debian, and on top of it, I can fork as much of the code and do with it as I want/ am able. So these private clubs, I think they can be useful for people. I think of AA as another example (Alcoholics Anonymous) - useful for some people, private (members only) but open to anyone joining if they need or want, but also probably subject to security - getting the boot if you are destructive to the rules of that private club. I'm ok with groups having their private clubs, or semi private/ semi public. Although I object to some of the "democratic foundations" of Debian, I am ok with the Debian developers continuing to choose to have their private little free software democracy club - that's just not for me. I roll to Juan's "if someone's got something to say, they're allowed to damn well say it" side of the street.
I was just one of the moderation team, the only woman, and my work was avoing spammers and disasters. The difference was that I was knowed as moderator in public for being easily contacted for all the members of the list. The rest of the moderator team wanted to avoid problems in their inboxes. They were wiser than me and really coward in one person' specific case.
I hear that you learned some wisdom, and I can see how cowardliness could exist coincident with wisdom, although I would personally not juxta those two realities as part of the same adjective for a person's actions - if it's cowardly, that's the end of it for me, it's a cowardly act.
Sorry, Juan, I really don't care if you likes me or not. It won't change my life or my personal convictions.
Cecilia
Again, marginal cost of online discussion group is as good as zero. Why should we hold against you, your desire for or participation in a moderated online discussion group? For me that's an equation like "1 + orange = flying". Now, for foundations for robust broader "community"/ national "society", this is another matter entirely - we need fundamental human rights to be respected very strongly, for a strong society potential. We need the right to create and live "hard core free speech" forums, we need "the right to free and anonymous travel on the commons", we need these and more! And having strong foundations does not remove the right for small/ medium or large groups to form their own (semi) private clubs (if they're useful for you, healing for others, comforting for some, go for it, create as many private clubs as your heart desires). "Strong public rights, is not contradictory to private clubs." Juan, I'd like your thoughts on this proposition.