Re: [-empyre-] protocol reminder for -empyre- list

[Aliette <aliette@criticalsecret.org>]

Dear friends,

My opinion is that suspicious investigations between subscribers as they are
discussing of the intensity of our times (Bare life in all statements and
from each point of view) from their respective intensities and opinions (as
artists, as thinkers, as curators, socially integrated and linked to art and
poetry even tech and development) it really makes me in trouble as a sort of
preliminary to next civil wars (between artist) or a perpetual code of
censure that sounds not good of the following debate that have to go on...

Of course we are all from several social classes and formations that is
absolutely a gift to can meet and discuss together thanks the respectable
and relevant freedom of Christina. Of course all together we represent a
micro example of the diversity in game to the actual and to the predictable
future of working that will not have to be so much meta or so much expert
than the immediate past days.

We are not more cut from the bare social and material reality of our words
that become much more hardest from all parts (notoriously the changing means
of the laws and of the strange application of the human rights). Can be the
disappearance of the sense of human being after all is in question (I think
that but does not take care because each existence can change the collective
environment from a representative unknown difference acting by a fate random
effect?as I tried to tell regarding for example football? that is
perceptible as a matter of fact being able to be the object of strategies
and knowledge of this modes of dynamical strategy heritage from the changing
things more than modern history of the men)...  Because artists and poets
over all when they hope to show any message of their sensibility, of their
words, innovative anyway criticism more inter criticism.

Please to leave the current ideological divide and to accept any chocking
words from the benefic differences. I know how to receive my lot.. But I
know that I cannot be an example being myself so much of the marge more
different but self defensive... Anyway Michele, look at me I am still alive
on Empyre !

HG is radical but not a bad guy; it exists probably a place where he can be
with us with his clear-cut point of view not being an abyss but his raw
personality.

Let us find the solution to go with freedom of expression even having to
correct our respective regards to respect each one?

As old woman (we say an "old monkey") to my sisters who are not offended,
really, but looked for to seduce can be from the part of men, can be from
the part of women to other one.

All my best and my best effort in English to tribute the opening peace...
That means to begin currently by amnesty.

A.

 


On 12/07/06 18:22, "marc" <marc.garrett@furtherfield.org> probably wrote:

> Hi Christina, Michelle & all,
> 
> I should mention that none of my text is in any way meant to put anyone
> down personally. When I say subtext, it is no way regarding to Michelle
> specifically - the subtext at play is a social context regarding the
> general behaviour of the list, not anyone specifically. I'm refering to
> the psychological relationship between say one individual such as H.G,
> in contrast to the rest of the list users. On our own list
> 'Netbehaviour.org - every now and then we get an outspoken individual
> who expounds a point of view more vocally than others, and sometimes
> directly to certain individuals - and much worse, to be frank.
> 
> I would love to discuss much more about list dynamics, protocols and
> other relational aspects connected to such issues but, I really do not
> want to become a bully - would people mind if I changed the subject back
> to what was being disussed generally? For there is actually other ideas
> and dialogue happening here that could be drowned out, and I respect that...
> 
> marc
> 
> 
>> hi all,
>> 
>> If you all don't mind taking a brief break in the action here, I 'd
>> like to just take a second to clarify how I apply the posting
>> guideline about 'disrespect' for -empyre- soft-skinned space. This is
>> my subjective interpretation, of course. -empyre-'s a volunteer space,
>> not an organization so the moderators don't really have detailed rules
>> of order, just this guideline. Other months, when someone else on our
>> team is the moderator, you'll have a different interpretation than
>> mine. All I am going on is, our founder, Melinda Rackham's guideline,
>> specifically about 'disrespect the featured guests'. Here it is:
>> 
>>> From our front page:
>>> 
>>>> -empyre- is not a chat space, nor an announcement or self promotion
>>>> list, nor online performance space, and doesn't accept HTML
>>>> formatted email or attachments on the list. The facilitators reserve
>>>> the right to not publish posts that disregard these guidelines, or
>>>> the current month's topics, disrespect the featured guests, or
>>>> monopolize the forum either via individuals or group, and may
>>>> unsubscribe anyone consistently doing so.
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Ok, so as moderator I am obliged to take a position relative to posts
>> to the list, in order to facilitate this guideline.
>> 
>> The criterion I've been given for moderation concerns modes of speech,
>> or what may be called rhetorical devices. (example, no performance, no
>> disrespect, no announcements, etc, see above).
>> 
>> I interpret one phrase in GH's post ( archived here: https://
>> mail.cofa.unsw.edu.au/pipermail/empyre/2006-July/msg00050.html) as a
>> post that
>> disrespects another featured guest, Michele White. I believe he was
>> responding to Michele's post (archived here: https://
>> mail.cofa.unsw.edu.au/pipermail/empyre/2006-July/msg00044.html)
>> 
>> The following phrase contains a rhetorical device, which I interpret
>> as 'disrespectful of a featured guest':
>> 
>>> Your analysis of exposure is so incredibly trite it's laughable. It's
>>> a position born of privilege. It has the same sense as Marie
>>> Antoinette dressing up as a peasant and playing as a milk maid.
>>> Another romantic choice from a different era.
>> 
>> 
>> So what's wrong with that?
>> 
>> The articulation of the argument is flawed because the writer resorts
>> to 'ad hominem argument' . (Of course in light of our discussion about
>> gendered speech I should also say 'ad feminem argument ' !
>> 
>> I use 'ad hominem argument' as a working tool to decide if a post
>> 'disrespects the featured guests.'
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> What is 'ad hominem argument'?
>> 
>>> n ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin,
>>> literally "argument against the person") or attacking the messenger,
>>> involves replying to an argument or assertion by attacking the person
>>> presenting the argument or assertion rather than the argument itself.
>>> It is usually, though not always, a logical fallacy (see Validity
>>> below).
>> 
>> 
>> (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
>> 
>> 
>> " Ad hominem as logical fallacy
>> 
>> A (fallacious) ad hominem argument has the basic form:
>> 
>> A makes claim X.
>> There is something objectionable about A.
>> Therefore claim X is false.
>> The first statement is called a 'factual claim' and is the pivot point
>> of much debate. The last statement is referred to as an 'inferential
>> claim' and represents the reasoning process. There are two types of
>> inferential claim, explicit and implicit.
>> 
>> Ad hominem is one of the best-known of the logical fallacies usually
>> enumerated in introductory logic and critical thinking textbooks. Both
>> the fallacy itself, and accusations of having committed it, are often
>> brandished in actual discourse (see also Argument from fallacy). As a
>> technique of rhetoric, it is powerful and used often, despite its
>> inherent incorrectness.
>> 
>> In contrast, an argument that instead relies (fallaciously) on the
>> positive aspects of the person arguing the case is sometimes known as
>> "positive ad hominem," or appeal to authority.
>> 
>> An ad hominem fallacy consists of asserting that someone's argument is
>> wrong and/or he is wrong to argue at all purely because of something
>> discreditable/not-authoritative about the person or those persons
>> cited by him rather than addressing the soundness of the argument
>> itself. The implication is that the person's argument and/or ability
>> to argue correctly lacks authority. Merely insulting another person in
>> the middle of otherwise rational discourse does not necessarily
>> constitute an ad hominem fallacy. It must be clear that the purpose of
>> the characterization is to discredit the person offering the argument,
>> and, specifically, to invite others to discount his arguments. In the
>> past, the term ad hominem was sometimes used more literally, to
>> describe an argument that was based on an individual, or to describe
>> any personal attack. However, this is not how the meaning of the term
>> is typically introduced in modern logic and rhetoric textbooks, and
>> logicians and rhetoricians are in agreement that this use is incorrect.
>> 
>> Examples:
>> 
>> "You claim that this man is innocent, but you cannot be trusted since
>> you are a criminal, as well."
>> "You feel that abortion should be illegal, but I disagree, because you
>> are uneducated and poor."
>> "Only right-wing nutjobs believe that homosexuals account for one to
>> two percent of the population."
>> 
>> Not all ad hominem attacks are insulting:
>> 
>> Example:
>> 
>> "Paula says the umpire made the correct call, but this is false,
>> because Paula is too important to pay attention to the game."
>> This is an ad hominem fallacy, even though it is saying something
>> positive about the person, because it is addressing the person and not
>> the topic in dispute.
>> 
>> Ironically, accusing an opponent of ad hominem can itself be an
>> example of ad hominem if it is worded as an insult: "I'm not going to
>> stand here and let him insult me!" or "My opponent is resorting to
>> logical fallacy to win," or "Since he is out of good arguments, he's
>> attacking me." (partial Argument from silence)"
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> --- wikipedia entry http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -cm
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Jul 11, 2006, at 11:32 AM, Christina McPhee wrote:
>> 
>>> hi all,
>>> 
>>> As moderator, I just wanted to put out a quick reminder about list
>>> rules for -empyre- in case you're new to this online environment.
>>> Thanks to everyone for observing this constraint as it helps us to
>>> collaboratively generate new insights into the topic at hand.
>>> 
>>> From our front page:
>>> 
>>>> -empyre- is not a chat space, nor an announcement or self promotion
>>>> list, nor online performance space, and doesn't accept HTML
>>>> formatted email or attachments on the list. The facilitators reserve
>>>> the right to not publish posts that disregard these guidelines, or
>>>> the current month's topics, disrespect the featured guests, or
>>>> monopolize the forum either via individuals or group, and may
>>>> unsubscribe anyone consistently doing so.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> best,
>>> 
>>> christina and the moderating team
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> www.christinamcphee.net
>>> www.strikeslip.tv
>>> www.naxsmash.net
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> empyre forum
>>> empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au
>>> http://www.subtle.net/empyre
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> empyre forum
>> empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au
>> http://www.subtle.net/empyre
>> 
>> 
>