Brad, you ass ! Stop giving him ideas.
Musings of a new moderator
by onacruse 49 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
donkey
Ona, you suck!!
Jack
Just as well I put in the Exclamation marks (!!!) huh?
PS - only kidding. I know you have a great heart and I respect your motives...really I do. While I may not agree with you on many things I it takes a lot for me to respect peoples motives...that being said however, I know this place has changed your life. In some ways it (and people I have gotten to KNOW) have changed mine too (most for the better and some for the worse). I can tell you now (even though Simon would never appoint me because he thinks I am an Ass ) I would never accept the job of "moderator" because you have to be moderate...
If you enjoy it - do it. Please don't try to be too precise or too fair...I have complained alot about fairness I know...but keeping things fair and clean and sterile...also makes things veeery booooring.
Jack
-
Farkel
Craig,
: I also appreciate, and need, the constructive criticism you've offered.
Read that circa 1958 Awake! about constructive criticism. NO criticism is constructive, and that article was right, by the way. Observations, contrary opinions, opposing arguments, yes. Criticism? No. It's not the precise definition of terms I'm talking about; its the connotation of those terms, and the word criticism means either "stupid" or "you are just plain wrong." Change the delivery to something like "you are a total idiot, but then what in the heck do I know?" and you've transformed the context of the message from "criticism" to something constructive, IMNSHO.
Repeat: NO criticism is constructive. Trying to help people see the error of their arguments and opinions (if there are indeed errors in them) is another thing. It's all in the manner of delivery.
(I don't always follow my own rules, but then everyone knows that!)
: Perhaps I am right, perhaps they are right...it could easily cut both ways.
Another dub way of looking at things, my friend. (You gotta lose that "dub think" they stuffed into your head for all those years, bud.) It's not about "right" or "wrong." It's about "what works and what doesn't work." What works on this board won't work on another board. What works when you and I dialogue won't work when I'm dealing with some rabid dub who is clueless.A simple illustration: Is the act of murdering someone "right" or is it "wrong?" Is it wrong to kill someone who has a gun to your six-year-old daughter and who has killed before and you have the means to stop that person by killing that person before that person can kill your child?
It's about "what works" and "what doesn't work" and thinking and living in the set of "this is right" and "that is wrong" are very dangerous ways to think and deal with in life.
Life is complex and robust and right/wrong cannot be put in a box with those labels on it.
Think about it.
Farkel
-
gambit
I feel lucky ...
I came aboard just in time for a really cool exchange of wits...
IMHO... I had NO trouble spotting the outsider in the recent massacre of threads. Take this thread, as a fine example of "nasty" comments amongst people that have an obvious reporte (logan and stinky)...
It is easy to see that the moderators of this board take there positions very, well, I want to say serious, but I think the better word is compassionate and human... They obviously read a lot of the threads, and contribute to quite a few, so one would think that they have a good understanding of the personalities, backgrounds, and vested interests (ie emotional or intellectual) of a heated exchange.
I vote to quit attempting to back-seat moderate... If what is being said is deemed damaging and thus locked or deleted, if in all fairness they are wrong, then simply try again... tone it down a little... there is always another way of presenting an argument...
Simon, and all, I don't envy your position... You run a fantastic board !
gambit
-
outoftheorg
Farkel, l will have to disagree with you on this one. Right and wrong are always important. To use a simple illustration similar to yours.
If a competitor and I have a similar business and he seems to do way better than me, would it be ok to burn down his building?
That would certainly work. But it is not right.
A society, to be successful has laws and they are based primarily on what is right conduct or wrong, unacceptable conduct.
These are seldom followed to their fullest but even then they work better than no laws at all.
Outoftheorg
-
nowisee
craig --
i am so glad you are here for many different reasons.
i wish you the very best. i hope you chew well what you have bitten off.
i will be watching with interest....affection....and so many good wishes.
love, nowisee
-
onacruse
hehe...I'm on the phone, and can't comment with any intelligence about all your posts above.
I know you'll understand
Craig
-
onacruse
donkey:
If you enjoy it - do it.
My dear fellow, why in the world would anybody in their right mind think that I would "enjoy" such a thing? LOL I think the better term would be self-flagellation.
Over the past 10 years, I've been a project manager of $100M+ construction projects, involving upwards of 500 grown men. Believe me when I tell you: I was nothing more than a glorified babysitter! I hate having to "tell" grown people how to behave.
My passion for this forum is based totally, and I mean totally, on what it's done for me.
Craig
edit to add: donkey, your post deserves a more complete response than I just offered.
It's been another busy day.
-
Farkel
outoftheborg,
: If a competitor and I have a similar business and he seems to do way better than me, would it be ok to burn down his building?
: That would certainly work. But it is not right.
I agree. And I agree that I didn't add the expression "human ethics" in my statement. I will do so now. You should not hurt innocent people in any such decisions.
Of course, this leads to another dilemma: a 12 year-old-girl becomes pregnant by a psychopathic rapist who is also retarded. Should she abort the baby? If yes, then the mother is saved from the possibility of having to raise a child she can't very well raise, and who might possibly get bad genes from the psycho who raped her and who would not be able to support his own child. That would be misery for the young mother no-matter-what. On the other hand, she might have the child and the child would grow up to be another musical genius like Arthur Rubenstein without any problems what-so-ever. The young mother is the victim of another man's greed in my example and is faced with an ethical dilemma she could never logically solve before she makes her choice.
This is a classic ethical dilemma, and I'm glad I haven't had to face one like this.
Whatever works best for the young mother in my example is what she should choose: and she may make the wrong choice.
Life is not fair, and all the rules of human ethics sometimes have bad consequences even when they are followed.
Farkel
-
outoftheorg
I agree with your example of the ethical dilema. The choice should be hers if she is mentally capable of doing so.
You mention in your example "she might make the (wrong) choice. So right or wrong is still involved in the decision.
In my opinion decisions involve both (what will work) and also (what is right or wrong,) in the given situation. Situational ethics, are at times the only way to arrive at a decision.
Even then, the unforseen can screw up the results.
So much for absolutism, dogmatism, jwism, and rigid rules.
Outoftheorg