demaegt@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
Jim "The only hope for Pacifica out of its current self-destructive mess and
its slide toward total destruction is to begin to actually PRACTICE Democracy
in EVERYTHING related to Pacifica and to END the need for Fuehrers - even very
nice and fair and good Fuehrers (or "leaders" or "moderators" or "owners" if
you prefer) - We Don't Need No Stinking Fuehrers" D.
...The only hope for Pacifica out of its current self-destructive mess and its
slide toward total destruction is to begin to actually.
I disagree, can anybody remember the still open conversation of a Pacifica
Listeners Member Union?
...made in america
jdemaegt@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
I never called the NP moderator either a dictator or a Nazi.
What I am saying is that it is standard practice in and on all the
"Pacifica related" listservs (i.e not official Pacifica listservs but
listservs that many who are "active" in Pacifica affairs are on) oppose
democratically elected "moderators" and oppose the selection of "rules" by
democratic votes and instead need "rules" and "order" given to them by self
selected "leaders" .
And I contend that that "culture" and "pattern and practice" of failing
to respect and practice Democracy throughout Pacifica is what is a big, big
cause of the contestant bickering and personal attacks and the constant fights
for "who is in charge." If the Pacifica "culture" and "pattern and practice"
does not respect and practice democracy in every way possible then the
bickering and constant slide toward oblivion and self-destruction will go on
until the end of Pacifica is reached,
Jim "The only hope for Pacifica out of its current self-destructive mess
and its slide toward total destruction is to begin to actually PRACTICE
Democracy in EVERYTHING related to Pacifica and to END the need for Fuehrers -
even very nice and fair and good Fuehrers (or "leaders" or "moderators" or
"owners" if you prefer) - We Don't Need No Stinking Fuehrers" D.
----- Original Message -----
From: Richard
To: NewPacifica
Sent: Monday, March 03, 2008 11:08 AM
Subject: [NewPacifica] RE: [Fulcrumsofchange] posting rules and ORDER by
the "Leaders","Owners" "Moderators"
You make too many good posts so I don't complain. But the NP moderator
is neither a dictator nor a nazi so get real, man, and clean your
pretentious rhetoric up. /R
-----Original Message-----
From: fulcrumsofchange-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:fulcrumsofchange-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of
jdemaegt@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Monday, March 03, 2008 9:58 AM
To: NewPacifica@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; fulcrumsofchange@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
pacificaradiowaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [Fulcrumsofchange] posting rules and ORDER by the
"Leaders","Owners" "Moderators"
Richard wrote: "Would Peck's Bad Boy,
please, sit down? /R"
------------------------
Well if this sufficiently provokes you then you will have to file a
complaint with the "owner","moderator" - Fuehrer won't you? Please
reestablish ORDER!
Jim "Sometime you really have to RULE those nasty people who do things
different than you - but don't worry YOU will never be censored or banned
yourself - yea right -go Fuehrer Go reestablish ORDER!" D.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Richard" <rsierra12@xxxxxxxxx>
To: "NewPacifica" <NewPacifica@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, March 03, 2008 9:45 AM
Subject: [NewPacifica] RE: [Fulcrumsofchange] posting rules and ORDER
>I take it Jim's referring to the NP board (and others) though he
conflates
> Pac with NP. He's up to his usual treadworn gripe re the
board....equating
> proper execution of executive authority with fascism. Would Peck's Bad
> Boy,
> please, sit down? /R
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: fulcrumsofchange-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:fulcrumsofchange-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of
> jdemaegt@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Sent: Monday, March 03, 2008 9:21 AM
> To: NewPacifica@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; fulcrumsofchange@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
> pacificaradiowaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
rocklandfriendsofwbai@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [Fulcrumsofchange] posting rules and ORDER
>
> I think that as many people as possible should set themselves up as
> 'leaders" and "moderators" and "owners" and "insiders" and "experts" and
> "great ones" in general - the new Pacifica Fuehrers. That is after all
the
> Pacifica way. Then the "great ones" - our Fuehrers -should make as many
> "rules" as possible that everyone else (the "little ones") MUST obey. We
> NEED that ORDER! PLEASE BRING ORDER TO US! The new Pacifica Reich need
> ORDER! And the new Pacifica "leaders" - i.e the Fuehrers are needed to
> BRING ORDER TO US!
>
> PLEASE RULE US!
>
> NO DEMOCRACY AT PACIFICA PLEASE!
>
> Actually electing all 'leaders" and "moderators" and "owners" and
> "insiders" and "experts" and "great ones" Democratically would just not
> work
>
> at Pacifica - it is not in the Pacifica tradition. So wannabe be
> Fuehrers -
> Please set yourselves up and appoint yourselves if you want to be one
of
> the 'leaders" and "moderators" and "owners" and "insiders" and
"experts"
> and
>
> "great ones" - i.e the Pacifica Fuehrers (and hopefully white middle
> class
> Fuehrers, of course) .
> The above (Fascist) way of doing things is working sooo very well so
> far
>
> at Pacifica - we just need some more Fuehrers and maybe more power (more
> power, more power, more Power and some more Glory also, of course) into
> the
> hands of the self appointed wannabe Fuehrers would help Pacifica also.
The
> Pacifica Reich will then be in good condition.
>
>
> Jim "Democracy just will not work at Pacifica - WE NEED RULES and WE
> NEED ORDER!!!! and WE NEED SOME GREAT LEADERS - OUR FUEHRERS - TO BRING
> ORDER TO US!!!!" D.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Pamela Somers" <psomers1@xxxxxxxxx>
> To: <NewPacifica@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Monday, March 03, 2008 8:46 AM
> Subject: [NewPacifica] Re: posting rules
>
>
>> postscript: I should have added that if I receive a complaint I will
>> certainly intervene (and have) to do what I can to rectify a
>> situation. I realize that some people are more sensitive than others
>> to personal attacks. But unless there is an explicit request, or
>> something is particularly grievous (such as libel) I don't see it as
>> my job to be monitoring and policing posts.
>>
>> Pam
>>
>>
>> --- In NewPacifica@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "Pamela Somers" <psomers1@...>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> They're not to be recommended because they're poor form in
>> discussion
>>> or debate, but hey, if you want to look bad by making ad hominem
>>> attacks that's your business, not mine. I'm sure someone will point
>>> it out to others on the list if you do so, and then you'll have egg
>>> on your face. That's probably punishment enough.
>>>
>>> p
>>>
>>> --- In NewPacifica@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "Richard" <rsierra12@> wrote:
>>> >
>>> > Ad hominem ("marked by or being an attack on an opponent's
>>> character rather
>>> > than by an answer to the contentions made") assaults are
>> permitted?
>>> Please,
>>> > explain the justification for such an anti-freespeech
>> regulation. /R
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > -----Original Message-----
>>> > From: NewPacifica@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>> [mailto:NewPacifica@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
>>> > Behalf Of Pamela Somers
>>> > Sent: Sunday, March 02, 2008 8:55 PM
>>> > To: NewPacifica@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>> > Subject: [NewPacifica] Re: posting rules
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > Melinda,
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > You have been flooding this list with too many posts, that's the
>>> >
>>> > bottom line. It's not right for anyone to do that, no matter how
>>> you
>>> >
>>> > try to spin it. What do you mean by "right views"? This is a list
>>> >
>>> > about Pacifica. Posts about Pacifica or of interest to Pacifica
>>> >
>>> > people are welcome. If a personal attack is libelous, then I do
>>> >
>>> > something about it. Aside from that, it's up to people to monitor
>>> >
>>> > their own manners. I might suggest that people take something
>>> offline
>>> >
>>> > if things get too heated and off-topic, but that's about it. I
>>> think
>>> >
>>> > that's reasonable.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > Pam
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > --- In NewPacifica@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Melinda Iley-Dohn
>> <Iley_dohn@>
>>> >
>>> > wrote:
>>> >
>>> > >
>>> >
>>> > > No it doesn't. It sounds like a dictatorship. I find it
>>> >
>>> > interesting that as "moderator" that you do nothing about
>> personal
>>> >
>>> > attacks but you set a meter on
>>> >
>>> > > what the "right" views are and how frequent is acceptable.
>>> >
>>> > >
>>> >
>>> > >
>>> >
>>> > > Pamela Somers <psomers1@> wrote:
>>> >
>>> > Yes, I guess so, but less oppressive than having the moderator
>>> >
>>> > > lay down the law (although I will if I have to). This way you
>>> can
>>> >
>>> > > measure your own posting prolificacy by that of others, and
>>> adjust
>>> >
>>> > > accordingly. Sounds kinda democratic, no?
>>> >
>>> > >
>>> >
>>> > > p
>>> >
>>> > >
>>> >
>>> > > --- In NewPacifica@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Melinda Iley-Dohn
>>> <Iley_dohn@>
>>> >
>>> > > wrote:
>>> >
>>> > > >
>>> >
>>> > > > So are you saying that the board has established
>> the "correct
>>> >
>>> > point
>>> >
>>> > > of view"
>>> >
>>> > > > and how often we are "allowed" to post? Sounds fairly
>>> oppressive.
>>> >
>>> > > >
>>> >
>>> > > > Pamela Somers <psomers1@>
>> wrote:
>>> I
>>> >
>>> > > have not seen a problem with the number of your posts, Joe. I
>>> >
>>> > think
>>> >
>>> > > > Richard, Melinda and Kevin have sometimes overdone it
>> though.
>>> >
>>> > Of
>>> >
>>> > > > course if it's Obamania-driven we'll have to let it pass
>> for
>>> >
>>> > now,
>>> >
>>> > > as
>>> >
>>> > > > it's understandable at this point. I'm at fault for not
>>> >
>>> > > periodically
>>> >
>>> > > > reminding people of the posting guidelines. We had a 4-post
>>> >
>>> > limit
>>> >
>>> > > but
>>> >
>>> > > > that became hard to stick to with all the cross-posting
>> going
>>> >
>>> > on,
>>> >
>>> > > so
>>> >
>>> > > > I stopped enforcing it. But I agree with Nalini that a
>> person
>>> >
>>> > > > shouldn't continually flood the list(s). It's just not good
>>> >
>>> > > > netiquette (and perhaps a bit too egotistical?) to fling
>>> one's
>>> >
>>> > > pearls
>>> >
>>> > > > of wisdom at too steady a rate upon others, and it can
>> become
>>> >
>>> > > tedious
>>> >
>>> > > > to one's intended audience as Nalini has pointed out.
>> People
>>> >
>>> > > should
>>> >
>>> > > > make themselves aware of the way others are posting and not
>>> try
>>> >
>>> > to
>>> >
>>> > > > outdo everyone in volume all the time. I'm thinking that a
>>> >
>>> > better
>>> >
>>> > > > rule might be to not exceed too often the list's average
>>> number
>>> >
>>> > > > of posts per person. Or use Nalini's own number as a
>> shining
>>> >
>>> > > example.
>>> >
>>> > > >
>>> >
>>> > > > Pam
>>> >
>>> > > >
>>> >
>>> > > > --- In NewPacifica@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, wanzala@ wrote:
>>> >
>>> > > > >
>>> >
>>> > > > > I am probably as guilty in this regard as melinda, at
>> least
>>> >
>>> > over
>>> >
>>> > > > the past week or so. I was not aware of the posting limit
>>> rule
>>> >
>>> > and
>>> >
>>> > > > shall try to comply going forward.
>>> >
>>> > > > >
>>> >
>>> > > > > Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T
>>> >
>>> > > > >
>>> >
>>> > > > > -----Original Message-----
>>> >
>>> > > > > From: "Pamela Somers" <psomers1@>
>>> >
>>> > > > >
>>> >
>>> > > > > Date: Sat, 01 Mar 2008 17:34:04
>>> >
>>> > > > > To:NewPacifica@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>> >
>>> > > > > Subject: [NewPacifica] Re: Obama's Voting Record (Matt
>>> >
>>> > > > Gonzalez: "Count Me Out")
>>> >
>>> > > > >
>>> >
>>> > > > >
>>> >
>>> > > > > Melinda,
>>> >
>>> > > > >
>>> >
>>> > > > > I agree with Nalini that you have been over-posting a
>> tad,
>>> >
>>> > > > especially
>>> >
>>> > > > > since we have a rule here (currently completely
>>> unenforced),
>>> >
>>> > > that
>>> >
>>> > > > non-
>>> >
>>> > > > > Pacifica posts should not exceed 4 per day per person).
>>> >
>>> > > However, I
>>> >
>>> > > > > have given you some slack because I empathize with all
>>> your
>>> >
>>> > > > > excitement right now, with the key Texas primary coming
>>> up.
>>> >
>>> > > > >
>>> >
>>> > > > > Pam
>>> >
>>> > > > >
>>> >
>>> > > > > --- In NewPacifica@ <mailto:NewPacifica%
>> 40yahoogroups.com>
>>> >
>>> > > > yahoogroups.com, Melinda Iley-Dohn <Iley_dohn@>
>>> >
>>> > > > > wrote:
>>> >
>>> > > > > >
>>> >
>>> > > > > > I'm unemployed and my husband was hospitalized. I've
>>> been
>>> >
>>> > > bored.
>>> >
>>> > > > > Sorry.
>>> >
>>> > > > > >
___SNIP___
Visit: myspace.com/reallyquittingamerica
For the "people made in america".
---------------------------------
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage.