Re: [compost_tea] New poll for compost_tea
The poll suggested is too narrow in its line of questions, as I see it.
If I vote yes, without any qualification as to what moderation consists of,
then I am giving "you" carte blanche to decide whats okay and whats not
okay.
I have no problem with an occasional "Hi-yeild type" asking questions or
presenting information from his perspective -- while I am generally
in disagreement with him, the answers given to his data/take/opinon/belief
system help me to
deal with the suppositions, presuppositions, beliefs, data, opinions, and
etc. from those of a like-mind (but who also more open minded and willing to
listen to reason) that I would like to sway or present other options to, or
as fodder (answers) to undecided/uninformed others who might be swayed by
such folks as hi-yeild . I cannot always come up with the answers myself, so
rely on help from more knowledgeable people. If I want to change how
someone thinks, then I must know how they think. If I want to show the
limitations of a belief system, I need to be aware of that belief system so
as to present specific counter-data.
On the other hand, I do not want to be innundated and constantly diverted
"by the adversary" as I am more interested in what the new front runners say
than the position of defenders of the status quo or
old orthodox paradigm. Nor do I like the thought that such would
drive away the knowledgeable, the reasonable, the experienced, the
etc. etc. etc. who could & would solidy & refine old data/info and create
new data/info.
I do draw the line with the "hi-yeild" type attitude and methods of
communication. Dogmatism and Flaming are not only counterproductive, they
are destructive.
Elaine has disagreed with some folks on this forum; when
she does so, she does not name-call or use innuendo; she does not attack
the personality, rather she stresses facts and she deals in facts and
debates data. She is, from what I have seen, also open to unproven
theory/ideas and looks for data to support it or discount it before
dismissing it. She is a model of both the open-minded scientist and the
Thinker (both maverick and orthadox/both responsive and responsible) as well
as a model of a high level of ethical standards. And even she admits to
changes in her belief system or position by being willing to consider other
possiblities or other data --- as illustrated in her post whereby her
association with the USA acres folks brought about a meeting of the minds
and a change in both factions as regards agricultural practices.
(By the way Dr. Ingham, thank you for all the time, energy, and info you
have provided so generously to this list). You get my vote as an Einstien
and Tesla of agriculture and related. I think we should follow her
example. And many herein the ranks of this forum already have.
It is not about disagreement, or contray points of view that to me should
be the basis of moderation. ( Others have already voiced this concern and
the poll question should too by stipulating what moderation means, not just
asking outright for it, yes or no)
Moderation (in my opinion) should be foremost about common decency and name
colling, When a forum attracts a personality that uses "hi-yeild" tactics
like calling Elaine a queen bee (and worse) with all the insinuations such
implies about her and other forum members, and engages in character
assination or personality ridicule & put-down of fellow posters, then THAT
should be dealt with as innappropriate behavior. Splitting hairs, I could
question my own qualifiers: inappropriate to what? And by whose standard?
Define inappropriate!! Okay: Inpproprate to respect for divergent points
of view, inappropriate to the learning process, inappropriate to an
atmosphere of feeling of being safe & condusive for one to explore and
challenge and question so as to understand what is being advocated or to go
down paths not yet traveled, inappropriate as rude and abusive conduct to
your fellow man/fellow poster.
Secondarily, moderation should prevent long diversions "so far downstream"
that nobody interested in CT benefits from them. However, even an
occasional off topic --- or "way-out-on-a-limb"
application or idea of on-topic fare is okay by me. For example, as a
student of metaphysics, I am "into" energetics and spirituality of matter
and quantum biology as well (see for example Bruce Lipton's theory and
proofs that consciousness affects & alters even DNA ---or look to the
evidence accumulating about biogical alchemy; its not just metaphysic and
esoterics anymore) So
if some-one questions the "chi" aspect of praying/thinking over CT,--or the
use of vortex stirrers to improve water quality, then such should
be honored. (Look at the work of Emoto as evidence of
thinking/consciousness on matter-----and if Schauberger didn't have
something going for him with his vortex theories, why did the
government--both Nazi and American in their turn grab onto him and secret
away much of his work).
On the other hand, this forum it seems primarily addresses the practical
aspects of using CT-- such as making it in the market--such as how and why
and when it works, such as when clientelle see that you can make it work
for them or you can't. Thats being responsible and pragmatic and is
necessary. Its a matter of balance: open-mindedness,
fairness, and practicality of what works without also excluding the maverick
or divergent point of view. (Aerodynamics was once a "way out
on a limb concept, riduculed by "men of hard science" but when Wright's
plane flew, it was a done deal and an open ball game--same with CT,
pragmatics, feasibility and profitibility are necessary but so is the
open-minded spirit of exploration and discovery)
When some one here-to-fore wanted to exclude
discussions of flow-forms, it still happened as it was not moderated out. It
hit a nerve of interest.
Because it did continue, I benefited by having Elaine show data that the
limiting factor was oxygen saturation. So now I know that a flow form can
be used on the water prior to CT making (if I believe in that stuff and I
do) but is not advisable for the process of CT making itself
unless somehow the flow-form device/method is modified).
So yes to moderation of inappropriate behavior and personality attacks
as above stated. Yes to keeping the forum on-going
with information that helps all comers to understand & master CT making and
appliction in BOTH commercial and non-commercial settings and likewise
integrative with other feilds of study and bodies of knowledge. And also
balanced so that no one aspect of information runs away with other areas of
information. A qualified yes.
I agree with Doc E. that moderation should be based on the idea "innocent
till proven guilty". Another qualifier to moderation.
If moderation culls out flamers and abusiveness, I don't care
(theoretically) whether one uses a real name or not. Not putting oneself
on the line by name can either be due to subversive agendas (political or
personal) or simple fear of being judged. We live in a very judgemental
society and some/many just do not feel confident or safe to name themselves,
speak their piece, and let the chips fall where they may. Rejection and
ridicule are powerful deterrents. As to the subversives, they will become
sooner or later be "evident by their fruit"
(philosophy/data/actions/manner). Given other information, I could be
convinced otherwise; at the moment, its just not important to me.
Only on the last question, can I answer without qualification or qualifiers,
and the answer is a resounding NO.
PS-- To John Cowan regarding his post to my last post: Point made.
PS -- To Margaret: I agree with the idea a FAQ sheet or site -- whether
or not the forum is moderated or unmoderated. I see this very same
thing eventually being said on just about every forum I have been a part of.
As regards the excellent intro information given on the ICTC, it is not
referenced on the Compost Tea description given on the CT homepage
on yahoo, so how would a newbie to this forum know it about its existance.
g
Received on Mon Mar 22 2004 - 01:03:03 EST
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0
: Tue Feb 07 2012 - 14:15:10 EST