<HTML><BODY style="word-wrap: break-word; -khtml-nbsp-mode: space; -khtml-line-break: after-white-space; "><BR><DIV><DIV>On Jan 14, 2006, at 6:54 AM, Jack Parkinson wrote:</DIV><BR class="Apple-interchange-newline"><BLOCKQUOTE type="cite"> <DIV><FONT face="Arial" size="2">The fairly recent acrimonious political debate in this forum and the airing of the WTA 'dirty laundry' has made me wonder a little about the reliability of the 'gut-feeling' as an arbiter of what intelligent life ought to be listening and paying attention to.</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face="Arial" size="2"></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face="Arial" size="2">In the case of Danila Medvedev: To be sure, I am no apologist for Stalin: But - I do believe in free speech. I see no benefits whatsoever in sweeping unpalatable political facts - or even unpalatable political fictions and delusions - beneath some metaphorical carpet. We are reasonable people (or should be) and able to engage/reject a topic with reason and informed debate.</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face="Arial" size="2"></FONT> </DIV></BLOCKQUOTE><DIV><BR class="khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV><DIV>Wholesale rewriting of history and denial of atrocities has nothing to do with reason on informed debate. Such denials are not debatable. </DIV><BR><BLOCKQUOTE type="cite"> <DIV><FONT face="Arial" size="2">So I was somewhat taken aback some time ago when I mildly remonstrated against the ad-hominem attacks Danila Medvedev was being subjected to on the WTA list and was promptly denounced as a 'commie' and an admirer of Hitler and Pol-Pot. Almost immediately the signal to noise ratio made further discussion impossible. Pity - because something important was lost. Reasoned response was sacrificed (eventually moderated out) because a few individuals persisted in their pejorative attacks - making it clear that their sacrosanct world view was not to be threatened on THEIR list... </FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face="Arial" size="2"></FONT><BR></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE><DIV><BR class="khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV><DIV>The notion that all opinions no matter how absurd or evil are worthy of defense and serious consideration is shallow thinking.</DIV><DIV><BR class="khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV><BLOCKQUOTE type="cite"><DIV> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face="Arial" size="2">This list, this group, and the values it generally shares (values which some members sometimes seek to ferociously protect) has no comfortable sanction on what will and will not be a part of our extropian future. We each have our subjective reality. All the things that this group (or some elements of it) might seek to exclude will continue to be factors influencing the future regardless of your willingness to admit them or not. So what is the point of limiting debate? The truth is - there is no point - if you admit that reality is more important than the maintenance of some fictional comfort-zone. </FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face="Arial" size="2"></FONT><BR></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE><DIV><BR class="khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV><DIV>I do get to decide what I sanction and abhor. So do groups of people and organizations. By what they sanction and stand for they will be judged. Debate is not limited. Having such an open mind that your brains fall out is not "debate" or respect for reality. </DIV><BLOCKQUOTE type="cite"><DIV><FONT face="Arial" size="2"><BR></FONT></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BLOCKQUOTE type="cite"><DIV><FONT face="Arial" size="2">Just my opinion: But moderation might be (could be):</FONT></DIV> <OL> <LI><FONT face="Arial" size="2">Anything goes - provided it has an extropian angle.</FONT></LI></OL></BLOCKQUOTE>mostly the way things are here.<BR><BLOCKQUOTE type="cite"><OL><LI> </LI><LI><FONT face="Arial" size="2">Politics, religion and sexual preference are exclusively the preserve and prerogative of the writer. Respect them.</FONT></LI></OL></BLOCKQUOTE><DIV><BR class="khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV>What does this "respect" of politics or religion mean? Does it mean that we don't rigorously examine and criticize each other's notions in these areas? If so then I am not interested.<BR><BLOCKQUOTE type="cite"><OL><LI> </LI><LI><FONT face="Arial" size="2">Although you may seriously doubt the mental health of the poster - you may attack the concept/proposition as outlined in the post ONLY on reasoned, rational grounds. <FONT face="Arial" size="2">Under NO circumstances will you resort to pejorative labelling: ie, telling the author s/he is crazy/commie/anarchist/etc etc, or otherwise attempt to discredit the person rather than the argument. If you do so - </FONT>you will get moderated out of the discussion forthwith. </FONT></LI></OL></BLOCKQUOTE><DIV><BR class="khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV>Yes, again part of this list.</DIV><DIV><BLOCKQUOTE type="cite"> <DIV><FONT face="Arial" size="2"></FONT><BR></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE><DIV><BR class="khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV><DIV>- samantha</DIV><BR></DIV></BODY></HTML>