Contents | Previous | Next
Date: 30 Oct 2000 00:00:00 GMT
Subject: Re: Concern for the NG
Message-ID: <20001030133501.02430.00001585@ng-cn1.aol.com>
References:
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
Newsgroups: alt.religion.orisha
X-Admin: news@aol.com
Subject: Re: Concern for the NG
>From: Denise Oliver-Velez deoliver@pipeline.com
>Date: 10/30/00 8:02 AM EST
>Message-id:
>
>
>>Your concerns appear to me unwarranted. This is hardly a high-volume group.
>A
>>heavy day might bring 10 posts at the most. Those that are annoying are
>easily
>>dealt with by simply skipping to the next message. No response needed, not
>even
>>so much as a "plonk". The group is hardly over-run with "hate-junkies". I
>also
>>notice that your list of kill-file-ees comprises apparently the grand total
>of
>>three distinct posters. I notice that there is not a single "propagandist"
>on
>>the list. Perhaps your friend Eoghan can let us know who these persons
>unknown
>>are that so disturb him.
>
>I agree that ignoring is the best policy, but I do think that concern
>is warranted. There are readers to the ng, who don't post...and
>newcomers to Usenet who are unfamiliar with trolls, flamers and other
>such types, and may not be aware of how to deal with them.
>>
>>Regarding ad hominem scrutiny, these are clearly made warranted when posters
>>choose to cite their priestly titles and academic qualifications, the better
>to
>>buttress the arguments, or more usually pronouncements, that they make. It
>is
>>exactly the equivalent of what goes on in a court of law. If you bring in a
>>so-called "expert" witness in to testify, then the expertise of that witness
>>becomes a legitimate matter of comment and inquiry by opposing counsel. In a
>>public newsgroup such as this, one can do that in a parliamentary fashion,
>as I
>>choose to do, or one can do it in a heckling manner. The latter too is
>>acceptable in my opinion, for the same reason that you should not in a forum
>>where free speech is valued, such as on a political platform, prevent
>hecklers
>>from puncturing the pomposity and false pretenses of those who set
>themselves
>>up as authorities or as would-be kings. So we have two sides of one coin. If
>we
>>have somebody claiming priestly titles and listing his lineage, on one side
>of
>>the coin, you have also, on the other side of the coin, to permit voices,
>>perhaps even heckling voices, taking issue with the nature and value of the
>>titles claimed. The heckled party called the heckling on himself, and cannot
>>seek refuge in a law banning ad hominem heckling. If you don't want ad
>hominem
>>attack, don't set yourself up as some authority.
>>
>>Now, if certain people of tender heart and thin skin want to be protected
>from
>>sometimes stinging public comment, then by all means let them set up their
>>sanitized little group somewhere, with a moderator firmly in control of the
>>gate, and a faux emperor certain not to have his pet falsehoods challenged.
>By
>>all means, go right ahead. I certainly will have no part of it. I would also
>in
>>that case resist very strongly any attempt by you and Eoghan (let's face it,
>>you have your own little gang going, and you have each other's back - that's
>>your right) to create such a group with either the words "religion" or
>"orisha"
>>included. Call it alt.magic.cat or alt.magic.eoghan or alt.magic.hoodoo or
>>alt.anthropology.magic.african or whatever. But please don't degrade
>>traditional African religion by setting something up by that name and
>>installing a sorcerer and freemason-cum-hoodoo-hobbyist as resident
>moderators
>>and experts talking about orisha and religion.
>>
>
>The history of the formation of this ng is available in alt.config
>archives. The original concept for the formation came from me. With
>the support of Baba Ejiogbe in Seattle, and added support from Cat,
>and several others. Hoodoo was included as one of the topic areas for
>this group. I proposed the ng originally because there were several
>private e-mail lists in operation at the time, and a few discussions
>of orisha/voudoun/palo etc in some of the pagan and majick ngs, and
>Cats ng alt.lucky.w - but no home base for Usenet discussion of some
>of the topics we discuss here. We knew we would probably stay a low
>volume group - hence the alt.hierarchy, and did not even attempt to
>try for moderated status. I think that the "own little gang" remark
>is overly harsh.
Perhaps so. I was reacting to the suggestion that others are forming "gangs".
Some folks have taken the time over the years -
>this newsgroup was proposed on alt.config on Wednesday, January 24,
>1996 - to post, and to continue to post regularly and as such have
>become comfortable with each other and have shown interest in specific
>areas of discussion. I'm happy that Cat and Eoghan have stuck it out
>- though they may discuss things that don't necessarily interest me
>all of the time. Such is the nature of this ng. I'm glad when others
>join in, in the spirit of the group - but I don't like when discussion
>degenerates into name-calling, and racism or homophobia.
>But I've been on Usenet a long time - and such is the nature of the
>medium, and so I have newsreading software (Agent) that makes it easy
>for me to ignore and kill file posts that are off-topic, cross-posts
>from other un-related groups, and flame wars that drag on ad-nauseum.
>
>I do however realize that newcomers to the group see all the posts -
>and sometimes get caught up in all of this stuff - and old-timers
>aren't immune to harsh or instant responses either.
>
>Again - that's Usenet. I try (sometimes successfully) to re- read and
>count to ten before hitting the send button.
Congratulations and thank you for your part in setting up the ng. I wasn't
aware of the early history. Perhaps some of the old-timers have gotten so
comfortable with each other that they don't even recognize when the old-timers
violate the very rules that no apparently cause such alarm. If it is true that
Eoghan called someone "vayaputa" (I know just a little Spanish, and in fact I
was wondering why she should call herself such a name, only now to learn that
the designation was put on her by old-timer Eoghan), that for example qualifies
as name-calling and should be condemned also. I have been around usenet since
1992, so I'm very familiar with some of the problems, and agree that the
easiest response to annoying posters is to ignore them. Publication of
kill-files is hardly warranted.
>>Face it, the only reason why this particular proposal is made at this
>>particular juncture is because Emperor Eoghan has been shown to have no
>>clothes, and he is looking for cover. Good friend that you are, you come to
>his
>>aid. Very admirable. But in a true sense, you can't help him. Beguiled as he
>is
>>by Eshu, the master trickster, what he needs is not cover to shield him from
>>the truth about himself, but yet more exposure. It's painful, but that is
>the
>>way to growth.
>>
>>Peace,
>>Grisso
>>
>
>There are no Emperors here
Quite.
> - or moderators,; just regulars, infrequent
>posters, and lurkers. Some folks are scholars, some are
>practitioners, some merely curious. All of that's okay. Though it is
>certainly much more difficult to maintain than closed mailing lists
>for "initiates only" or for folks with degrees only.
>
>Sigh. But again - that's alt. That's Usenet (un moderated) And we
>will struggle on in our low-volume corner of cyber-space - with heated
>debate, off topic posts, cross-posts, flame wars, trolls, and
>whatever....and hopefully survive as other ng's do.
>
>I suggest a simple solution. Let's try to have more posting that
>exchanges ideas, info and things on-topic than posts that spend time
>attacking.
I quite agree. It is why I try to support my statements with facts, and
argument, even going to the trouble to reproduce relevant articles for others
to take a look at. Some old-timers seem to resent that, which is both
unfortunate and revealing.
And posters who are newer - as well as old timers might
>want to introduce( or re-introduce) themselves to the group in
>relationship to why they are here.
>
>Those who come here to propose "anti orisha" sentiments - have made
>there positions clear to me - and go into my trash bin. Which is my
>form of moderation. Those who enjoy flaming join them. I archive
>useful posts, of which there have been many.
I have no problem with "anti-orisha" sentiments. Some people have had bad
experiences with the religion, and it is both their right to air those, and
useful to the rest of us to have those views expressed. Sometimes, as I found
with the poster Karl Denninger, his complaints did not stand up under scrutiny,
evaporating into incoherence and double-standards. But I certainly would
welcome anti-orisha sentiments. No man-made institutions should be placed
beyond criticism.
>Through this ng I've made some friends, and actually met a few folks
>face to face. Have gotten info on new books and papers and forums
>that I might have been unaware of.
Indeed. The exchange of ideas, information, and views can be a healthy thing.
It need not degenerate into anything negative. But assuredly if any
self-appointed Emperor gets in seeking to stifle views, things will happen to
shake things up. Some will wield a scalpel, like I do, others will start
throwing bricks around. The latter too are worth hearing, although not
necessarily engaging.
>Alafia,
>
>Denise
>
Peace,
Grisso
"Some seek to own the property. Others seek to enjoy the landscape." -- after
One-Minute Wisdom
--------------DCD321773BF46052B329BBD2--
Contents | Previous | Next
Tips for your pocket: