ATTN NovaMarsollia

Palomar · 2002-09-24 17:10:36

As I've said before, when you look at New Mars, you're looking a benevolent dictatorship.
Plato wrote that justice will come to cities when ". . . philosophers become kings or kings genuinely and adequately philosophize. . ."
I am content that Adrian qualifies on both counts, especially since he has shown genuine reluctance to exercise power.

*Ah, the Philosopher King! Voltaire was a monarchist, and this was always his ideal. Frederick the Great was in his early 20s when he began corresponding with Voltaire...Frederick, the Philosopher King. Voltaire had such hopes for Frederick; unfortunately, their relationship never became what each other hoped for. I'm currently reading about Frederick the Great. Of all the monarchs of the "old days," I'd rather have him as king than any other royal figure I can think of; he was progressive, philosophical, dared to be different, and consistently did very worthwhile and constructive things for his people; he felt responsible for his people, and acted on this. I'll post some material written by him soon, in the "Free Chat" area, the 18th-century folder. Sorry for the digression, I couldn't help chiming in on this.

--Cindy

Phobos · 2002-09-24 18:33:27

Plato wrote that justice will come to cities when ". . . philosophers become kings or kings genuinely and adequately philosophize. . ."

After reading Plato's other political ideas, I've come to one conclusion: philosopher kings be damned.

The latter would be more ideal for him, as he could then ensure he's not dealing with "dreamers" and "children"...although one must wonder why he didn't have the brains to remove himself from the seemingly irksome company of "dreamers" and "children" to begin with.

Yeah, next thing you know those children and dreamers'll be thinking they can build heavier than air flying machines and take flights of fancy to the moon! *gasp*. If all the people in the world were hardcore cynics like Novamarsolla we'd never have left the cave! I can just see him discussing the absurdities of attaching little sharpened rocks to the end of a flying stick to get more meat! Anyways, children are very open and curious about things. Good qualities in my opinions, even though some of us are just brats!!

clark · 2002-09-25 09:16:36

*Clark, I'm not interested in debating this; you're making comments based on very little information, and frankly I find your intended stance on this issue foolhardy.

My intended stance is against censorship. I may not like what you say, but I will fight to the death to defend your right to say it... sound familiar? To some, they may be just words- another hollow ideal I suppose. If you feel that this stance is foolhardy, more power to you. As for my comments based on very little information... I am using all the available information to me to discuss censorship in general. Please note that nowhere was I defending novamarsilla, nor was I suggesting that what has occured was wrong in and of itself- I have taken care to NOT discuss the particularities of novamars, and I have tried to show the broader implications of censorship.

Maybe you don't care, but as one of the few on this board who is continually faulted for taking an "anti-mars" stance by others, i find this a chilling prospect. What I have discussed, and my reasons for discussing in a certain way are for specfic reasons- you yourself have argued against "groupthink"- censorship, in any form, is the means by which groupthink is enforced and maintained.

If she gets the street address and telephone number of a supposed "enemy," she'll harrass that person -- she's done it dozens of times to other people, as I found out too late,
unfortunately.

I have no idea what or who you are reffering to, but you are describing criminal acts. Again, I haven't defended the actions of anyone- I have been trying to point out the overall situation of censoring on a public forum meant for discussion.

And it'd take an even more pathetic person to wish to remain friends with a person like that.

Maybe I should clarify, the idea of acting as a "friend" is a strategy to deal with the rabbale rousers who look only to troll. The immature behavior is merely an attempt at social interaction- we can all agree it is a socially retarded way to do it. Now, imagine that I am calling you names, but at each turn you reply with "I'll be your friend", or "I love you". or even "someone needs a hug". In no way am i advocating developing a true friendship, but it allows one to take any semblance of control or power from the instigator.

Name calling is merely a means to get others to react in a specfic way- deny them that reaction and you gain control.

I've done it on this board several times, and it is effective. I've done it elsewhere, and it has the same effect- they stop.

As for replying with "love and kindness" -- sorry, I'm not Jesus.

Neither am I. However, I would imagine that the philosphy espoused by Jesus would be represented in some that 18th century enlightenment stuff you go on about. Jesus, Buddha, Mohamad, et al pretty much had the same fundamental philosphy on how to treat other people (not the fanatical interpretation, but the overall idea)

I'm simply not replying to/interacting with her again, and my husband seconds me on this.

Effective if that makes you happy, however, I was suggesting an alternative strategy that can be employed to actively disuade others from being rude, and without descending to their level. But passive resistance is just as valid.

My husband and I are handling the situation just fine, but thanks for your input.

Well, I am glad to hear that, but I wasn't really speaking to you or anyone in particulars "situation".

Palomar · 2002-09-25 09:53:03

Clark: I may not like what you say, but I will fight to the death to defend your right to say it... sound familiar?

*Many people have attributed this saying to Voltaire. However, in all my voluminous reading, I've *not* yet come across him saying this. He might have said it, but I've not yet read this statement in his writings or biographical information about him. I think the correct phrase is, "I may not like what you say, but I'll defend with my life your right to say it."

--Cindy

Palomar · 2002-09-25 10:04:41

If all the people in the world were hardcore cynics like Novamarsolla we'd never have left the cave! I can just see him discussing the absurdities of attaching little sharpened rocks to the end of a flying stick to get more meat!

*Yup. All while typing like mad on the keyboard of their COMPUTER, which is powered by ELECTRICITY, etc.

It reminds me of the people with all the "Save Goddess Mother Earth!" "Earth Is Our Mother Protect Her" and like BUMPERSTICKERS plastered all over their CARS which are puffing out huge quantities of EXHAUST FUMES.

If these sorts of people REALLY are opposed to technology, they should go live in a cave, or mud hut or thatched cottage. And no trips to the dentist for an aching tooth or to the modern hospital for a fractured bone. No running water or artificial heating or cooling, either. Let them pick berries, chop wood, and shear their sheep by hand for the wool they'll need for clothing...spun on an old-fashioned spindle powered via foot.

It's hypocritical to yammer on and on against technology when you're willfully living in and with all the luxuries and comforts it provides.

--Cindy

clark · 2002-09-25 10:22:04

Which is a greater imperitive, the right to free speech, or the right to be heard?

Censorship begins with the denial of your right to be heard.

If I have a right to say what I want, but not the right to have it heard where I want, do I really have an ability to exercise my right to free speech in a realistic and practical manner?

Is the exercise of free speech truly meaningful if you are prevented fom sharing that speech with others?

Can we honsetly claim that there is a free and enfettered exchange of ideas if we stipulate that certain ideas cannot be allowed in this public forum for discussion? Please note that the situation here is much different than the real world situation of enforcement of censorship laws in that the real-world censorship laws exsist ostenibly only in situations where the need for public saftey outweighs the personal right to speak your mind (ala not being able to yell fire in a crowded theater). How is the public endangered with discussions limited to the realm of the internet? If no such danger exsists, than how can we legitmatly allow censorship?

Personal attacks are of course not "free speech"- I am not suggesting that this should be protected. But the idea that viewpoints counter to the majority here on this board should "go elsewhere" is indicitive of closed minds and fanatics- it shows an inability to appreciate the viewpoints of others, or the legitmacy of of the uncomfortable questions.

Yes, novamarsilla, myself, and everyone else is "free" to go elsewhere to spout their views- it dosen't 'have' to be here. However, that is censorship in that it denies the people the opportunity to speak their mind in the forum of their choosing. Let us also acknoledge that this is a public board- no one needs an invite, no one needs anything more than an email address (real or made-up). There are no overarching rules or guidelines that state what is considered taboo or not taboo for this community- the introduction of such actually only serves to undermine an open forum such as this. The expectation that we conduct ourselves civily is of course taken for granted, and what some consider civil and not civil varies- different thresholds as it were. Which leads to the task of reconciling the various far-flung values of evryone on this board into an acceptable whole for this virtual community.

What i see here is a precedent whereby the viewpoint of "we shouldn't coloniuze mars for X reason" is being told to just "take it elsewhere".

It gives me that sick feeling I get when I hear people say that those who point out the flaws in America should just leave.

Whoever, or however the quote was stated, does it not strike you as simply sensible? Yes, it puts us in the unfortunete position of seeming to help certain viewpoints that we may find objectionable, but it is the only way we can honestly say we believe in the equal application of law to all.

This is about equality- something I thought perhaps others would be more recpetive to. Perhaps I am mistaken.

Perhaps hearing all viewpoints is not in our best interest. Perhaps ideas are dangerous. perhaps the discussion of certain ideas shouldn't be allowed.

viva la republica.

Palomar · 2002-09-25 11:03:26

Clark: Which is a greater imperitive, the right to free speech, or the right to be heard?

*The U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights allows for freedom of SPEECH. Neither document says anything about "the right to be heard." Why? Because no one has the right to IMPOSE their viewpoints onto others sans mutual consent. No one has the legal right to declare, "You MUST listen to me."

Howard Stern, Rush Limbaugh, and Rev. Billy Graham all have the right, like me, to freedom of SPEECH. More power to them. But everyone also has the freedm to turn the dial, shut off the radio, switch the TV channel, hang up the phone, or close the door to what we DON'T want to listen to...which is why our Founding Fathers were wise enough NOT to include the words "the right to be heard" in the documents they drew up.

Rave on whoever -- about whatever -- but it's my prerogative to turn heel and walk away while you rave on.

Now Clark'll start chopping semantics...

--Cindy

clark · 2002-09-25 11:14:01

Rave on whoever -- about whatever -- but it's my prerogative to turn heel and walk away while you rave on.

But that's not what happened here, nor what the suggestion of "take it elsewhere" in a public fourm is.

If YOU leave, you are exercsising your choice and your freedom.
If YOU tell ME to leave, you deny me my choice and freedom.

*The U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights allows for freedom of SPEECH.

So then it would be acceptable to institute laws whereby you may only exercise your freedom of speech alone, in the privacy of your own home?

The freedom of speech can only be exercised PRACTICALLY and MEANINGFULLY only if we are able to be heard.

If the government says we can say whatever we want, but we may not share it with others, that is still "free speech" since you are not being denied that ability, just WHERE you are allowed to use that ability. However, it has the practical effect of rendering the rights meaningless.

I am actually NOT talking semantics.

Palomar · 2002-09-25 11:53:49

Me: The U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights allows for freedom of SPEECH.

Clark: So then it would be acceptable to institute laws whereby you may only exercise your freedom of speech alone, in the privacy of your own home?

The freedom of speech can only be exercised PRACTICALLY and MEANINGFULLY only if we are able to be heard.

If the government says we can say whatever we want, but we may not share it with others, that is still "free speech" since you are not being denied that ability, just WHERE you are allowed to use that ability. However, it has the practical effect of rendering the rights meaningless.

*Blah, blah, blah, blah. You're being silly, Clark. I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt that you're smarter than this.

Are you saying that any and every time a telemarketer telephones my house, I *MUST* stand there until they are done? Are you saying that if a preacher comes along and wants to "witness" to me and "share the Gospel," I *MUST* stand there and let him yammer on and on? Good grief, use some common sense. If it were everyone's "right to be HEARD" in America, we'd all be starving to death on the street because no one would have any time to make money, pay bills, and cook dinner -- we'd all HAVE TO be listening to everyone's "right to be HEARD" and never get anything else done.

It's UN-American to demand that others must listen, that others have the right to impose their will, opinions, etc., onto others. What you're proposing is a social hostage mentality.

You can go ahead and "share" whatever you want -- with whoever is WILLING to listen. But no one HAS TO listen to you. There is NOTHING in the U.S. Constitution or Bill of Rights which gives U.S. citizens the right or authority to DEMAND others *MUST* HEAR/LISTEN TO them. Howard Stern is, IMO, an oversexed ugly moron whom I find repugnant. He has his freedom of speech, just like I've got mine to insult him -- but he doesn't have to read my insulting comments about him, or like them, and I don't have to listen to him, or like him. That's what freedom is all about.

Do you even see the difference I'm pointing out here? I think I've made myself perfectly clear.

--Cindy

clark · 2002-09-25 12:38:14

Do you even see the difference I'm pointing out here? I think I've made myself perfectly clear.

Yes, I do. However it only illustrates how you are completly missing my point. You are addressing something based off a misunderstanding of what i am talking about.

Let me try this again.

YOU, CINDY, CHOOSING to NOT LISTEN is an exercise of YOUR RIGHTS, YOUR CHOICE, YOUR FREEDOM. A telemarketer, a bible thumper trying to talk to you, but you hanging up the phone, or closing the door is you asserting your rights.

However, YOU, CINDY, TELLING those same people in a public setting that they MUST go elsewhere to espouse their views is an infringement upon THEIR RIGHTS. You do not have to listen- but on the same token, you don't have the right to tell them they can't exercise their right of free speech in a public forum if there is no danger to the public, or an infringment upon others rights.

Are you saying that if a preacher comes along and wants to "witness" to me and "share the Gospel," I *MUST* stand there and let him yammer on and on?

No. I am saying that you cannot tell him that he can't speak his mind.

If it were everyone's "right to be HEARD" in America, we'd all be starving to death on the street because no one would have any time to make money, pay bills, and cook dinner -- we'd all HAVE TO be listening to everyone's "right to be HEARD" and never get anything else done.

i think you may be misunderstanding the defintion of "heard". I am not saying you have a right to be LISTENED to- I am saying that being able to be heard by others is the fundamental piece that makes freedom of speech meaningful.

It's UN-American to demand that others must listen, that others have the right to impose their will, opinions, etc., onto others.

It is IN-human to deny others the opportunity to HEAR what someone else has to say. I am not advocating that anyone be forced to listen to something they do not wish to listen to. I am pointing out that a denial to be heard (the opportunity for others to listen if they choose) is wrong.

But no one HAS TO listen to you.

No where have I suggested such a thing. Please, point out where I have.

Howard Stern is, IMO, an oversexed ugly moron whom I find repugnant. He has his freedom of speech, just like I've got mine to insult him -- but he doesn't have to read my insulting comments about him, or like them, and I don't have to listen to him, or like him. That's what freedom is all about.

I understand all of this. What i am pointing out is that someone came to this board and started saying some things that were unpopular, and then they were subsquently banned/deleted. You can exercise your right not to listen by simply ignoring those posts you do not care to respond to- however, people banned or who have their messeages/point of view deleted do not have have the ability to exercise their right to free speech in a public forum.

Palomar · 2002-09-25 13:18:56

Clark: Let me try this again.

*You are so cute, Clark I'm surprised you didn't come back with "blah blah blah blah" to me <giggle>.

YOU, CINDY, CHOOSING to NOT LISTEN is an exercise of YOUR RIGHTS, YOUR CHOICE, YOUR FREEDOM. A telemarketer, a bible thumper trying to talk to you, but you hanging up the phone, or closing the door is you asserting your rights.

However, YOU, CINDY, TELLING those same people in a public setting that they MUST go elsewhere to espouse their views is an infringement upon THEIR RIGHTS. You do not have to listen- but on the same token, you don't have the right to tell them they can't exercise their right of free speech in a public forum if there is no danger to the public, or an infringment upon others rights.

*I see your point. But let's back up a moment. First of all, Adrian and Nova are not U.S. citizens; thus, the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights don't apply to them, and we can't impose our standards on Adrian...right? But I am a U.S. citizen. I have a mailing list devoted to 18th-century Enlightenment material. Supposing some guy joins my mailing list and wants to talk about modifying race cars? I don't know why he'd do this, but some people don't need a reason. Let's suppose I point out to him that there were no cars in the 18th century, so the topic matter is not applicable. Maybe he's polite and nice enough, hoping to drum up some conversation...but it's OFF-topic. It's my mailing list...I own it, moderate it, have put in hours of work on it; I call the shots, ultimately. What if he doesn't understand that it is a DISservice to him to continue trying to discuss modifying race cars at this particular mailing list, and that chances are really good he might get results at a mailing list devoted to the subject of modifying race cars? What if he says he's not budging? Am I obligated to this guy to keep reading his posts, keep posting them, etc.? I don't believe I am, so I unsubscribe him. Am I "censoring" him? Or am I somehow mysteriously socially obligated to have this guy yapping on and on about modifying race cars when the rest of us are talking about an era when cars didn't even exist? It boils down to who has more rights than who: He, to stay on my list and keep posting unrelated stuff, or me, who wants to keep the subject matter ON-topic. Since I'm sitting at the controls, I decide...just like Adrian. I would unsubscribe by fictional guest with a kind note informing him I'd prefer to keep the mailing list ON-topic, and that he'd probably be better served elsewhere, interacting with a group of people who WANT to talk about modifying race cars. That's reality, sweetheart.

Me: Me you saying that if a preacher comes along and wants to "witness" to me and "share the Gospel," I *MUST* stand there and let him yammer on and on?

Clark: No. I am saying that you cannot tell him that he can't speak his mind.

*Of course, and I wouldn't want to. I'd just walk around him and keep going.

--Cindy

clark · 2002-09-25 13:54:35

First of all, Adrian and Nova are not U.S. citizens; thus, the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights don't apply to them, and we can't impose our standards on Adrian...right?

One, the Bill of Rights applies to all peoples... or at least that is how the Supreme Court interprets it. Two, federal law dictates that any internet traffic that is routed through the US (which is about 80% of it) can be held accountable to United States federal law.

So our bill of rights, which are greatly mimicked by the UN bill of rights (adopted by most of the world), apply to Adrian and Nova. furthermore, Adrian and Nova can be held accountable for violating US law, even if they are never physically present in the US, if their actions on the internet violate any federal law. That's reality.

Now, as for imposing our standards upon others- that is what censorship is, by definition. Preventing someone else from saying something that is not acceptable. That implies a value, and it implies that the value is universal- as you so elquoently point out, this is a forum with international participants, so how can we legitimately establish what should and shouldn't be banned if we all have different values to begin with?

I have a mailing list devoted to 18th-century Enlightenment material. Supposing some guy joins my mailing list and wants to talk about modifying race cars?

Your situation is different and cannot be compared to the Mars Forumn here. You have a controlled list where people may only access the forum if they have approval to do so. You have a closed community- it's like a country club. In order to ge tin, you have to have a recommendation, or have a definitive interest. The Message board here though has an open door. There is no permission needed to gain access. There is no "front door".

Case in point, there is a section on the mars webpage that is inaccessible unless you have been granted access (TMS web team). This is a private and closed community, there can be no expectation that this area is free and public area. Your 18th century message list is not public, which is your perogative- you are the bouncer and you get decide who gets into the club, and who gets to stay in the club. The barriers you have in place to prevent EVERYBODY from getting in demonstrates that you want to discuss one particular idea without interuption- the public forum here on the mars message board demonstrates no reasonable expectation of this (other than posting in relevant folders)- How can one violate the expectations of what "should" be discussed if the expectation is that anything can be discussed (if you doubt the reality, look at the varied messages in all the posts)

It's my mailing list...Iown it, moderate it, have put in hours of work on it; I call the shots, ultimately.

All true, and I have not faulted Adrian for his actions. But it makes me uncomfortable when I consider that this action could be applied to me becusae I CHOOSE to take a different perspective on Mars. This perspective leads me to certain questions I feel can only be answered by those views I find here. Yet what i witnessed was "you don't think like us, so get out".

*Of course, and I wouldn't want to. I'd just walk around him and keep going.

So then why would it be neccessary to ban or delete messages in a public forum that are contrary to the majority held opinion?

Palomar · 2002-09-25 14:04:48

Me: It's my mailing list...Iown it, moderate it, have put in hours of work on it; I call the shots, ultimately.

Clark: All true, and I have not faulted Adrian for his actions.

*It seems to me you have faulted him for his actions.

Clark: But it makes me uncomfortable when I consider that this action could be applied to me becusae I CHOOSE to take a different perspective on Mars. This perspective leads me to certain questions I feel can only be answered by those views I find here. Yet what i witnessed was "you don't think like us, so get out".

*That's not my perspective. I cannot speak for Adrian, of course, but it's my distinct impression that NovaMarssolia (spelling?) was banned because of his attitude toward PEOPLE here...not because of his attitude toward Mars, technology, etc. It's one thing to engage in AD HOMIEN attacks on PEOPLE here; it's another to have a different point of view about Mars, eventual settlement and colonization, etc. A rule of thumb might be "address/criticize the IDEAS -- not the PERSON posting them." See?

Me: Of course, and I wouldn't want to. I'd just walk around him and keep going.

Clark: So then why would it be neccessary to ban or delete messages in a public forum that are contrary to the majority held opinion?

*Again, I don't see it the way you are seeing it, regarding Adrian and Nova. It's not my perception that Nova was banned for having opinions contrary to the majority-held opinion. I dare say if he'd NOT began making insults of a PERSONAL nature, and had simply criticized Mars exploration, settlement, etc., in and of themselves, he'd still be here.

But, of course, I can't speak for Adrian, and I'm not trying to. I'm simply explaining how I understand/perceive this situation.

--Cindy

clark · 2002-09-25 14:16:01

*It seems to me you have faulted him for his actions.

Where. Point out one instance of my criticism of what Adrian did. In fact, I commented several times that I have no problem with Adrian's decision, or his action in this instance.

I cannot speak for Adrian, of course, but it's my distinct impression that NovaMarssolia (spelling?) was banned because of his attitude toward PEOPLE here...not because of his attitude toward Mars, technology, etc.

Which is mine as well, which is why I haven't faulted Adrian for his decision. However, I am disturbed by the sentiment that seems to be prevalent among some members here that those with less than idealistic visions of mars should not bother posting on this message board. it is to this that i am speaking.

rule of thumb might be "address/criticize the IDEAS -- not the PERSON posting them." See?

Maybe you misunderstood me, or just don't remember reading the parts of my post which explicitly stated that personal attacks are not "free speech". I understand Cindy.

I dare say if he'd NOT began making insults of a PERSONAL nature, and had simply criticized Marsexploration, settlement, etc., in and of themselves, he'd still be here.

[sigh] That's why I have not faulted Adrian. That's why i understand that he got deleted. Thats why I find it wonderful that novamarsilla posts were not deleted everywhere. It is a sign of wisdom on Adrian's part- is was fair. That's why I have tried to constrain myself to the general concept of censorship in and of itself and how it applies to this message board. This is why i suggested a "garbage bin" for questionable "troll" posts.

Palomar · 2002-09-25 14:35:40

Me: It seems to me you have faulted him for his actions.

Clark: Where. Point out one instance of my criticism of what Adrian did. In fact, I commented several times that I have no problem with Adrian's decision, or his action in this instance.

*You keep questioning it. ::shrugs::

Me: I cannot speak for Adrian, of course, but it's my distinct impression that NovaMarssolia (spelling?) was banned because of his attitude toward PEOPLE here...not because of his attitude toward Mars, technology, etc.

Clark: However, I am disturbed by the sentiment that seems to be prevalent among some members here that those with less than idealistic visions of mars should not bother posting on this message board. it is to this that i am speaking.

*Okay. However, again, it was the ad homien attacks which, I believe, got Nova banned.

There's another issue contained herein, as well, which I forgot to include in my last post: Again, not presuming to speak for Adrian, but there is a matter of one's own reputation. Adrian's reputation is on the line with the Mars Society, in some form or another, as regards these message boards. If I were in charge, I'd be very cognizant of that fact. Were he to allow a person to consistently make nasty ::ad homien:: attacks on others, resentment will start to grow amongst those of us who stick to the IDEAS, and discuss the IDEAS. These people would likely be inclined to quit visiting here, while the trolling and ad homien attacks would only increase. I've seen this sort of thing occur before, at various forums. People would start to talk negatively about Adrian, i.e. "That guy can't handle those forums; he's inadequate for the job; he had a really good thing going, then foolishly let it deteriorate into trolling and flames," on and on. Meanwhile, the quality here would continue thinning out and these forums become more flame boards for trolls than anything else. It'd be like a snowballing effect. Adrian apparently doesn't want that scenario to develop...and I'm glad he doesn't!

I believe in "nip it in the bud." I think Adrian is wise enough to see the value in that sentiment, as well. He warned Nova to STOP making ::ad homien:: attacks on people...and that is the only reason I think Nova got the boot.

Clark: This is why i suggested a "garbage bin" for questionable "troll" posts.

*And just HOW, pray tell, do you propose to keep the ad homien attackers and trolls separate from the rest of us? How will it be enforced that they MUST post only in the "garbage bin" and not in another folder or section of the message boards?

-time out-

--Cindy

clark · 2002-09-25 14:54:44

Me: It seems to me you have faulted him for his actions.
Clark: Where. Point out one instance of my criticism of what Adrian did. In fact, I commented several times that I have no problem with Adrian's decision, or his action in this instance.
*You keep questioning it. ::shrugs::

Ah, i understand now. My questioning of the practice of censorship on the message boards is an indictment of Adrian's actions... A bit of a reach I must say, also given that i have explicitly stated that i support his decision and discretion in this particular instance.

So should I stop discussing censorship?

*Okay. However, again, it was the ad homien attacks which, I believe, got Nova banned.

Cindy, thank you for your time. I aprreciate that you have taken the effort to discuss this topic, but I am begining to feel you are not adquetly paying attention to what I am posting. I have repeatdly acknoledged that personal attacks are unacceptable, thus my support for what Adrian did. I have been trying to discuss the other issue of what i perceive as outright hostility to ideas that are not held by the majority here. You keep going back to the "reason novamarsilla was banned" which is irrelevant since I am not discussing the particulars of that. I am taking about the idea of disallowing, or saying that those with a view that man has no place on mars, should not be posting on this message board in the first place.

I believe in "nip it in the bud." I think Adrian is wise enough to see the value in that sentiment, as well. He warned Nova to STOP making ::ad homien:: attacks on people...and that is the only reason I think Nova got the boot.

Which is why I think Adrian did the correct thing, for the correct reasons. But then, that is how it starts- the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

*And just HOW, pray tell, do you propose to keep the ad homien attackers and trolls separate from the rest of us?

Personal attacks can be deleted outright, there is no guareentee or expectations that you have the right to insulkt others as you see fit. As for "trolls", that again is a judgement call which is why i suggested a "garbage bin" in the first place. It allows each of us as individuals decide what is and isn't a troll post. And here I thought you were for individualism and self-determination... isn't funny that I, the so called totalitarinst is advocating greater personal responsibility and self-determination...

How will it be enforced that they MUST post only in the "garbage bin" and not in another folder or section of the message boards?

Just as it is now- personal attack deleted, and anything that is considered a "troll" post is moved to the "troll folder". Continued abuse of posting in inappropriate folders (where the same user is posting the same stuff that gets moved to the troll area) could be banned- it would in effect be like Adrian telling people to take it outside on certain things, and if they don't, then he has every right to deal with them as he see's fit.

axis · 2002-09-25 18:22:03

This is my first time at this message board - I am curious how humans will ever make it to Mars if the proponents can make such an issue out of how to deal with a supposed "disturber of the peace" - not that I took the time to read any of the garbage.

I'd like to see the debate the ?visionaries? of Mars would have if you had a real issue to discuss. The question becomes if your own involvement is contrary to your objectives?

Shaun Barrett · 2002-09-25 18:56:24

Hello Axis!
I, too, am in awe of the energy some of our members can summon up to quite vigorously debate extraordinarily fine points of order!!
I'm sure I must be getting old because I feel life's too short for detailed dissection of such minutiae.
As you may have fathomed, Clark is a stickler for intellectual rigour and insists, often quite rightly, that we should all choose our words with the utmost care.
But some of us have been known to find such extreme discipline of thought uncomfortably onerous, and have occasionally reacted less than favourably!

Don't be too quick to judge us, Axis. Generally, we all get along famously and a lot of interesting and informative exchanges take place. Stay tuned!

Palomar · 2002-09-25 22:43:50

Me: It seems to me you have faulted him for his actions.

Clark: Where. Point out one instance of my criticism of what Adrian did. In fact, I commented several times that I have no problem with Adrian's decision, or his action in this instance.

Me: You keep questioning it. ::shrugs::

Clark: Ah, i understand now. My questioning of the practice of censorship on the message boards is an indictment of Adrian's actions... A bit of a reach I must say, also given that i have explicitly stated that i support his decision and discretion in this particular instance.

*Actually, I don't think you understand my position. Please don't put words in my mouth or read innuendos in my writings which aren't there. My perception is that you *have* continued to question Adrian's decision while also claiming to support it; I perceive a contradiction. Forgive me if this perception is incorrect; however, that is how I'm reading you. If I'm mistaken [and I'm not admitting that I am, just admitting the possibility is there], it's an honest mistake.

Clark: So should I stop discussing censorship?

*No, and I never implied that you should. See above.

Me: Okay. However, again, it was the ad homien attacks which, I believe, got Nova banned.

Clark: Cindy, thank you for your time. I aprreciate that you have taken the effort to discuss this topic, but I am begining to feel you are not adquetly paying attention to what I am posting.

*You could give me the benefit of the doubt. The internet is an imperfect forum devoid of facial expression, voice inflection, etc. Is it possible we have a communication gap? Yes, it's possible.

-end my part in this debate-

--Cindy

Palomar · 2002-09-25 22:57:56

Axis: This is my first time at this message board -

*Noted.

Axis: I am curious how humans will ever make it to Mars if the proponents can make such an issue out of how to deal with a supposed "disturber of the peace" -

*? Are you suggesting the only way Mars proponents could have their objectives and aims realized is to be in perfect lockstep agreement? Is such a thing even humanly possible? You are seeing only a very tiny portion of what goes on at these message boards, primarily because you are unregistered. I feel you do a disservice to yourself to think you are in a position to draw a conclusion about the overall message board environment based on the fact that you're a) new; b) not registered; and c) have read only *part* of a thread which happened to develop into a debate.

Debate and disagreement are human. I tend to avoid debates, believe it or not. Clark and I sometimes find ourselves getting involved in a debate; others here do as well. Debate and disagreement can also be conducive to creativity and progress.

Axis: I'd like to see the debate the ?visionaries? of Mars would have if you had a real issue to discuss.

*Censorship and freedoms are real issues to some of us here...obviously; and it depends on how you're using the word "real" as in "real issue." I'm not interested in getting involved in another debate. I just think you are coming to premature conclusions about this forum.

Axis: The question becomes if your own involvement is contrary to your objectives?

*Why don't you register and get to know us better?

--Cindy

Byron · 2002-09-26 07:45:04

What would this board be without Cindy and Clark?

I must admit...I do enjoy reading your extended debates... After reading though this thread, I'd like to add a few points of my own...

One, the Bill of Rights applies to all peoples... or at least that is how the Supreme Court interprets it. Two, federal law dictates that any internet traffic that is routed through the US (which is about 80% of it) can be held accountable to United States federal law.
So our bill of rights, which are greatly mimicked by the UN bill of rights (adopted by most of the world), apply to Adrian and Nova. furthermore, Adrian and Nova can be held accountable for violating US law, even if they are never physically present in the US, if their actions on the internet violate any federal law. That's reality.

Clark, I must take issue with this... The Bill of Rights does NOT to all peoples. Just because having the basic freedoms embodied within the Bill of Rights is considered to be a part of general custom over most of the world does not mean it is legally enforceable law. I would *love* to see the U.S. try to take on someone in another country by "violating" Federal law just by having their exchanges innocently routed through the U.S. If something like that were to ever come to pass, I'm buying a one-way ticket to New Zealand. The U.S. DOES NOT have sovereignty over citizens of other countries..and to think that we have the right to enforce our laws upon perfectly law-abiding citizens in other countries...that's utter b.s., straight and simple.

Another point I would like to make, Clark, as well, is your point about the right to be heard in conjunction to the right of free speech. Where do you find in the U.S. Constitution of this specific right to be heard? Just like everything else in life...the right of free speech is limited. When it comes to human values, nothing is ever absolute, and therefore there is no "absolute " right of free speech. I am not talking about yelling fire in a theater, either...the right of free speech is a right limited by the rights of other individuals...like the basic right of self, for example.

For example, if a group of protesters begin blocking traffic in an effort to be heard...they are violating other's people's right of free movement...same thing if a bible-thumper goes and knocks on the door of a gay couple's house every single night in order to get them to hear the "truth"...then the "state" has to right to interfere to ensure other people's rights...even if it's a form of censorship. Like if a member of Congress begins spouting off about things that are totally not germane...the other members have the right to censor that individual in order to preserve the integrity of the government.

Same thing here on this board...if a single individual posts 55 posts in two days, stuff that was known to have been copied from somewhere else...I'm sorry, but when something like that happens, I feel my rights have been violated, as it swamped the entire board, and made it difficult to keep up with the "normal" posts. Also, I would like to say that the Mars Society, and New Mars by extension of the M.S., is a ::private:: organization. Surprised? But that's reality. While the Mars Society is bound by the laws that protect basic human rights, allowing total freedom of speech within this organization is not one of them. The Mars Society has the *right* to censor anything it feels is counterproductive to its goals and objectives of the study, exploration and eventual human settlement of Mars.

You and I may not agree with this kind of censorship, indeed the hallmark of a solid, well-run organization is allowing contrarian viewpoints to be heard...but when one's exercising of free speech is damaging the integrity of the organization (like the hogging of excessive bandwidth on this board, which is a finite resource)...then that person must be held in restraint. If that person wants to continue to excercise his desire to be heard, he or she can start up a discussion board of their own, and if anybody is listening, hurray, more power to them. Even obnoxious people have the right of free speech, so long as they do it in a way that does not aversely effect others.

In short, we don't have the right to harrass other people, make deliberate efforts to snow other people's postings, or deliberately undermining whatever purpose the forum has been created for, like this one. Censorship is ugly...and I don't like to see it used...but like other ugly realities in life, it is sometimes necessary.

Anyhow, that's my take on this issue. I would like to commend Adrian for his time and effort to preserve the integrity of this board, including the heavy responsibilty of having to take drastic action when it was necessary to do so. Keep up the good work, Adrian, you certainly have my strong support for your management of this board

B

Palomar · 2002-09-26 07:52:15

Shaun: Hello Axis!
I, too, am in awe of the energy some of our members can summon up to quite vigorously debate extraordinarily fine points of order!!
I'm sure I must be getting old because I feel life's too short for detailed dissection of such minutiae.

*Ooooo. You're probably an "old" man of 30 or thereabouts.

As you may have fathomed, Clark is a stickler for intellectual rigour and insists, often quite rightly, that we should all choose our words with the utmost care.
But some of us have been known to find such extreme discipline of thought uncomfortably onerous, and have occasionally reacted less than favourably!

*And some of us like to "rib" Clark and feed back to him some of his own previously-seen actions during a debate [such as his using the word "silly" during previous debates, etc.]...

Don't be too quick to judge us, Axis. Generally, we all get along famously and a lot of interesting and informative exchanges take place. Stay tuned!

*Yes. This isn't the first debate Clark and I have gotten into, and I couldn't resist directing certain choice words *back* to him from previous times. The internet can be a very difficult place wherein to relate the emotive quality one seeks to express. I wasn't angry with Clark yesterday, I was just giving him a bit of a "hard time," same as he's done to me before as well.

--Cindy

clark · 2002-09-26 09:36:47

Okay folks, I don't think you are quite getting something here: I AGREE WITH WHAT ADRIAN DID.

I have been perplexed becuase it seems I keep getting beat over the head about my stance based on the specfic case of Novamarsilla and how Adrian handled that situation. I have used the situation as a means to engage in a dialoguee regarding the role of censorship and free speech in what "I" consider to be a public forum designed to foster the exchange of ideas related to the colonization of Mars. As such, I find it disturbing that there "might" be a prevalent attitude among the members and the overall community that a position such as "man should not go to Mars for X reason" is being told to take it elsewhere. My main objection to this stance is that it is a rejection of free speech pertaining to Mars. This isn't someone coming onto the message board and talking about something off topic (like cars)- it is the null-hypothesis to the Mars Society. It is the anti-thesis to every goal. If you reject even listening to this stance, then you declare that you are closed minded and are not interested in a true open discussion.

Clark, I must take issue with this... The Bill of Rights does NOT to all peoples.

Take issue with it all you want, but might I suggest that you direct such views towards the Supreme Court- they, not I, are the ones that interpret the Bill of rights to apply to all people. I would ask how the bill of rights can ONLY apply to Americans? The bill of rights are not laws, they are an affirmation of intrinsic rights that belong to soverign individuals- the bill of rights, in deed all of our amendment only serve to govern the government- not us as individuals. The constution also refrences that people, not "Americans", have innherent rights granted by their creator- to suppose that the delinated rights only apply to certain people in a certain geographic area is sheer arrogance and I find it difficult how one might justify the fallacy in logic that would support the "inherent rights granted to all people by their creator" to only mean, the USA.

Just because having the basic freedoms embodied within the Bill of Rights is considered to be a part of general custom over most of the world does not mean it is legally enforceable law.

True, but we are not enforcing the Bill of rights in other countries- the statement regarding how the bill of rights apply to all people is unfortunetly enforceable only within our borders- it means that Adrian, in the USA, would enjoy the same guraeentee's as an actual citizen- of course this is no longer true due to the oh so aptly named "Patriot Act".

I would *love* to see the U.S. try to take on someone in another country by "violating" Federal law just by having their exchanges innocently routed through the U.S.

It's already happened. A russian computer programmer developed a program in Russia for a company that allowed users of the product to circumvent copy-right restrictions on e-books (the program was a commercial program designed to allow people to install copies of an e-book on different machines, something not allowed by the e-book security). Since this program was available on the internet, and went through US routers, the russian programmer was arrested- the FBI went to Russia, took his computer, THEN it got a search warrant to search the computer after it was seized (in Russia). Look into the Digital Millineum Act and you'll start to see what I am talking about.

If something like that were to ever come to pass, I'm buying a one-way ticket to New Zealand.

I hear sheep farming is very rewarding.

The U.S. DOES NOT have sovereignty over citizens of other countries..and to think that we have the right to enforce our laws upon perfectly law-abiding citizens in other countries...that's utter b.s., straight and simple.

I agree, however that stance leads to some real problems- Child pornography could be made legal in one country, people would then be free to distribute such vile material without fear of reprucussions since they would be "law-abiding" (in their geographic location). Would it be wrong to interven there? But the issue of a delination of universal RIGHTS (not laws) can not be limited by geographical boundaries- it flies in the face of logic and undermines the very basis of our assertion and guareente of those rights. How can you have inherent and universal rights, but only in this one place?

Where do you find in the U.S. Constitution of this specific right to be heard?

It does not litteraly say this. However, it is implicit and an undeniable neccessity to making the right meaningful. No semantics here, okay. Let's talk about practical and realistic. What isthe INTENT of having the right to free speech? Why is this right important? How should it be exercised?

If we accept that we have a right to free speech, but we have no right to be "heard" then we cannot expect to speak freely, and openly in public. It means that it would be acceptable to instutite laws whereby you may have free speech, but only when you are alone, in your home, with the lights off. Here there is no violation of your right to free speech, since you have all the freedom to speak your mind- just not outside with anyone else. So I ask you then, would free speech be meaningful or useful in anyway? The right to be heard is the practical application of exercising your right to free speech- it is fully supported by our other amendments that also dictate that we may peacefully congregate to exersice our right to free speech.

This right to be heard dosen't mean you should expect to have unfettered acces to anyone and everyone anytime and anywhere you choose. It means you have the right to say your peace in a public setting as long as it does not infringe upon others rights (personal attacks are an infringement). teh example of someone continually coming to your door is a defintion of "nuisance" which is also a violation of your rights, so thus not protected. Now if the guy is doing it on the corner from your house everyday, he is not violating your rights.

Just like everything else in life...the right of free speech is limited.

I understand this and agree with the legitmacy of this action. However, I am discussing the role of free speech in what I consider to be a public venue, and I am discussing how it IS limited in this public venue.

Same thing here on this board...if a single individual posts 55 posts in two days, stuff that was known to have been copied from somewhere else...I'm sorry, but when something like that happens, I feel my rights have been violated, as it swamped the entire board, and made it difficult to keep up with the "normal" posts.

I UNDERSTAND I UNDERSTAND I AGREE I AGREE. I am not discussing novamarsilla. I am discussing censorship and the legitmacy of when it is acceptable- it was obviously acceptable in the instance of Novamarsilla, but will that always be the case? And I keep trying to point out what my particular concern is, that someone with an anti-mars view might be banned for simply trying to discuss the legitmacy of their stance.

Also, I would like to say that the Mars Society, and New Mars by extension of the M.S., is a ::private:: organization. Surprised?

No. But this is a PUBLIC community.

While the Mars Society is bound by the laws that protect basic human rights, allowing total freedom of speech within this organization is not one of them.

I am not advocating total freedom of speech- that is pure anarchy. I am arguing against a type of censorship against what I feel is a perfectly valid stance to be postualting on the message boards, is one so chooses.

The Mars Society has the *right* to censor anything it feels is counterproductive to its goals and objectives of the study, exploration and eventual human settlement of Mars.

Why? Where is this right derived from? If I understand this statement, then the Mars Society would be perfectly within it's right to suppress any information that might be damaging to it's "goals and objectives". I guess I thought of it as a more open and objective organization- the utilization of the "right" to censor any matieral they DISAGREE with is a declaration against truth.

If the Mars Society FMARs shows that human in space will not work, they are within their "rights" by not sharing this information with anyone, correct?

You and I may not agree with this kind of censorship, indeed the hallmark of a solid, well-run organization is allowing contrarian viewpoints to be heard...but when one's exercising of free speech is damaging the integrity of the organization (like the hogging of excessive bandwidth on this board, which is a finite resource)...then that person must be held in restraint.

I agree, but again, the way i am approaching censorship is from a different viewpoint not being accepted simply becuase it is the antithisis of the majority held opinion.

If that person wants to continue to excercise his desire to be heard, he or she can start up a discussion board of their own, and if anybody is listening, hurray, more power to them.

Kinda like, if you don't like this country, go somewhere else? Why can't we "hear" them here?

Even obnoxious people have the right of free speech, so long as they do it in a way that does not aversely effect others.

Define "averseley effect" others. In my mind, revealing that aliens exsist and we are powerless to stop them from stealing our cows would "aversley effect" others- so I shouldn't be allowed to say it? Even if it is true? What's the standard?

n short, we don't have the right to harrass other people, make deliberate efforts to snow other people's postings, or deliberately undermining whatever purpose the forum has been created for, like this one.

The purpose of this forum is to discuss the colonization of mars. In my opinion, the discussion of WHY we SHOULDN'T is just as valid here- it is a sign of openmindedness. I might also mention that "preaching to the choir" is a bit ineffecient in some discussions.

Keep up the good work, Adrian, you certainly have my strong support for your management of this board

Well, he is the "benevolant dictator". (seriously, I have no problem with how adrian handled the situation!)

And some of us like to "rib" Clark and feed back to him some of his own previously-seen actions during a debate [such as his using the word "silly" during previous debates, etc.]...

Don't mind it Kinda like me pointing out how your stance is abit more totalitarian than mine...

Actually, Clark and I getting along rather well, and I can honestly say I like him.

The odd couple comes to mind.

I wasn't angry with Clark yesterday, I was just giving him a bit of a "hard time," same as he's done to me before as well.

No anger on this side either. Just bewilderment on why so many intelligent people can so obviously miss my wisdom... [sigh] But such is the work of a missonary bent on taming the savages.

I appreciate the time people take to interact within the various discussions, I always end up learning something, which is why I am rather sensitive to censorship, it is a denial of the interaction which I enjoy.

Josh Cryer · 2002-09-26 10:25:50

I have a headache now. And I regularly read long semi-boring scientific papers. You guys are crazy.

Also, I'd like to point out, as I have pointed out before to anyone who I've discussed issues of power online, that there is no such thing as democracy on the internet. Someone, somewhere, controls a central technology. The only things that are vaguely reminiscent of democracy online, are certain P2P networks; where each individual exists equally among a collective. You can hope for democratic control, or something like it, but you can't expect it. At least not until the internet is much more gridlike in nature, and centralization is non-existant.

I'm an op in an IRC channel on EFnet, and for the past few years, I have opped everyone that has lurked in the channel for more than a few weeks (without actually knowing them). It's my own experiment at anarchy, and it seems to work relatively well (I have yet to have anyone attempt to takeover- and I've even opped people I don't get along with). But since it's a semi-obscure channel, and those who join are fairly intelligent in the first place, I suppose it doesn't really mean anything.

clark · 2002-09-26 13:15:16

http://news.com.com/2100-1023-959544.html

look at the news report, it could be considered relevant to some of what we have been discussing here.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#26 2002-09-24 17:10:36

Re: ATTN NovaMarsollia

#27 2002-09-24 18:33:27

Re: ATTN NovaMarsollia

#28 2002-09-25 09:16:36

Re: ATTN NovaMarsollia

#29 2002-09-25 09:53:03

Re: ATTN NovaMarsollia

#30 2002-09-25 10:04:41

Re: ATTN NovaMarsollia

#31 2002-09-25 10:22:04

Re: ATTN NovaMarsollia

#32 2002-09-25 11:03:26

Re: ATTN NovaMarsollia

#33 2002-09-25 11:14:01

Re: ATTN NovaMarsollia

#34 2002-09-25 11:53:49

Re: ATTN NovaMarsollia

#35 2002-09-25 12:38:14

Re: ATTN NovaMarsollia

#36 2002-09-25 13:18:56

Re: ATTN NovaMarsollia

#37 2002-09-25 13:54:35

Re: ATTN NovaMarsollia

#38 2002-09-25 14:04:48

Re: ATTN NovaMarsollia

#39 2002-09-25 14:16:01

Re: ATTN NovaMarsollia

#40 2002-09-25 14:35:40

Re: ATTN NovaMarsollia

#41 2002-09-25 14:54:44

Re: ATTN NovaMarsollia

#42 2002-09-25 18:22:03

Re: ATTN NovaMarsollia

#43 2002-09-25 18:56:24

Re: ATTN NovaMarsollia

#44 2002-09-25 22:43:50

Re: ATTN NovaMarsollia

#45 2002-09-25 22:57:56

Re: ATTN NovaMarsollia

#46 2002-09-26 07:45:04

Re: ATTN NovaMarsollia

#47 2002-09-26 07:52:15

Re: ATTN NovaMarsollia

#48 2002-09-26 09:36:47

Re: ATTN NovaMarsollia

#49 2002-09-26 10:25:50

Re: ATTN NovaMarsollia

#50 2002-09-26 13:15:16

Re: ATTN NovaMarsollia

Board footer