🚀 go-pugleaf

Barbara Amero wrote:

> JMD (wordwork@marketing-wizards.com) wrote:
> : Every so often someone steps back from the verbal brawling that
> : characterizes these news groups and calls for sanity and reason.  That
> : anguished cry always goes unheeded.

> : Possession of a computer and a modem simply allows us to broadcast our
> : thoughts to more people.  It does nothing to elevate the quality of
> : those thoughts.  It's why these newsgroups are the way they are and
> : always will be. Collectively, they are the babble of the mob.

> Why would you expect anything different in here? In here is simply a
> reflection of out there, with the exception that many more people
> are drawn together in close quarters so to speak. And in RL we tend to

Pardon my semi-newbie ignorace, but was does RL stand for? Rant land? Oh
I get it. Real life. As opposed to here. Never thought of it that way.

> hang out with others whose views, etc. are similar or at least somewhat
> compatible. So in here you get people together who don't share the
> same views, morals, standards of behavior, etc. And like out there
> others try to impose their standards of behavior, etc. on others,
> make the rules, etc. for all to follow.

> And what proof do you have that this medium does "nothing to elevate the
> quality of those thoughts"?? Because the quality of your thoughts may not
> be elevated, does not mean that such is applicable to all. Some people
> make well thought out posts that are thought provoking for readers. And
> often one's views are changed or one may form views on an issue they've
> never thought about before. An e.g. of such for me is the issue of male
> genital mutilation in our society. My view going into the discussion was
> against male circumcision of infants, without much knowledge of the issue.
> And I left the discussion with much more knowledge and adamantly opposed
> to this horrible practice of male genital mutilation.

	I think it should be left up to the individual. I am not opposed to a
person of voting age doing it for religious reasons, because it is none
of my business, but after some of the things I have read about it, I
tend to worry. Then again, is it not strange to be opposed to
circumcision after birth while simultaneously supporting whole-body
mutilation before birth? I am pro-choice, but I do see an inconsistency
there.

> : I just "mark as read" any threads with repeated postings from our
> : well-known nut bars or on subject matter likely to attract the flamers
> : and name-callers (abortion is one of those). You should do the same.

> : John D.

> In ns.general doing that would generally leave us with only posts by
> fellas trying to sell computer stuff ... and even then there's flames.

	There is no time to read all threads everywhere. I find that some of
the posters John dismisses as "nutbars" (we know who we are) are often
more thought-provoking than those who pedantically reject any new way of
looking at things. For example, John Carrick and Barbara Amero have
posted things that caused me to rethink some issues. Not to the extent
that I agree with them, but I am closer than I was before.

							Michael