I've removed posting permissions for brian@... and brucemajorsdcre@... for excessive numbers of uncivil posts.
If there's any disagreement with these decisions, the other moderators are welcome to change their permissions back by going these pages:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lpsf-discuss/member_detail?id=78367380&group=sub&query=holtz
And selecting "Messages posted by this member are not moderated." and hitting "Save Changes"
[ Attachment content not displayed ]
I haven't followed the discussions in detail but got the impression that it was Brian's post accusing various people of "lies" that prompted Chris' departure. Did I get the wrong impression?
I agree the recent posts of Brian didn't seem uncivil. And Chris wasn't
clear about the reasons he left or at least I didn't see anything to
suggest it.
The discussion between Brian H and Brian M and Rob has been heated but
to be honest Brian H has consistently made good points in defense of his
position regarding the "marriage" plank in the LP platform that I've not
been able see refuted by those consistently making the claim that the
platform is being weakened in this regard. So I've found the exchange
productive and respect those willing to go toe to toe over issues they
consider important. Maybe I can take a little more "heat" than some so
the combative energy doesn't bother me too much or for long.
Mike
I strongly believe that nothing Brian H has said is uncivil. He's consistently stated his points in a rational, cool-headed manner.
Jeremy
Steve asked for the other moderators to chime in, so here is my humble
opinion. Saying someone lied is not a good thing, no matter how
excellent the arguments advanced. So I stand with Steve in his decision.
However, Mike D.'s and Derek's disagreement points to the heart of the
current fate of this list. The name calling has somewhat subsided,
but, as one list member said to me this morning, "the feel of the list
has changed." Yes it has. And how can moderators exclude posters
when posters' style or "feel" differs from what was there before?
My response to my colleague this morning was the suggestion to create
a new, private list. Then posters would have a choice between styles.
Regards,
Marcy
OK....I see your point...but don't want to split the list. So if the
word "liar" was the offensive part...then that should be pretty easy to
manage for all parties. I hope it is anyway.
Mike
Steve,
I don't think Brian Holtz has been uncivil. (Outside of saying Rob Power was lying, which arguably crossed the line, but on the other hand he did apparently show that Rob had gotten the facts wrong in a manner where Rob arguably should have known better -- and I'm with Rob in having a generally less than favorable view of the LRC's "reform" efforts, so it's not like I *want* Rob to be shown wrong on the issue.) Annoyingly argumentative yes, but not uncivil. If annoyingly argumentative is out, we can hardly in fairness ban Brian Holtz without banning Brian Miller, who has matched him tit-for-tat on that score.
But I really don't think either of them should be banned unless there's a clear determination that argumentativeness, and not just incivility, is objectionable, and some kind of warning is first given and ignored. Perhaps people (Chris? Marcy?) were objecting to the arguing, but all they said they were objecting to was the incivility, so I don't want to presume. As for Bruce Majors, I can't say whether he's been uncivil of late, since all his posts were already being blocked anyway.
Love & Liberty,
((( starchild )))
Amarcy D. Berry wrote:
AB) Saying someone lied is not a good thing, no matter how excellent the
arguments advanced. (AB
So we're not allowed to say "X lied" even if it is demonstrably true? Can
you make a list of all the other kinds of demonstrably true statements that
we're not allowed to utter on lpsf-discuss? 
AB) My response to my colleague this morning was the suggestion to create a
new, private list. Then posters would have a choice between styles. (AB
Put me down for the no-lies-and-no-serial-distortions style.
Mike Denny wrote:
MD) Brian H gloats more than I'd like and would recommend that he review
that (MD
Does pointing out that an argument is unrebutted or already rebutted count
as "gloating"? Please quote me the most egregious example of me "gloating"
that you can find or remember. I'd love to compare it to what Mr. Miller
wrote to me on the third day in his life that he ever addressed a message to
me: "Hopefully, this spanking will prevent you from indulging in such
childishness in the future." In the five weeks since then I've apparently
gone from spanked child to what he now calls "bully". (Does simply
reporting this count as "gloating"?)
Starchild wrote:
SC) Annoyingly argumentative yes, but not uncivil. If annoyingly
argumentative is out, we can hardly in fairness ban Brian Holtz without
banning Brian Miller, who has matched him tit-for-tat on that score. (SC
You too should feel free to nominate anything I've said that approaches
Miller's "spanking" remark.
Brian Miller wrote:
BM) as Rob pointed out earlier, the LRC language on marriage, adoption, etc.
in 2 of the 3 "alternate" platforms is completely deleted, and in the other
one, is watered down so it largely mirrors the Democratic Party's platform
proposals. (BM
Here is all that I see the 2004 Democrat platform say about gay rights or
marriage -- starting on page 41(!) of a 43-page document:
D) We support full inclusion of gay and lesbian families in the life of our
nation and seek equal
responsibilities, benefits, and protections for these families. In our
country, marriage has been defined at
the state level for 200 years, and we believe it should continue to be
defined there. [...] We will enact the bipartisan legislation barring
workplace discrimination based on sexual orientation. We are committed to
equal treatment of all service members and believe all patriotic Americans
should be allowed to serve our country without discrimination, persecution,
or violence.(D
Here is what the ~4 pages of draft platforms on the LRC site say:
* "Leave marriage decisions to loving couples and their faiths."
* "We favor the freedom of all adults to engage in any consensual
amorous or reproductive behavior or relationship that does not violate the
rights of others."
* "Consenting adults should be free to choose their own sexual
practices and personal relationships."
* "Government should not deny, abridge or enhance any individual's
rights at the expense of other people's rights based on sex, wealth, race,
color, creed, age, national origin, personal habits, political preference or
sexual orientation."
And here is what I've already told you my proposed GH draft adds: "Sexuality
or gender should have no discriminatory impact on the treatment of
individuals by government, such as in marriage, adoption, immigration, or
military service."
I don't know which is funnier: that you still echo an assertion by Rob that
he no longer defends as accurate, or that the Democrat platform you invoked
out of ignorance echoes a position of Ron Paul that you have bitterly
denounced.
BM) the LRC has done nothing -- literally nothing -- to reach out to the
Outright board to get feedback on this. (BM
No, I've only discussed "this" extensively on PlatCom with the Outright
national Chair, and incorporated his feedback into my latest draft several
weeks ago. I then twice sent that language to the Outrights Yahoo group for
comment, and haven't got any substantive feedback that originated there.
I'd already told you this before, but you still made your "literally
nothing" statement above. Typical.
And if you protest that I am only one board member of the LRC, then I'll
note that AFAIK the LRC has done nothing to "reach out" to gun rights
advocates, tax protesters, free-speech advocates, pro-lifers, pro-choicers,
prostitution rights advocates, gambling rights advocates, informed-jury
advocates, smokers' advocates, eminent domain activists, environmentalists,
gold bugs, home schoolers, etc. We in the LRC are generalists who want to
slim the Platform down from a bloated dumping ground of special-interest
laundry lists into a clear and ringing declaration of the timeless
principles that unite libertarians. You can disagree with us whether that's
a wise strategy for the LP, but you don't get to pretend that it means we
hold some animus or disrespect toward your group or any of the others I
mentioned. It's just not true, and it's simply not fair for you to claim
otherwise.
BM) we need a platform that is unambiguous in its support for equality under
the law. The LRC platforms -- in all their incarnations -- don't do that.
(BM
You're speaking from willfull ignorance. I told you three days ago that my
proposal for the final GH draft has for weeks said: "Sexuality or gender
should have no discriminatory impact on the treatment of individuals by
government, such as in marriage, adoption, immigration, or military
service." You are on notice that if you ever repeat your "all their
incarnations" statement above, I will declare it a lie. (Does that make me
a "bully"?)
BM) Americans who lean Libertarian don't want a "sorta-free" party with
lower taxes and a slower-growing Homeland Security apparatus and a
diminished set of military bases abroad and a
kinda-sorta-wouldn't-it-be-nice-if-the-gays-just-shut-up-for-a-change
platform. (BM
This is scurrilous and shameful disinformation. I DEFY you to find a single
member of the LP -- even Rob Power! -- who is willing to publicly say: "I
just read http://marketliberal.org/PlatComWiki/Greatest_Hits_Draft_Platform
and it can fairly be described as a sorta-free lower taxes and a
slower-growing Homeland Security apparatus and a diminished set of military
bases abroad and a
kinda-sorta-wouldn't-it-be-nice-if-the-gays-just-shut-up-for-a-change
platform." Have you no shame, sir?
Thanks Brian...Brian Miller's comment to you was as bad if not worse
than your gloating. So I won't bother to go back and assemble the
examples.
Good comments on the rest though...
:>)
Mike
Dear Brian H.,
True, I probably cannot come up with a list of bad words, and even if
I did, that would not solve the problem this list is currently
experiencing. So, best for me right now is to follow Chris Maden's
wise choice and pick another list style!
Best regards,
Marcy
Amarcy D. Berry wrote:
AB) Saying someone lied is not a good thing, no matter how excellent the
arguments advanced. (ABSo we're not allowed to say "X lied" even if it is demonstrably
true? Can
you make a list of all the other kinds of demonstrably true
statements that
we're not allowed to utter on lpsf-discuss?
AB) My response to my colleague this morning was the suggestion to
create a
new, private list. Then posters would have a choice between styles. (AB
Put me down for the no-lies-and-no-serial-distortions style.
Mike Denny wrote:
MD) Brian H gloats more than I'd like and would recommend that he review
that (MDDoes pointing out that an argument is unrebutted or already rebutted
count
as "gloating"? Please quote me the most egregious example of me
"gloating"
that you can find or remember. I'd love to compare it to what Mr.
Miller
wrote to me on the third day in his life that he ever addressed a
message to
me: "Hopefully, this spanking will prevent you from indulging in such
childishness in the future." In the five weeks since then I've
apparently
gone from spanked child to what he now calls "bully". (Does simply
reporting this count as "gloating"?)Starchild wrote:
SC) Annoyingly argumentative yes, but not uncivil. If annoyingly
argumentative is out, we can hardly in fairness ban Brian Holtz without
banning Brian Miller, who has matched him tit-for-tat on that score. (SCYou too should feel free to nominate anything I've said that approaches
Miller's "spanking" remark.Brian Miller wrote:
BM) as Rob pointed out earlier, the LRC language on marriage,
adoption, etc.
in 2 of the 3 "alternate" platforms is completely deleted, and in
the other
one, is watered down so it largely mirrors the Democratic Party's
platform
proposals. (BM
Here is all that I see the 2004 Democrat platform say about gay
rights or
marriage -- starting on page 41(!) of a 43-page document:
D) We support full inclusion of gay and lesbian families in the life
of our
nation and seek equal
responsibilities, benefits, and protections for these families. In our
country, marriage has been defined at
the state level for 200 years, and we believe it should continue to be
defined there. [...] We will enact the bipartisan legislation barring
workplace discrimination based on sexual orientation. We are
committed to
equal treatment of all service members and believe all patriotic
Americans
should be allowed to serve our country without discrimination,
persecution,
or violence.(D
Here is what the ~4 pages of draft platforms on the LRC site say:
* "Leave marriage decisions to loving couples and their faiths."
* "We favor the freedom of all adults to engage in any consensual
amorous or reproductive behavior or relationship that does not
violate the
rights of others."
* "Consenting adults should be free to choose their own sexual
practices and personal relationships."* "Government should not deny, abridge or enhance any individual's
rights at the expense of other people's rights based on sex, wealth,
race,
color, creed, age, national origin, personal habits, political
preference or
sexual orientation."
And here is what I've already told you my proposed GH draft adds:
"Sexuality
or gender should have no discriminatory impact on the treatment of
individuals by government, such as in marriage, adoption,
immigration, or
military service."
I don't know which is funnier: that you still echo an assertion by
Rob that
he no longer defends as accurate, or that the Democrat platform you
invoked
out of ignorance echoes a position of Ron Paul that you have bitterly
denounced.BM) the LRC has done nothing -- literally nothing -- to reach out to the
Outright board to get feedback on this. (BMNo, I've only discussed "this" extensively on PlatCom with the Outright
national Chair, and incorporated his feedback into my latest draft
several
weeks ago. I then twice sent that language to the Outrights Yahoo
group for
comment, and haven't got any substantive feedback that originated there.
I'd already told you this before, but you still made your "literally
nothing" statement above. Typical.And if you protest that I am only one board member of the LRC, then I'll
note that AFAIK the LRC has done nothing to "reach out" to gun rights
advocates, tax protesters, free-speech advocates, pro-lifers,
pro-choicers,
prostitution rights advocates, gambling rights advocates, informed-jury
advocates, smokers' advocates, eminent domain activists,
environmentalists,
gold bugs, home schoolers, etc. We in the LRC are generalists who
want to
slim the Platform down from a bloated dumping ground of special-interest
laundry lists into a clear and ringing declaration of the timeless
principles that unite libertarians. You can disagree with us
whether that's
a wise strategy for the LP, but you don't get to pretend that it
means we
hold some animus or disrespect toward your group or any of the others I
mentioned. It's just not true, and it's simply not fair for you to claim
otherwise.BM) we need a platform that is unambiguous in its support for
equality under
the law. The LRC platforms -- in all their incarnations -- don't do
that.
(BM
You're speaking from willfull ignorance. I told you three days ago
that my
proposal for the final GH draft has for weeks said: "Sexuality or gender
should have no discriminatory impact on the treatment of individuals by
government, such as in marriage, adoption, immigration, or military
service." You are on notice that if you ever repeat your "all their
incarnations" statement above, I will declare it a lie. (Does that
make me
a "bully"?)
BM) Americans who lean Libertarian don't want a "sorta-free" party with
lower taxes and a slower-growing Homeland Security apparatus and a
diminished set of military bases abroad and a
kinda-sorta-wouldn't-it-be-nice-if-the-gays-just-shut-up-for-a-change
platform. (BMThis is scurrilous and shameful disinformation. I DEFY you to find
a single
member of the LP -- even Rob Power! -- who is willing to publicly
say: "I
just read
http://marketliberal.org/PlatComWiki/Greatest_Hits_Draft_Platform
and it can fairly be described as a sorta-free lower taxes and a
slower-growing Homeland Security apparatus and a diminished set of
military
