From: nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle)
Subject: Conservative Newsgroup (was <None>)
Organization: Psych Department, Indiana University
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 15:35:03 GMT

stegner_g@cubldr.colorado.edu writes:
>ryanm@stein.u.washington.edu (Ryan Mcneilly) writes:
>(Re: possible creation of newsgroup alt.politics.conservative)
>> ...  The moderator will only block
>> those threads that are name calling or just stupid comments intended for
>> feuds between individuals.  I don't know how to maintain a level of
>> fairness with a moderator though.  --Ryan

>Very good point Ryan.  Obviously, the original poster's intent was to 
>post to a newsgroup where his viewpoints won't have to get challenged.  

    I disagree. My impression from the very start was that the intent 
was to establish a newsgroup in which the level of discourse remains on 
a significantly higher level than sometimes occurs in a.f.r-l (a lofty 
but laudable goal). I know there have been several times when I've been 
over in one thread trying to argue that liberals aren't all a bunch of 
wackos while at the same time there are three other threads being carried 
along by people who are apparently trying to outdo each other in rudeness. 
Very often what I end up with is a concession like "Yes, not all liberals 
are wackos, but most of them are. Just look at these other threads..."

>The general rule here is that "you can run but you can't hide." Creating 
>a new newsgroup will not keep out people who want to challenge those views 
>being expressed in that newsgroup.

    Actually, it might do just that. I'm interested in confronting 
conservative views, but I'm not interested in all the additional baggage 
that comes along with newsgroup moderation so if a moderated group does 
get started then it will happen without my participation.

>That's why conservatives are always posting to alt.activist.* groups, 
>and quite often in a mean-sprited manner.  The mean-spiritedness between 
>feuding ideologies cuts both ways.  The original poster of this thread 
>obviously did not take this into account.

    Actually I think that Chuck knew all about mean-spiritedness. I think 
it was the principal motivation for suggesting a moderated group.

>Installing a moderator to "maintain a civilized mood" (read: censor out
>particular points of view) is akin to installing a dictator to keep the peace. 

    Maybe, but I would say that there are some viewpoints (e.g.-"Rush 
Limbaugh is a penis") which could be censored without any danger of 
costing the group anything in intellectual content.

>A newsgroup's tone of argument and reasoning will only be civilized if the
>people who post to it are civilized. Individuals who can't bear to have 
>their arguments challenged should not be indulging in this activity.

    I agree wholeheartedly, and I think that your description is very
applicable to people who go ballistic when they listen to Rush Limbaugh.
I disagree with the man on a good 70% of what he says, but I like to 
think that I don't chop the legs out from under my own arguments by 
loading them down with a bunch of pointless personal attacks. The closest 
I've recently gotten in that respect was when I said that I could make 
a teddy that would fit Rush if only I had a pair of scissors and a 4-man 
pup tent (a sort of sideways slam at Rush's generous proportions).

>An individual does not grow intellectually by surrounding him/herself with 
>people who think the same way.

    True, but then nor is there any particular intellectual benefit to be 
gained by surrounding oneself with fools. There is a tremendous difference 
between intelligent opposition and pejorative name-calling.

--
Nathan Engle                        Software Juggler
Psychology Department               Indiana University
nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu      nengle@copper.ucs.indiana.edu
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh