> >"Paul J. Lucas" <go.away@no-junk-mail.org> wrote:
>
> >>>>> I am a great fan of "everything to its place." I have little to
> >>>>> no interest in any of the above topics.
>
> (Dragonfly) writes:
> >>>well here's the heart of the matter! who's to decide that a certain
> >>>topic is out of place at a gathering?
>
> Paul wrote:
> >> It's usually fairly obvious.
> >> - Star Trek: obviously not
> >> - Housing in Palo Alto: obviously not
> >> - American Airlines: obviously not
>
> dragonfly:
> but you missed the main point....this is a "gathering", granted
> it's a cybergathering but still a place to gather round the
> campfire and talk........about whatever you and others want
> to talk about.......and in order to be rainbow it is
> "free and open to all"
>
> the trouble you are having grasping this is just because it is
> a totally different way to think when you have led a structured
> life.........
>
> now a fire in the middle of the trail is out of place at a
> gathering and something can be done to stop that.
>
> however, an open and free discussion between folks is not
> subject to control or censoring if it's rainbow
> unless that discussion is in someway harmful then steps
> can be taken to remedy the situation.
>
> granted posting
> an add for an apt or selling things i don't consider
> appropriate at all but the only way to prevent those
> topics from appearing in the newsgroup, would be if it
> was a *moderated* newsgroup.
>
> if it were moderated then it really wouldn't be free and open
> now would? thereby loosing the very quality that makes it a
> rainbow news group.
>
> >>>dragnonfly:
> >>>.....if folks don't like it they just don't read or respond to it and
> >>>it will eventually fade away...
>
> >>paul:
> >> And, in the meantime, the signal-to-noise ratio is so bad that
> >> it drives some listeners out because they simply don't have time
> >> to wade through the off-topic stuff to find the on-topic stuff.
>
> dragonfly:
> yes, you are correct in that statement and it drove me off the
> subscription list for sure. now i just lurk and read what
> catches my interest because i don't have the time to wads through
> the rest that comes in via email.
>
> your concern has actually been brought up by others and attempts
> to find solutions were ineffective for the reasons i mentioned
> above. no you are not alone in how you feel but folks agreed
> that moderation was not desired. so many participants now take
> what they want and leave the rest. if a poster is very much off
> topic and gets no action they eventually wander off. if the poster
> gets action, it then becomes a legitimate topic for those interested.
> others don't have to read or participate.
>
> >>>there are not always "gatherings" on the land to be commenting on at any
> >>>given time
>
> paul:
> >> So be it. So let there be no posts on anything for a week or
> >> two, or four, or however long it is. What's wrong with that?
>
> dragonfly:
> i really don't see this as an issue of right or wrong but one of
> personal choices.
> however, if folks choose to talk as if they were in front of that
> campfire what's wrong with that?
>
> >>>family wanting to hang out with family and talking about whatever is near and
> >>>dear to them at any given moment...REGS, cookies, flying saucers, vehicle
> >>>registration, indiscriminate logging......
>
> paul:
> >> So people simpy talk to hear themselves talk?
>
> dragonfly:
> ;)well more than one of us might be guilty of that but i believe
> for the most part they like to hear others talk also......some
> actually like to come into a newsgroup and play games like
> intentionally starting flame wars to see if they can disrupt a
> newsgroup. you'd have to actually hear from all concerned to
> find out, if the were only posting to hear themselves!
>
> however, IMHO rainbows being who they are and after having experienced
> the love we share during a gathering are hooked!!! sometimes the
> best fix we can get is from agr, until we meet on the land again.
> til that time a cybergathering is our way of keeping in touch and
> for many feeling that lovnlight:)
>
> >>>ignore all rumors of organization because there isn't any
>
> paul:
> >> I never stated anything about that in any of my posts so I don't
> >> know what you're responding to.
>
> dragonfly:
> whoops sorry.....didn't mean to imply you had.....it's something that
> got picked up along the way........as folks(gov't) insist on calling
> us an organization and other folks can't understand how we could be
> so unorganized. it's because there really is *no* organization at
> all. as evidenced even here on agr. things happen in rainbow time,
> at rainbow speed, in a rainbow way.....that way is managed somehow
> even with an amazing lack of organization.
>
> paul:
> >> I'm going based on the original respondents' premise that all
> >> posts somehow have a topic of love running through them [sic].
> >> Discussion of of housing in Palo Alto, American Airlines, the
> >> paranormal, et al, have nothing to do with that.
>
> dragonfly:
> "the original respondents' premise?" i am a respondent and i think
> i'm original;]........but i didn't say that.
>
> aha and you touched on one of the other mysteries that are unfolding
> before you.......anarchy......the statement you refer to came from
> *one* brother's description and although many of us would agree with
> that description, it's not the only one. nor does he speak for all
> of us. all of us just didn't respond at once. some just hang around
> and lurk til they see something they like or something they disagree
> with.....then they might jump in and correct me at any given moment;)
> right folks?
>
> >>>awhile to catch on. if you don't care for a certain thread or feel
> it's off
> >>>topic(which many of us have at times) then you just stop reading it.)
>
> paul:
> >> So you are apparantly willing to sacrifice having people here
> >> (who leave because they simply don't have the time to wade
> >> through all the off-topic posts) all for the sake of some
> >> amorphous "freedom." Your're sacrificing strength in numbers
> >> for a Tower of Babble. Not a wise trade, IMHO.
>
> dragonfly:
> am i willing to sacrifice people......hmmmmmmmmm since i'm one of
> those people that was sacrificed, it's hard to answer. i don't
> think it's a matter of an individual sacrificing anything. it is
> an anarchy and whether or not an anarchy can work will only be
> known if it's is free to try.
>
> maybe it won't work.....maybe the babble will finely drive everyone
> away. it hasn't so far. if it did knowing these resourceful folks,
> something else would develop
> in it's place. i think rob explained that in one of his posts,
> about originally thinking there would be off shoots.
>
> >>>i'm using the 'nospam' thing, i like to put my real address after my name
> >>>without <> that would flag it for a robot to pick up.
>
> paul:
> >> Really smart robots can "fix" e-mail addresses to remove the
> >> "nospam" from "nospam.my-real-address.com" and, for a company
> >> that sells e-mail addresses, it's financially viable for them to
> >> devote the extra compute time required to do it.
>
> dragonfly:
> either way, it did reduce alot of the junk, so it must have helped
> some, even though this one is going out with my real address.
>
> >>>i do that just so folks can email a private response.......some are
> >>>very shy about posting to a newsgroup
>
> paul:
> >> Others' shyness isn't my problem.
>
> dragonfly:
> well i like to kinda try and help anyone i can along the way even
> if it's to make it easier for them to contact me, "especially" the
> ones that are shy. others, have done the same for me when i am
> feeling shy.......(ok--folks stop the snickering--i can be shy.)
>
> >>>and manyyyyyyy would not be able to locate your address through a search
> >>>engine......my favorite search engine only gave me your nospam address
>
> paul:
> >> I suggest you pick another favorite. Using Alta-Vista, I simply
> >> entered: "Paul J. Lucas"
> >> (with the quotes) into the simple-search field. It returned a
> >> link to my home page as the very first result. From my home
> >> page, you can send me private e-mail.
> >>
> >> Child's play.
>
> dragonfly:
> depending on what that child's particular interests or abilities are:(
> not all children are able to play that game as easily as others. if
> i get time i'll check it out.
>
> >>>btw: did i see you say you were in california?
>
> paul:
> >> I have no way of knowing what you saw;
>
> dragonfly:
> well of course not but do you know what you posted?
>
> paul:
> >>yes, I did say I am in California.
>
> dragonfly:
> ok then;) now that we got beyond that!
>
> >>>are you going to the council?
>
> paul:
> >> Since I'm new to all this,
>
> dragonfly:
> then that would be one place to start, since circles, council
> and consensus is very much at the heart of it all!
>
> paul:
> >> I don't feel qualified to go.
>
> dragonfly:
> oh but you are veryyyy qualified and i'll bet you've got the
> bellybutton to prove that you are indeed a rainbow:) in fact
> you are just as qualified as anyone eles is.
> your badge(bellybutton) garauntees you an equal place and
> voice in the circle.........a participant in this ever
> evolving tapestry of human beings, very diverse sharing
> a common vision and goal.
>
> if you are feeling shy i still encourage you
> to go because there are folks besides me who feel that:
> Others' shyness is their problem and will be happy to
> welcome you home! many folks can be quite helpful.
>
> given the opportunity, they would love to share info with
> you and help you feel less shy and feel more a part of what
> is going on. this is not "a gathering" as you hear us talk
> about because the focus is to discuss the possibility of
> a gathering next year. everyone is equal. what better way
> to meet folks and observe other child's play in action.
>
> peace, love and light
> Dragonfly
>
> btw: are we having phun yet?
> if not maybe a little morphun will help:D
> go ahead...go on out to council it's child's play
>
>
>