Author: Albert Silver
Date: 20:44:43 09/08/04
Go up one level in this thread
On September 08, 2004 at 20:15:51, Steve B wrote:
>nice thread
>3 CTF party faithfuls all in agreement
>how special..
>
>why have this conversation here?
>
>i guess its a form of preaching to the already converted..
>
>the point of the urgent plea last night for CTF party members to post here i
>imagine, was to try to convince CCC members that your board is not a breeding
>ground for hate,exclusion and intolerance..not for you to convince yourselves.
Actually, I doubt very much that was his reason. I think it was more along the
lines to show that to a great extent the members there are very much the members
here and vice-versa. It's funny that you should address me, and Fernando
especially, as CTF faithfuls, and then talk about CCC members as separate
entities. You know, I've been at CCC since the very beginning, far before CTF
and its many names, ever came about. Fernando even more so. I've seen Timothy
here since... don't know, but probably not long after CCC came about as well. In
fact, I'd be extremely surprised, much as I've suported CTF in the last days, if
my number of posts to CCC didn't outnumber my posts to CTF by at least 3 to 1,
despite my relative inactivity in the last 12-18 months.
>tell me..do you think you have convinced even one CCC member?
The logic and arguments are there for all to see. You can point to 2 or 3 very
prejudiced people (5% or so) and claim that they represent the majority, or see
what goes about. As to your argument that this somehow begets more bigotry, I
must say I completely disagree. In fact, this reminds me very much of the
general feelings on safe sex education. Many conservatives think that discussing
and instructing on safe sex will somehow promote teen sex, and as a consequence
teen pregnancies and disease. So they would prefer a gag order. I think the
opposite and promote education as the best weapon. I can never see silence and
ignorance as the best strategy. This is much the same. You can hardly present
arguments or discussion if you close up shop on all dialogue. Will there be a
long line of converts? Hardly, but people do discuss and have the opportunity to
learn.
In genuine humility, I have. This entire series of threads on the subject has
really helped open my eyes further on the value of dialogue and freedom of
speech, even though I thought I understood these concepts well. So in answer to
your question above, in utter seriousness: Yes, me.
Albert
>do you think this "dig the heels in and close ranks"approach is working?
>or perhaps simply admitting that the CTF needs more reasonable moderation would
>be more effective?
>
>this are rhetorical questions and need not be answered.
>actually i myself am a bit tired about trying to explain the reason's why the
>CTF is perceived the way it is by so many CCC members
>you guys win..dont change the CTF one iota..
>donations will remain as it is ,anemic and far less then neccesary to meet the
>cost..and soon both boards are gone..
>i sent in my donation minutes after Steve asked for it,i tried to remedy the
>issues with CTF.(either de-link or better moderation)
>i did my share
>
>
>Final Post on this subject Regards
>Steve
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.