Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Environment & Energy
In reply to the discussion: "How did we get a host?" a locked thread asks? Here is the answer. [View all]kristopher
(29,798 posts)49. Why are you acting as xema's proxy?
This was my post to skinner and is included in the OP
169. It seems evident that the honor system was abused
There was a discussion underway where the emerging consensus certainly looked to be no host.
Knowing that, one participant in that discussion posted the request to be host to you, deliberately not linking to the discussion thread.
I think to any fair minded person that is evidence of an approach to ethics that disqualifies the person from serving in that capacity.
EE is different from most other groups in two important ways;
1) there is an active global "war" between the present fossil/nuclear based system and the use of renewable sources,
2) the content of the postings is largely based on independently verifiable information far more than opinion.
What that *means* is a matter of opinion, but your approach to selecting a host will determine whether the group is a prolific source of misinformation, an unreadable pit where frustrated propagandists dedicate themselves to disruption, or a platform for meaningful, fact based discussion of some of the most pressing problems ever to face humanity.
The manner in which you choose the host will determine that path IMO.[/div
The questions I asked of Xema are directly related to the issue of hosting DUEE.
You seem to feel that DUEE should be a group where nuclear supporters, who are a distinct minority of progressives, should have the freedom to obstruct discussion and activism by those who oppose nuclear power.
I disagree.
Through a maneuver as questionable as those used to get Bush into office in 2000, the nuclear supporters have grabbed control of host spot for the group.
I don't think that is fair to the bulk of progressives who do not support a world dependent on nuclear power and who would like a place to conduct a discussion in peace, free from the schoolyard badgering that characterizes the tactics of nuclear supporters here.
"Groups often serve as safe havens for members who share similar interests and viewpoints. Individuals who post messages contrary to a particular group's stated purpose can be excluded from posting in that group.
It is evident that the schism between those who want to pursue nuclear power and those who don't isn't one that can be bridged - we simply have different visions for the future. I've made a proposal where you would be free to explain and discuss what you think is a good path for us to follow, while those of us who think nuclear is not a good idea would be free to explain and discuss our beliefs.
You obviously object to that and want to have total control over all messaging related to energy.
Why?
There was a discussion underway where the emerging consensus certainly looked to be no host.
Knowing that, one participant in that discussion posted the request to be host to you, deliberately not linking to the discussion thread.
I think to any fair minded person that is evidence of an approach to ethics that disqualifies the person from serving in that capacity.
EE is different from most other groups in two important ways;
1) there is an active global "war" between the present fossil/nuclear based system and the use of renewable sources,
2) the content of the postings is largely based on independently verifiable information far more than opinion.
What that *means* is a matter of opinion, but your approach to selecting a host will determine whether the group is a prolific source of misinformation, an unreadable pit where frustrated propagandists dedicate themselves to disruption, or a platform for meaningful, fact based discussion of some of the most pressing problems ever to face humanity.
The manner in which you choose the host will determine that path IMO.[/div
The questions I asked of Xema are directly related to the issue of hosting DUEE.
1) When you asked to be host, why did you not inform skinner there was an ongoing discussion with divergent views?
You wrote that I "have a personal vendetta against" you.
I deny that.
In fact that is why I'm asking
2) For years you've been making posts that feature the theme "don't feed the kea".
What is the meaning of that series of posts?
What was your goal in making them?
3) You have previously said that you are against development of wind power.
Is that still true?
4) You have previously said that you are against development of solar power except on rooftops.
Is that still true?
5) You have previously said that you believe we should rely primarily on nuclear power.
Is that still true?
6) In your post 2 explaining why you locked the thread, you wrote, "I want you to know that I'm not planning on doing ANYTHING without full cooperation from my co-hosts Dead_Parrot, hatrack, xchrom, jpak, and pinto."
Did they concur with you locking this thread? I ask specifically because it seems odd that they would have all failed to read and appreciate the first sentence in the OP.
You wrote that I "have a personal vendetta against" you.
I deny that.
In fact that is why I'm asking
2) For years you've been making posts that feature the theme "don't feed the kea".
What is the meaning of that series of posts?
What was your goal in making them?
3) You have previously said that you are against development of wind power.
Is that still true?
4) You have previously said that you are against development of solar power except on rooftops.
Is that still true?
5) You have previously said that you believe we should rely primarily on nuclear power.
Is that still true?
6) In your post 2 explaining why you locked the thread, you wrote, "I want you to know that I'm not planning on doing ANYTHING without full cooperation from my co-hosts Dead_Parrot, hatrack, xchrom, jpak, and pinto."
Did they concur with you locking this thread? I ask specifically because it seems odd that they would have all failed to read and appreciate the first sentence in the OP.
You seem to feel that DUEE should be a group where nuclear supporters, who are a distinct minority of progressives, should have the freedom to obstruct discussion and activism by those who oppose nuclear power.
I disagree.
Through a maneuver as questionable as those used to get Bush into office in 2000, the nuclear supporters have grabbed control of host spot for the group.
I don't think that is fair to the bulk of progressives who do not support a world dependent on nuclear power and who would like a place to conduct a discussion in peace, free from the schoolyard badgering that characterizes the tactics of nuclear supporters here.
"Groups often serve as safe havens for members who share similar interests and viewpoints. Individuals who post messages contrary to a particular group's stated purpose can be excluded from posting in that group.
It is evident that the schism between those who want to pursue nuclear power and those who don't isn't one that can be bridged - we simply have different visions for the future. I've made a proposal where you would be free to explain and discuss what you think is a good path for us to follow, while those of us who think nuclear is not a good idea would be free to explain and discuss our beliefs.
You obviously object to that and want to have total control over all messaging related to energy.
Why?
TopBack to the top of the page
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
ShareGet links to this post
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
Cannot edit, recommend, or reply in locked discussions
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
164 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
"How did we get a host?" a locked thread asks? Here is the answer. [View all]
kristopher
Dec 2011
OP
Please clarify a couple of your views; when asked earlier you sidstepped the questions.
kristopher
Dec 2011
#28
So she didn't tell Skinner there was an ongoing discussion because I too volunteered to be host?
kristopher
Dec 2011
#8
Do you understand that this thread has nothing to do with the scientific value of Jacobson's paper?
GliderGuider
Dec 2011
#32
I was about ready to swallow that emotional maturity argument and then I saw JPak as a host.
Massacure
Dec 2011
#19
In my defense - I usually respond to vicious over-the-top personal attacks with real laughter
jpak
Dec 2011
#30
He's trying hard to get the thread locked and (he hopes) himself blocked as disruptive.
FBaggins
Dec 2011
#153
I knew from the beginning E/E would face the most contentious discussion re hosts ...
eppur_se_muova
Dec 2011
#37
This "host selection" has been exactly contrary to the stated process in the DU3-Announcements-forum
Kolesar
Dec 2011
#61
"The pronuclear temporary hosts that are on the list don't have my approval" makes that pretty clear
FBaggins
Dec 2011
#66
"This one has been cleared by Skinner as a re-visit of "Do we need hosts?" = BS
kristopher
Dec 2011
#85
I think it is blatantly obvious to every reader of this thread exactly who is being "self serving".
Nihil
Dec 2011
#101
In other words you do not have a reason to oppose splitting EE into two groups.
kristopher
Dec 2011
#127
And you insist that your interpretation of what "the science" says is the correct one.
FBaggins
Dec 2011
#136
You said "the guy has a right to exist." Who is denying him that even with his disruptive behavior?
joshcryer
Dec 2011
#98
What you thought has absolutely nothing to do with the question asked of Xemasab.
kristopher
Dec 2011
#86
You obviously think that a discussion is "ongoing" until you get what you want.
FBaggins
Dec 2011
#99
And you obviously think that stealing the postion of host is a legitimate act.
kristopher
Dec 2011
#103
Groups can have from 0 to 20 hosts. I have a simple solution to resolve this thread.
freshwest
Dec 2011
#130