• Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log In with Google      Sign In    
  • Create Account
  LongeCity
              Advocacy & Research for Unlimited Lifespans

Photo
- - - - -

chip's suggestion of a changed heirarchy


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
51 replies to this topic

#1 eternaltraveler

  • Guest, Guardian
  • 6,471 posts
  • 155
  • Location:Silicon Valley, CA

Posted 10 December 2007 - 08:10 PM


I'm going to go way out on a limb and actually respond to you as though you are truely asking this for the sake of the organization.

Any idea how Imminst could possibly improve its hierarchy formulation to avoid getting misrepresentation of data meant to attack individuals by members of its staff?


Ok, for starters. Imminst doesn't have "staff". Everyone here is a volunteer. You are not dealing with customer service reps paid for nothing else than being nice to you as you do nothing but complain. (ok. we recently we did hold a full member vote for our first and only paid position. The pittance we give him is probably (hopefully) just enough to keep his wife from leaving him for all the time he puts in here)

How can imminst improve it's hierarchical formulation?

You of course mean why are full members given special status over basic members. The answer to that one is simple. Basic members are members of the forum. Full members are members of the organization. They demonstrate some level of commitment to the institute and it'd goals. Indeed, there are several full members who can not afford the membership dues (some students) but demonstrated their commitment to the community. Other members paid for their memberships.

I know how much you abhor a monetary exchange having any part in the organizations hierarchy. But as it turns out we don't live in the soviet union, and monetary exchanges are essential for our success. The organization needs funds to grow, and to actually work towards our mission. Getting the forum upgrade did cost some money. So does web hosting. And putting on the conference. But even if we had billions of dollars in the bank i would still support a modest membership fee just so we know members have even the slimmest level of commitment. So there is an answer to that part.

Members (from here on out when I refer to "members" I mean "full members") elect directors to do a lot of the management. Directors see what volunteers they can get to help (navigators, advisors etc.). Directors are not above full members. If anything we are below because we have to deal with people who do nothing other than complain and think their opinions should be taken above all others, who have demonstrated zero commitment to the organization but feel entitled to getting what they want out of it, and yet we have try hard to prevent ourselves from responding in kind (ok, we're human :wink:). This paragraph should not be taken as a personal attack. It should be taken as a frank assessment of how I view things.

Members have every bit as much right to putting together a proposal and having a vote brought on it as those in leadership do. It just so happens that those members who want to get things done, and tend to bring forward ideas are quickly brought into leadership (I happen to think of this as good management).

So you see Chip. I don't have a problem with the general architecture of imminst. I certainly agree we can do a lot to improve things, and we can do a lot more for the mission.

Do you have any specific suggestions?

#2

  • Lurker
  • -1

Posted 13 December 2007 - 09:32 AM

"I'm going to go way out on a limb and actually respond to you as though you are truely asking this for the sake of the organization."
Well, I’m not. My interest is the mission.
Me from way before and another thread "Any idea how Imminst could possibly improve its hierarchy formulation to avoid getting misrepresentation of data meant to attack individuals by members of its staff?"

"Ok, for starters. Imminst doesn't have "staff". Everyone here is a volunteer."
Whether for monetary compensation or not, you have a managing staff. You used to have a list of them and their official designations or titles but I’m not so sure that is presently available on the new mistakenly released forum. Lets see if I got this right from memory. Your staff is made up of a president, an executive director, a treasurer, a board of directors, advisors and navigators? Whatever, it is a staff and it does have a hierarchy.

What I am mainly wondering, if I may try to rephrase the question in hopes of explaining it, what is causing staff (and loyal members most likely) to not be genuine in their communications (such as this claim that Imminst does not have a staff)? What can be done to correct this forsaking of reason and logic especially if it appears amongst those who have become entrusted with greater responsibilities than others for the functioning of Imminst?

Well, it seems the symptom needs better elucidation for the prognosis and suggested strategy to improve serving the mission. The combative frame of mind that seems prevalent amongst many can be summed up, I believe, as belief in the idea that proclamation trumps reason. You can deny that there is a staff and others may chime in and agree too as if that is all it takes to make it true. Our legacy as far as our social experiments go, is at fault. It is a poor legacy. We are coerced from a young age to believe in the validity of our current social experiments as if they were not experiments. It is a real taboo for many to consider our social experiments as not perfect and in need of change and even replacement in many cases.

The executive director of this organization recently communicated to me by PM claiming that Imminst is a constitutional democracy. From the first use of that word it did not mean all that much as many people were not included nor served. I like kind of approaching a rather idealized interpretation of the word democracy but, so far, it has been used as a claim to validity by many different social experiments, some quite egregious in how they treated humans and life.

I do believe in democracy but I think the only way that word has merit is if used to describe an organizing strategy that seeks to serve all people. Perhaps some day it will involve an elective process but currently, things that pass for democracy nowadays often seem to depend on a lack of knowledge and awareness that is actually promoted and sustained by a set of taboo considerations, essentially who actually runs things behind the ruse of being a “democracy.”

The organizations I see that do approach seeking to be of service to all people are basically consciousness-raising ventures by small groups of people. They have real presence and are doing much to enlighten many successfully, making money in the process and continually expanding their presence in new ventures or helping others take off. I look at these organizations to see what they use successfully to find the suggestions I make to Imminst if the people here are really concerned about furthering the mission to end the blight of involuntary death. Now I see that “ending the blight of involuntary death” could be interpreted as being for only a few and not all in which case the strategy of Imminst to seek this is not a leaning towards seeking the rather idealized concept of democracy. Instead it becomes a means to attain greater power and freedoms for a few, something a forum inherently entails.

If the idea is to seek ending the blight of involuntary death for all as soon as possible, then Imminst has something that it can sell and for which there is as large a market as there are people. That is a good thing if you want a successful venture so I suspect this rather idealized concept of democracy is a viable one. The knowledge denial and power-over-reason strategies of the non-inclusive leaning organization fails, often totally and with much violence, as far as I can tell.

"You are not dealing with customer service reps paid for nothing else than being nice to you as you do nothing but complain. (ok. we recently we did hold a full member vote for our first and only paid position. The pittance we give him is probably (hopefully) just enough to keep his wife from leaving him for all the time he puts in here)"
Besides the obvious slur of another character assassination attempt, you are exposing a strategy that is subject to mistakes and failure. A volunteer run organization is not a viable strategy. You should seek only the manifestation that asks for no sacrifices, win-win strategies. For the technical necessary functions, you need well-paid technical expertise. If you largely depend on volunteers then you are subject to having the mission in the hands of people who are not into getting fair compensation, not the kinds of people who can be trusted to not make mistakes such as engaging the new forum before it was ready. Seems to me if the mission were more important than the forum then you would have quickly restored the old forum and put the development and testing of the current forum out of the public eye until it was good and ready. That you now appear to be using the public to test and report problems with the new forum, communicates incompetence, a bad marketing decision.

I do suspect that when one does not have a concern and desire to be of service and benefit to all, the degree of seriousness placed in the making of communications is not all that great. It takes an altruistic desire to seek good grammar, use of words, etc. in order to make ones communications correctly understood. If the desire is to just be the most powerful fighter in a struggle to the death (basically the “lizard brain” gestalt behind special privilege seeking) then saying things that are easily misconstrued, hard to interpret and grammatically as well as logically incorrect makes it easier to spin your actual intent to counter any arguments or criticism as debased. E.g. “you do nothing but complain.” That is not meant to communicate. That is an attempt at blanket derision and false for any one who wants to consider the evidence.

"Basic members are members of the forum. Full members are members of the organization. They demonstrate some level of commitment to the institute and it'd goals."
Note that you place the institute first before “it’d goals” (lol).

"Indeed, there are several full members who can not afford the membership dues (some students) but demonstrated their commitment to the community."
No need to be committed to the mission? Is the community the cause? How about the community known as humanity? Would you find people committed to the success of humanity to be an enemy of Imminst since the community that is the participants in this forum, no matter their category, is not all humanity?

"I know how much you abhor a monetary exchange having any part in the organizations hierarchy."
Well you do not present any evidence of this blanket extreme characterization of me and if you had gone about trying to use real data in the formulation of this statement you would have realized that I definitely see a monetary exchange as playing a vital role and have elucidated this a few times here and there. Basically the organizations that seem to approach serving all and making a lot of money through a web presence appear to depend on being a news portal. By providing a real consciousness raising service, they get traffic and then small means of web based revenue turn into nice monetary exchange. As an example, http://www.buzzflash.com now appears to be 45% towards their goal of $150,000 by Jan. 1 though we are only 40% through Dec. Amazing that they are doing this without banner ads or Google ads, just premium sales of books and DVDs. http://www.enn.com appears to depend on banner ads though seems they are presented as embedded rather than prominent as Imminst is doing. I suppose it works for them because they are receiving a nice traffic flow of people who find their service of value. http://www.newstarget.com also appears supported by sales of items but mainly from another site and not obtrusive at all in their web presence. They recently added a means of seeking more news writers and their “presence” has increased in breadth and relevance, wise considerations for success. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ is another one worth researching as it is being tremendously successful. Apparently they use both premiums and banner ads.

"But as it turns out we don't live in the soviet union, and monetary exchanges are essential for our success."
Again, this appears as an attempt to denigrate my character with a negative association not based on any real data at all, not an attempt on your part to be genuine but only to be combative and misleading. Is Imminst functioning properly if members of its staff attempt to mislead people, perhaps even the self? Something is wrong here and if you guys can’t figure it out and must go on with the debased “good guys verses bad guys” approach your mission becomes just so much hot air, not real at all, just an excuse to seek more rights than others, to partition the world into a worthy elite and an evil opposition.

"But even if we had billions of dollars in the bank i would still support a modest membership fee just so we know members have even the slimmest level of commitment. So there is an answer to that part."
As far as I can tell, this commitment you speak of is to the institute and its staff, not the mission. If the goal were the mission then if you had the money to do without requiring a membership fee, then you would put that money to the service of the mission and open up your membership to include all humanity and maybe even the life that makes up our support system. I guess part of the problem is your not having congealed a sufficiently realistic mission yet. I see your founder alludes to immortality as being a real goal. As long as you do not embrace a logical purpose, I’m afraid you will see the experiment as more important than the delivered product; being of real genuine worth will not be a priority.

"Members (from here on out when I refer to "members" I mean "full members") elect directors to do a lot of the management. Directors see what volunteers they can get to help (navigators, advisors etc.)."
So, it appears the purpose of the directors is to provide for the operation of the forum. What about the mission?

"Directors are not above full members. If anything we are below because we have to deal with people who do nothing other than complain and think their opinions should be taken above all others, who have demonstrated zero commitment to the organization but feel entitled to getting what they want out of it, and yet we have try hard to prevent ourselves from responding in kind (ok, we're human) "
Besides another attempt of thinly veiled character assassination, you seem to have a rather strange idea of what hierarchy means. When mapping out the hierarchy of a system you find the population of various mutually exclusive states of being in that system and use that to rank the parts, just the numbers in each category. Directors do have higher status than most others in such a ranking. If you want to claim there is no hierarchy then I suggest you try to convey what you mean by “hierarchy.” When I use the term I am speaking of a set of information control characteristics apportioned amongst a finite number of categories of states of being.

"Members have every bit as much right to putting together a proposal and having a vote brought on it as those in leadership do."
Full members maybe rival the “leadership” or staff in bringing changes about (highly dubious as they would at least need the collusion of the staff) but not most members. I suggest you try to use consistent terminology. By stating earlier that by members you mean “full members” you just take the consideration of most of the users of your system out of the equation, which is not giving you a functional viable fruitful perspective.

Oh well. Imminst is an experiment. Each of us is an experiment. Humanity is an experiment. Life in general is an experiment. My allegiance lies more with the last three than the first, which is why I am in concert with a rather broad interpretation of the mission. Me thinks it is more feasible to seek change in our institutions that could facilitate positive development and preservation of our biological existence than use our physical beings to serve institutions.

BTW, I tried using the quote tags above but was given the message "You have posted more than the allowed number of quoted blocks of text" and they did not materialize so I went back and replaced them all with quotation marks. Talking about going way out on a limb, my efforts here may be totally wasted upon individuals who do not want and/or do not have the capacity to consider deep thought. Maybe only shallow communications are acceptable, another symptom of the disease?

#3 eternaltraveler

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest, Guardian
  • 6,471 posts
  • 155
  • Location:Silicon Valley, CA

Posted 13 December 2007 - 02:00 PM

thanks for your thoughts chip

they will be taken into consideration.

#4

  • Lurker
  • -1

Posted 14 December 2007 - 08:20 PM

Your staff is made up of a president, an executive director, a treasurer, a board of directors, advisors and navigators?


What I am mainly wondering, if I may try to rephrase the question in hopes of explaining it, what is causing staff (and loyal members most likely) to not be genuine in their communications (such as this claim that Imminst does not have a staff)? What can be done to correct this forsaking of reason and logic especially if it appears amongst those who have become entrusted with greater responsibilities than others for the functioning of Imminst?


"Indeed, there are several full members who can not afford the membership dues (some students) but demonstrated their commitment to the community."
No need to be committed to the mission? Is the community the cause? How about the community known as humanity? Would you find people committed to the success of humanity to be an enemy of Imminst since the community that is the participants in this forum, no matter their category, is not all humanity?



"Members (from here on out when I refer to "members" I mean "full members") elect directors to do a lot of the management. Directors see what volunteers they can get to help (navigators, advisors etc.)."
So, it appears the purpose of the directors is to provide for the operation of the forum. What about the mission?


Talking about going way out on a limb, my efforts here may be totally wasted upon individuals who do not want and/or do not have the capacity to consider deep thought. Maybe only shallow communications are acceptable, another symptom of the disease?


"All we need to do is make sure we keep talking." Stephen Hawking

#5 Athanasios

  • Guest
  • 2,616 posts
  • 163
  • Location:Texas

Posted 14 December 2007 - 09:32 PM

Questions 1-3 are loaded questions. If you unload them, you are more likely to get an answer.

Question 4, Yes, management of ImmInst is in part the forums. The question is unclear to me, 'What about the mission?' Do you have anything to propose for action or outreach? Or as Elrond asked, do you have any suggestions?

Question 5 seems to be rhetorical.

Edited by cnorwood, 14 December 2007 - 09:36 PM.


#6

  • Lurker
  • -1

Posted 14 December 2007 - 11:54 PM

Questions 1-3 are loaded questions. If you unload them, you are more likely to get an answer.

Certainly not for question 1. This false framing of yours makes question 2 a valid one without taking the context from elrond's original post. You are providing another instance of not being genuine and you are a member of the staff here. Question 3, if I may reframe it, is basically wondering if Imminst sees itself as seeking to help humanity or just its members? You can call that loaded if you want but such a framing seems to answer the question suggesting Imminst exists for its members and not humanity which is a frail marketing stance.

Question 4, Yes, management of ImmInst is in part the forums. The question is unclear to me, 'What about the mission?' Do you have anything to propose for action or outreach? Or as Elrond asked, do you have any suggestions?

Lose the forum as the mission. Lose the membership fee as a fund raiser and a requirement for special privileges and governing particpation. Change your constitution to reflect this and seek just the minimal staff necessary to pursue the mission, again, with less emphasis placed on the forum. Put a news portal togethor and keep it up to date. You can cover anything and everything that might help people have more determination over their lives in a life sustaining manner. Do not embrace immortality as a realizable goal or you filter out intelligent, critical thinking and honest participants. Seek to be valuable to all and you can have money, great admiration for your efforts and good times. Otherwise, you risk being more a part of the problem than any solution.

The above suggestions could be fleshed out and made into a grant request, tailored to the various organizations that seek to help fund worthwhile causes. Plan for compensating workers fairly. If you make a plan that would appeal to grants, it would need to include how the institute would become self-funding eventually. I've practically given all of that to you.

Question 5 seems to be rhetorical.

Well, yes. I am seeking greater understanding of this phenomenon. It does seem cogent to consider aversion to explorative communications a kind of mental disease as well as the not being genuine as you exemplify again cnorwood. The first step to any kind of cure would be to admit the malady. Avoiding the recognition will mean it will continue to plague your efforts and very possibly lead to more bad public relations as Imminst has had in the past.

How many years has Imminst been operating now? Can it say that it shows fiscal health and promise? Should we take the mistaken release of a new forum as indicative that the thing is dysfunctional and capable of even more major mistakes that might just bring about its doom?

Do you think I am your enemy?

I notice now that some sections of the forum available for viewing by basic members are not available to any posting by basic members. I suspect this is one of the justifications for the new forum, to drive a main revenue source up, membership fees (see my other thread where I attempted to bring this up and where elrond posted inanities and my inanities in response were deleted and his kept, http://www.imminst.o...&...t&p=208917). Well, be advised: This will also mean frustration for basic members and will drive some away from what appears to be an exclusive gang like affair.

Currently
1. You are filtering out the most resourceful and capable.
2. Displaying evidence that amongst your staff you have mean-spirited individuals with little tolerance and/or mental ability.

Those are not characteristics of a promising enterprise.

#7 Shepard

  • Member, Director, Moderator
  • 6,360 posts
  • 932
  • Location:Auburn, AL

Posted 15 December 2007 - 12:09 AM

Those are not characteristics of a promising enterprise.


I heartily suggest you take that to its conclusion and spend your time trying to save another organization. You've tried and tried and tried to save us poor souls. Alas, it seems doomed to fail. Go forth, dear sir, and spread your wings to other areas of the internet.

#8 Kalepha

  • Guest
  • 1,140 posts
  • 0

Posted 15 December 2007 - 01:22 AM

Chip, what might be your most respectable reasons for being concerned about ImmInst's role, and hence mode, are very unclear if we consider:

a. ImmInst doesn't function as though there is only one possible solution
b. ImmInst's basic moral is that lifespans without bound is good
c. ImmInst potentially reaches everyone who shares its elementary idea easily through Google
d. ImmInst is not only potentially accessible with virtually no effort, it develops outreach projects.

Besides not being an institution established for actually shoving a moral of water-droplet proportions down the throats of every living human, the outrage is next to impossible to understand.

With that, one can only share Shepard's sentiment:

I heartily suggest you take that to its conclusion and spend your time trying to save another organization. You've tried and tried and tried to save us poor souls. Alas, it seems doomed to fail. Go forth, dear sir, and spread your wings to other areas of the internet.



#9

  • Lurker
  • -1

Posted 15 December 2007 - 02:01 AM

a. ImmInst doesn't function as though there is only one possible solution

the forum.

b. ImmInst's basic moral is that lifespans without bound is good

For Imminst's members or for humanity?

c. ImmInst potentially reaches everyone who shares its elementary idea easily through Google

Great, it preaches to the choir.

d. ImmInst is not only potentially accessible with virtually no effort, it develops outreach projects.

With mean-spirited misleading crass proponents? What kind of success will such outreach bring?

Besides not being an institution established for actually shoving a moral of water-droplet proportions down the throats of every living human, the outrage is next to impossible to understand.

Who is suggesting that it shove any moral platform onto any one? I can understand that it is hard for you to understand. The dynamics and potentials for good or bad are probably hard to understand for most seeing where we are coming from. Does that mean one should not make the attempt? Some have communicated support for my contentions privately but when you are basically dealing with a mob mentality, few want to make any presence in front of the mob.

With that, one can only share Shepard's sentiment

Only? With that clarifier your statement is logically false.

All in all though, if you seek, maybe, a free full member status or something, you appear to be on the right track. Just keep those lips pursed.

#10 Kalepha

  • Guest
  • 1,140 posts
  • 0

Posted 15 December 2007 - 02:48 AM

With that, one can only share Shepard's sentiment

Only? With that clarifier your statement is logically false.

Logic appraises arguments, not statements. And while it may be syntactically false by convention, it isn't semantically false. Not knowing the function of logic would, nevertheless, be the greater error.

All in all though, if you seek, maybe, a free full member status or something, you appear to be on the right track. Just keep those lips pursed.

This doesn't apply. Members of ImmInst leadership would already know that whether I'm a Full or Basic Member makes little difference to the expression of my enthusiasm. Just like I understand -- made more explicit for you in my other response -- that if I were a member of ImmInst leadership, I wouldn't own the intellectual property of 'infinite lifespans'.

#11 eternaltraveler

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest, Guardian
  • 6,471 posts
  • 155
  • Location:Silicon Valley, CA

Posted 15 December 2007 - 07:11 AM

Chip,

Allow me to reply.

I disagree with most of your conclusions and framing and the entire foundation on which they are based.

Spending more time responding to you I view as a heinous waste of my time (which I actually do use a considerable portion of working on the mission as best I can).

So thank you for your comments. Now that they are out in the open there should no longer be a need for you to derail any more threads with them. So please don't.

However

The above suggestions could be fleshed out and made into a grant request, tailored to the various organizations that seek to help fund worthwhile causes. Plan for compensating workers fairly. If you make a plan that would appeal to grants, it would need to include how the institute would become self-funding eventually. I've practically given all of that to you.


I heartily encourage you to pursue this yourself since you know so much about it. Why rely on "individuals who do not want and/or do not have the capacity to consider deep thought" to do all this work? That seems like a logical mistake on your part.

thanks again.

#12 eternaltraveler

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest, Guardian
  • 6,471 posts
  • 155
  • Location:Silicon Valley, CA

Posted 15 December 2007 - 07:45 AM

Now that they are out in the open there should no longer be a need for you to derail any more threads with them. So please don't.


Specifically follow the posting guidelines. Here they are for your reference.

COURTEOUS

* Be polite when replying to others. .
* Avoid using derogatory language.
* Maintain a constructive attitude.
* Attack ideas and not people.


INFORMATIVE

* Be informative and clear when posting.
* Before creating a new topic, check to see if the topic hasn't already been created elsewhere.

RELEVANT

* Avoid making duplicate posts.
* Post topics under the appropriate forums.
* Keep follow-up posts on topic.
* Avoid posting advertisements or Spam.

ACCESSIBLE

* Be sure that the posted text is readable.
* Use emoticons/smiles sparingly.
* Post pictures when relevant by not excessively.


I've also taken the liberty of putting in bold those guidelines that you may wish to put more thought into. Most specifically try to avoid making duplicate posts and stay on topic. Like repeating the same thing in many other threads as you already have in this thread in "suggestions" as well as other threads here already. I tend to be more lenient on the "courteous" set as i'm pretty thick skinned, and assume if someone can dish it out then they can also take it. However I suppose we've outgrown the stage where we can be as individualized with the way we deal with things for the sake of fairness and consistency.

cheers!

#13

  • Lurker
  • -1

Posted 15 December 2007 - 05:38 PM

Oh, so you really believe there is no staff here? You really believe that directors are beneath full members? It is easy to make a blanket denial without any supporting evidence or considerations but this does not facilitate your coming to your senses or conveying a better, more truthful assessment of basic conditions to those who read your text. I do appreciate your attempting to be congenial in your response to me, as you listed parameters of the user agreement, that is wise as you wouldn't want contrary evidence immediately apparent. My contention is that the most common transgressing of those agreements happens by members of your staff or die-hard toadies. Is that a character slur? Kalepha addressed one response I made to his post concerning his not adhering to logic (syntactic – semantic, whoopee!) but he didn’t address most of the other criticisms I made. This idea that I am trying to get you guys to enforce some kind of moral stance on others is funny. That is exactly what you are doing with your current presence as a forum. The morals you are enforcing are debased, essentially if you are in power you have more rights to rely and use character assassination and misleading spin in your missives.

I worked with an expert grant writer. The hardest part of her work was to inform her clients of their misassumptions and ill designed structure that would spell disaster for any attempt to get a grant. She was disliked by some for this but the group took her recommendations to heart after lengthy deliberation and some tough-love communications but they did get some substantial money after the group came to their senses and followed her advise. It is all too easy to rely on our subjective gleanings and to close those down tighter to give them a rosy picture (such as equating members to being only full members) but it is self-destructive.

As long as you see immortality as a realizable goal, as long as you must phrase things, ignore criticism and otherwise avoid recognition of your own failings, grants will be few and far between and major mistakes will continue to thwart your efforts. You will have a tough time finding any decent grant writer to try to help you get money for something that is not deserving or promising, something that is inherently all too fantastic in its goals and means. You would need to adjust those to being cognizant and functional, perhaps too distant to be realizable. Though Shepard’s statement was largely disingenuous, I do find the idea of leaving you to your fun and games quite appealing. I’m sure you would welcome that as you appear to believe that failing aspects of your architecture and stance don’t exist as long as you can censor or otherwise prevent recognition. “Ignorance is bliss,” right?

#14 Kalepha

  • Guest
  • 1,140 posts
  • 0

Posted 15 December 2007 - 06:35 PM

Kalepha addressed one response I made to his post concerning his not adhering to logic

It's concerning your non-adherence.

he didn’t address most of the other criticisms I made.

There isn't much there to address, so there isn't much to address on a point by point basis. My position is simple, and it is summed up in the last sentence of my previous post and addresses all there is to address, which in your case isn't much, still less underneath all the huff.

This idea that I am trying to get you guys to enforce some kind of moral stance on others is funny.

If you're saying this because of what I said, you misunderstood the sentence, I suppose again for red-herring fuel, as that's all your engine can run on apparently.

#15

  • Lurker
  • -1

Posted 15 December 2007 - 07:48 PM

If you're saying this because of what I said, you misunderstood the sentence, I suppose again for red-herring fuel, as that's all your engine can run on apparently.


The sentence

Besides not being an institution established for actually shoving a moral of water-droplet proportions down the throats of every living human, the outrage is next to impossible to understand.

is quite verbose and difficult to interpret as it seems to use a definition of "moral" that is specious but that is useful if you do not want to be genuine and easier to spin in your defense.

As far as the "red-herring fuel" stuff goes, that truly seems to be an attempt to blanket deride my character. Such is quite acceptable to the powers that be here if it serves their grandiose self-perception. Seems some of those would rather us not consider them as the powers that be, not staff, not above others. Ah, the vagaries of lassitude.

#16 Kalepha

  • Guest
  • 1,140 posts
  • 0

Posted 15 December 2007 - 09:28 PM

Ah, the vagaries of lassitude.

Or, the subtleties of intelligence.

Once I saw someone in a chat suggest they were primarily interested in the Ferraris of longevity, and that does seem to represent the atmosphere around here. Oh well. But, if you're interested in the Toyotas of longevity, you could infer that you still have opportunities for payoffs and great philanthropy, what you wouldn't have as a shareholder of Ferrari according to your assessments. So good luck.

#17

  • Lurker
  • -1

Posted 15 December 2007 - 09:57 PM

Thank you Kaleph. I see you have a potential for being quite a stalwart defender of the dialectic. I suggest you steer clear of the allegorical and metaphorical because they are quite open to interpretation and increase the chance of making a meaning intent grammatical error. I suspect you meant to say "morsal" rather than "moral" but then, the "subtleties of intelligence" may in your eyes mean defending the indefensible rather than admit a mistake, perhaps.

#18 Kalepha

  • Guest
  • 1,140 posts
  • 0

Posted 15 December 2007 - 10:42 PM

I suspect you meant to say "morsal" rather than "moral" but then, the "subtleties of intelligence" may in your eyes mean defending the indefensible rather than admit a mistake, perhaps.

I had already moved on from your lack of comprehension at that point and was responding to the quoted sentence as if it was meant to be part of the thought of your last paragraph, where it actually was. So I was referring to the institute, not myself.

Your thinking in general is distressingly garbled, and it doesn't help that you seem to project either the pathology or the resultant frustration outward. If both you and the institute need improvement, you should reprioritize for a while.

#19

  • Lurker
  • -1

Posted 16 December 2007 - 12:24 AM

Actually "morsel" is a correct spelling which makes your intent even harder to comprehend. Using a a metaphorical adjective for a metaphorical phrase seems rather far out there and just asking for complication rather than communication, pal. Seems to be a case of your being incomprehensible rather than my not comprehending. I enjoyed the reference to Ferraries and Toyotas, btw, but seems they are both rather stuck in providing some life compromising products so I don't think the allegory stands up but, it was interesting.

#20 DJS

  • Guest
  • 5,798 posts
  • 11
  • Location:Taipei
  • NO

Posted 16 December 2007 - 03:15 AM

I enjoyed the reference to Ferraries and Toyotas, btw, but seems they are both rather stuck in providing some life compromising products so I don't think the allegory stands up but, it was interesting.


Well, at least something was interesting in this thread.

Edited by Technosophy, 16 December 2007 - 03:15 AM.


#21

  • Lurker
  • -1

Posted 16 December 2007 - 04:53 AM

Well heck, four members of the staff now have added desultory phillippics. Thanks for the confirmations!

#22 DJS

  • Guest
  • 5,798 posts
  • 11
  • Location:Taipei
  • NO

Posted 16 December 2007 - 07:00 AM

Confirmations indeed. Of the fact that on a scale of 1 to 10, you are 9.8 annoying.

#23

  • Lurker
  • -1

Posted 16 December 2007 - 05:54 PM

A statistic out of thin air, seems this institute has become one of non-friendly anti-intelligence.

#24 Kalepha

  • Guest
  • 1,140 posts
  • 0

Posted 16 December 2007 - 06:30 PM

I don't know of many trolls to whom others are very friendly. And I don't know of many ignorant trolls who accept or let be, without belligerent frustration, what they don't understand or don't know how to measure, as if by definition.

#25

  • Lurker
  • -1

Posted 16 December 2007 - 07:37 PM

As far as I can tell, Kalepha, trolls have come to rule this forum/institute.

#26 Athanasios

  • Guest
  • 2,616 posts
  • 163
  • Location:Texas

Posted 16 December 2007 - 08:18 PM

Lose the forum as the mission. Lose the membership fee as a fund raiser and a requirement for special privileges and governing particpation. Change your constitution to reflect this and seek just the minimal staff necessary to pursue the mission, again, with less emphasis placed on the forum. Put a news portal togethor and keep it up to date. You can cover anything and everything that might help people have more determination over their lives in a life sustaining manner. Do not embrace immortality as a realizable goal or you filter out intelligent, critical thinking and honest participants. Seek to be valuable to all and you can have money, great admiration for your efforts and good times. Otherwise, you risk being more a part of the problem than any solution.

I am not against losing the forum. Similar suggestions have been brought up in leadership before. Although, I don't see how being a news portal would be a step forward. There are many around that do this. I am not much interested in money or admiration but a positive foot forward for the meme. Can you elaborate on what you think the institute should do after ditching the forums that would be positive for life-extension efforts?

#27

  • Lurker
  • -1

Posted 16 December 2007 - 08:47 PM

I didn't say "ditching" I said lose the forum. If you want to help the "meme" you will avoid any drastic non-confidence or competence hurting actions. Set up the news portal with its secure separate web site which could still be a part of your domain. In fact I would suggest making it your home page. Arrange for a small staff for proof, accuracy and intent checking with an editor in charge. Make it volunteer for now but have a stipulation that monetary reward of reasonable compensation would be offered if sufficiently generated.. Chief editor would then collect news stories from around the world concerning ways and means to lessen involuntary death. Besides posting brief descriptions and links to these, direct reports from contributors could be used after passing quality and relevancy criteria to become original news stories. Just get it going. The data in the articles and references alone brings search engine traffic. Add to that some good natured marketing and you could get a daily clientel much larger than the forum can sustain. Then place your revenue making means, whether ads or premiums, (premiums suggested as less problematic in possibly corrupting the mission) as usual, on your most frequented pages which hopefully will become the news portal. If it works, great.

I think the only possible alternatives to consider are those that do not cost much, are physically possible and phase in changes only as it is feasible.

#28 Karomesis

  • Guest
  • 1,010 posts
  • 0
  • Location:Massachusetts, USA

Posted 16 December 2007 - 08:49 PM

Posted Image

you know where it is Mr. Dorf......PRESS IT PLEASE. ;)


The last thing the forum needs is more WTF threads.


Posted Image

#29 eternaltraveler

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest, Guardian
  • 6,471 posts
  • 155
  • Location:Silicon Valley, CA

Posted 16 December 2007 - 09:22 PM

I didn't say "ditching" I said lose the forum. If you want to help the "meme" you will avoid any drastic non-confidence or competence hurting actions. Set up the news portal with its secure separate web site which could still be a part of your domain. In fact I would suggest making it your home page. Arrange for a small staff for proof, accuracy and intent checking with an editor in charge. Make it volunteer for now but have a stipulation that monetary reward of reasonable compensation would be offered if sufficiently generated.. Chief editor would then collect news stories from around the world concerning ways and means to lessen involuntary death. Besides posting brief descriptions and links to these, direct reports from contributors could be used after passing quality and relevancy criteria to become original news stories. Just get it going. The data in the articles and references alone brings search engine traffic. Add to that some good natured marketing and you could get a daily clientel much larger than the forum can sustain. Then place your revenue making means, whether ads or premiums, (premiums suggested as less problematic in possibly corrupting the mission) as usual, on your most frequented pages which hopefully will become the news portal. If it works, great.

I think the only possible alternatives to consider are those that do not cost much, are physically possible and phase in changes only as it is feasible.



these are reasonable suggestions, and good ones. We've thought of some of the same things and plan to start something along these lines when the home page comes back up.

Do you have any suggestions on logistics?

#30 brokenportal

  • Life Member, Moderator
  • 7,046 posts
  • 589
  • Location:Stevens Point, WI

Posted 16 December 2007 - 09:42 PM

I didn't say "ditching" I said lose the forum.



Lose the forum? Well to counter that idea, with a quote of a quote by none other than you, "All we need to do is make sure we keep talking." Steven Hawkings

I learn and grow the most through open civil arguement with the world.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users