The Invisible Editor, My Foot!

Madam editor,

I am posting it here on this dormant board because I can not think of any other permanently relevant board and (unlike others) I do not like to burden my i-log area with all kinds of trivialities – and certainly not do so on a permanent basis.

Please be assured that this interactor is already familiar with the “faq” stuff on the interact index (II). There is nothing in there which counters the very legitimate concerns that this interactor has earlier raised regarding the built-in bias and potential for abuse of this whole system and how – because of the way such things get institutionalized in this “world” – its close resemblance to a chowk “caste” system – with the ultimate II of 4.0 attaining that chowk “Brahmin” status (and perhaps a 5.0 (which I have yet to see) the ultimate stage of Nirvana which is rarely achieved in THIS life!)

Here are the following recommendations you may seriously wish to consider (REALLY seriously):

1) Whoever is/are chowk “staff” and scoring interacts must never be an interactor – otherwise the credibility will always remain clouded. (This may call for a certain degree of sacrifice from those of “chowk staff” who may be addicted to interaction – they need to make up their minds which of the two functions is important to them – and pick one (and one only)!)

2) Either an interact meets the guidelines – or it does not. Accordingly, the score should be either 1.0 or 0.0 – none of this subjective grading from -1 to +5. For most interacts, it is easy to see if it is a 1.0 or 0.0. (The use of abusive terms could be 0.0, for example) If there is legitimate doubt – then the default needs to be 1.0 – following that old logic of “innocent unless proved guilty”.

3) The score of each interact must be displayed right on its header line (where the time stamp appears). There is no other way to ensure absolute transparency.

Oops, I forgot to mention the interact index!

You see ma’m, the above approach simplifies things in such a way that there won’t be a need for an interact index. Individuals can hang on to their precious II with pride – like certificates on a wall!

Sincerely,
BJK.

Dear Madam editor,

Because of perhaps obvious reasons, I had cut myself off from both chowk and g-mail for a couple of months, and have only made a limited return now. Staying away is very much doable, but not easy (and I can perhaps understand how difficult it probably may be for others.)

I do not know what all happened earlier behind the scenes at this web site and perhaps at this point it is not important. I have always believed that being a chief editor requires less the talents of a high profile writer/columnist (and there may exist differences of opinion regarding what constitutes such talent (this e-mail writer does not even claim objectivity on the individuals concerned)) but it does require a lot of leg-work and time and someone who is willing to put in the necessary effort and it helps to be able to get along with people (all people, and not just one’s cronies and groupies and adulators (somewhat derisively called the members of the “intellectual” harem (and one should not read too much into the actual gender of the “harem” members))!

One can always question the wisdom of such decisions – but once made, there is little point in second-guessing – because after all this is not a democratic set-up, it is privately “owned” (to the extent that a bunch of constantly-crashing computer databases, highly clunky Perl code, and perhaps some bargain basement priced cheapo servers (desi owners do not have a formidable reputation of paying serious dough – and the high wages the chowk writers are currently busily hoarding away with both arms is just one indication!) can be “owned” – most people with an iota of sense would know instinctively that the real asset lies in the healthy variety of opinions and in letting those thrive and communicate without hindrance).

Therefore, I wish you the best of luck. It has been earlier pointed out that your credentials are not (and have never been) the issue.

Freedom of speech is important to me and should be so to everyone with a sound head on shoulders. The fact is that not everyone carries such a head. (Some may say the same about me.) I am sorry I have in the past used the term ``morons``. It is perhaps wrong to call such people morons – if they are intelligent, then it is inappropriate to call them so– but even if such designation is highly accurate, as I have in the past suspected the case, because of the characteristics peculiar to those who qualify for such terms, clearly they will fail to see the merit in such designation and will react in a knee-jerk manner – as others claim is currently being evidenced.

Anyhow, let me point out my three reasons (which others dissenters may consider) for returning:

First, the web site is a good outlet for creative output (or perhaps an occasional outburst) of any kind. I particularly like the i-log part of it (and I hope that nobody here has yet stooped so low as to go after censoring those, too.)

Second, there is new talent coming up all the time. Some of those talents could really use the encouragement that comes from fellow writers (and writer wannabe’s) to improve their abilities. (Not all new talent is equally sure-footed as the “old” talent and, come to think of it, most of the current crop of the “old” talent could also benefit immensely. (I am not implying that “old” refers to age.))

Third, I do believe that the presence of moderating voices is important and the site is a better place if people are present who are making counter view-points known, especially someone like (let us say) T-bhai who is naturally polite (this interactor makes no such claims for himself. (For me, there is little point in using made-up names if I have to be of necessity “polite” to individuals who deserve no such courtesy – and also display no such attributes themselves!))

A legitimate point has been made that the chowk management/editors have no objectivity themselves. But in the absence of dissenting voices, they will not even know how lousy they are.

And could continue to exchange thoughts only among cronies!

And (what is even worse), a continuous proliferation and full-fledged inbreeding of half-cocky and half-asinine thought processes could go on forever!

Like sands through the hour-glass!

Imagine how grating that could become (shudder)!

I am not recommending any particular course of action for anybody here, but urge everyone to consider these points carefully.

Sincerely,
You know who.
(No point in naming names and getting this last nick banned, too.)

PS: any past references to the chief editor as “cheap” editor should not be considered to be of a derogatory nature – it might even be a literally accurate description of the wage scale involved (I have no personal knowledge of such scale)!

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

Re: # 181

Brother Omar,

Kindly note that kaka had not opined on the merits of an `invisible` editor. To win that argument, kaka needs to locate a monkey with the necessary experience (10 years on the beat, 12,000 published stories etc) since the validity of an argument is not the criteria but, apparently, the experience of the monkey is.

Writing anonymous/credited editorials in a language that nobody speaks.. under a dictatorship (whose DanDa language everyone understands) that can pull the newsprint from under your feet.. do you really want kaka to spell out how pathetic your existence is? Your insistence on the invisbility of an editor may have something to do with the dictatorship that you live under.. or just the general violence of your surroundings. Please write an editorial about it and make a battee out of it.

As for Veeresh emailing Dawn about POWs.., know that if a monkey were to be sitting writing the `anonymous` editorials for Dawn, then veeresh would have contacted that monkey, notwithstanding the journalist credentials of the monkey. Your job is to facilitate the communications and not monkey around with the concerns of POWs or the people who care for them. Now get to work.

I thought that the following comment I made to Dawood is relevant to the discussion with the feminazis:

Dawood,
Thank you for a relevant and timely discussion about how to move forward. We all agree that the status of the majority of women (and men) in this world is unacceptable. Where we differ in opinion is that while those who are sincere, and this group includes most women and most men, really want to help women socially, economically, politically, and effectively, there is a minority of women, with very few men along for the ride, who could care less about women and their real issues. This tiny minority just wants to practice misandry, create an Amazonian utopia where men don`t exist, and build sand castles of female domination, unabashed lesbianism, and uncontrolled hysteria. It is important to focus on the first, and gently ignore the second.

#198, I meant debauched.

Sadna,
Speaking about abuse of females, what say you concerning the immoral, abusive, unethical, stone-hearted, cruel, and debached behavior of Pandit Ji as his dear wife lay dying in a hospital far away from home?

Sadna #196,
You are having personal problems with obtaining, maintaining, and securing your passwords and you are asking me to seek psychiatric assistance?

You have a password problem with ``sadna,`` so you are compelled to use ``orangpeko.`` Yet you are able to log in using either nick.

So, did the little green men in the saucy vehicle propose to you in unison or one by one?

Salim_Chauhan
Since you claim to have a straight line to the chowk staff and to the Holy Prophet maybe you can get chowk staff to allow me to change my password on `sadna`. As long as I am not allowed to change password on `sadna`, chowk community can scarcely complain about my having a second nick, especially since I have posted a grand total of 4 posts using that nick on FP counting the one on this thread.

You need to get psychiatric help if you are actually using the Prophet to justify your filthy posts about women day in and day out. Other posters who post obscenities just post obscenities without offering divine or moral justifications for their actions as you are doing.

#191, Sadna {``then he said he is only imposing morality on women posters. ``}

Sadna,
Alas, that is my missionary position. In the absence of the Lord on earth, someone has to do His job. :) Repent or else!

#192, Sadna,
Then why are you compelled to use ``orangepeko`` your multiple nick? So, if you use multiple nics, it must be for a worthwhile beneficial reason (such as solving world hunger) and when your opponents use a multinick, it must be sinister, harassment, evil, and abusive. See the absence of logic in your position. Why must you always assume a missionary position - my religion right or wrong, you better see my God and be saved, or else?

#191, Sadna,
You forgot the PBUH suffix. :)

Salim_Chauhan
I don`t use multiple nicks to harass and abuse posters like you do. I always say who I am.

Salim_Chauhan first denied he was the nick who abused Nadia, then he said he posts filthy posts because he gets upset and retaliates at a bad word spoken by a female, then he said he is only imposing morality on women posters. When that didn`t work, his story changed to how he was only protecting chowk staff, now we are told he has been abusing women posters on behalf of the Holy Prophet..

Chowk Staff,
What is going on here? Apparently sadna and orangepeko are multiple nicks of the same interactor - someone who complains about multiple nicks harassing her and other females on Chowk. Isn`t this an admission of guilt? Please ban the multiple nick and recognize the sham and hypocrisy of the feminazis` complaints.

Thanks,
*********************************************************************
#173 by orangepeko on December 13, 2005 8:35pm PT
mannyd #170
I wasn`t asking for censoring, I was complaining about selective censoring. The purpose of rules is to encourage more people to post not to give protection or justification to one`s favorite posters who post abusive posts but can`t handle replies to them particularly from women. In any case, most women who posted before no longer do on UP or FP so you already have your wish.

#189 by sadna on December 14, 2005 8:09am PT

mannyd #170
I wasn`t asking for censoring, I was complaining about selective censoring. The purpose of rules is to encourage more people to post not to give protection or justification to one`s favorite posters who post abusive posts but can`t handle replies to them particularly from women. In any case, most women who posted before no longer do on UP or FP so you already have your wish.

(#173 is me)
*************************************************************************