Wow! This thread grew a lot when I wasn't looking. I composed the following based on what I had read up until about 11 a.m. today, when SharonA seemed to be Joe's most articulate critic.

SharonA: In trying to show that Joe has been inconsistent, you are barking up the wrong tree. Here's why:

(1) If different remarks by Joe seem inconsistent, it seems to me only a matter of emphasis, not substance. I don't see that Joe has changed his opinion in any substantial way. Sure, he wants both freedom and responsibility at the same time. Don't we all? If he speaks in favor of freedom at one time and responsibility at another, naturally he will use different rhetoric, different examples, and so on. Is that being inconsistent? Not in any way that bothers me.

(2) I don't interpret his remark about "civil anarchy" as giving his blessing to anarchy. He specifically ascribes that policy to "Max, Dick, and Susan," not to himself. If you read between the lines, you COULD interpret this as implying that if HE owned Mudcat, he would MAKE SOME RULES. (And so would I.) Furthermore, when he says, "follow their example," I think he meant to emphasize the "civil" part, not the "anarchy" part. I don't think Joe ever wanted to encourage people to be more anarchic. If he had, he certainly wouldn't have cited Max, Dick, and Susan as examples to be followed!

(3) If Joe has been inconsistent, so what? However well thought out, his writings are only his opinion (as he himself clearly states), so what does it matter if his current opinions seem inconsistent with his earlier ones? This is not scripture or even law, to be analyzed in a legalistic way. Cut the guy a little slack, for Pete's sake! Joe's remarks are clearly intended to INSPIRE you, not to lay down the law. As with any inspirational rhetoric, take what benefit you can get from it, and ignore the rest. If you fail to get ANYTHING from it, that's your loss.

(4) If you want to treat Joe's words as law, consider this: In law, there is the principle that, if two laws or two court decisions in the same jurisdiction seem to contradict each other, the more recent one takes precedence. This rule is used to resolve conflict all the time. So from a legal point of view, you're screwed.

(5) Suppose Joe decides to make his writings consistent by revising his earlier ones to make them agree with his later ones. Will that make you happy? I don't think so. Don't waste your breath demanding consistency if consistency isn't what you really want.

(6) Criticizing Joe for mentioning his car is just plain silly. Obviously you are attacking what you consider to be Joe's most vulnerable points, while ignoring his strongest point, which is that Mudcat contains WAY too much BS. Unless you can propose a better way to reduce the amount of BS on Mudcat, I don't think anyone will take you seriously.

(7) What exactly are you afraid of? That someone might read Joe's FAQ and actually be persuaded to exercise some self-restraint? If they do, how will that hurt you? You know perfectly well that you will still have the freedom (for better or worse) to ignore his advice and post anything you damn please. And so will everybody else. In fact, experience show that people tend to follow the examples they see more than the rules they read (or don't read).

(8) This whole discussion is focusing WAY too much on Joe. Several people have indicated that they agree with Joe, yet they are being mostly ignored. And some would even support more radical solutions than Joe proposes. (I'm one of them.)

Spaw: Your offer to help Joe write better FAQs may be well intentioned, but I don't think it will solve the problem. Suppose you and he work together to produce a new FAQ. Then suppose *I* don't like it. Will you then accept me into a committee to work on yet a third version? How about if somebody after me objects to the third version? When will it end?

Also, SharonA's objections (if they are to be taken seriously) are mainly about (1) inconsistency and (2) the "air of authority" that Joe supposedly has. Spaw, how are you going to make sure that the new FAQs are consistent with everything YOU have ever said about Mudcat? How are YOU going to avoid having an "air of authority?" Or are inconsistency and an air of authority objectionable only when they belong to someone who disagrees with Sharon?

(Actually, I'm not worried about Spaw's air of authority. The other air he produces is reputed to be more lethal.)

SDShad: When I proposed taking Mudcat underground, I was being facetious. But it does express my longing for an easy way out of this mess (which I don't think we'll ever find).