Re: virus: meta CoV

Paul Prestopnik (pjp66259@pegasus.cc.ucf.edu)
Wed, 04 Feb 1998 16:14:13 -0500


> >Certainly to the extent that not dogmatizing and pure rationality are your
> >objective, I applaud you and whole-heartedly agree with the Church of
> >Virus. But, for some people with small minds who happen upon your page, you
> >may want to distinguish between what rationality means to the herd, and
> >what it means to you.
>
> I guess if we want to be relatively popular we should cater to small
> minds. As a group we still haven't decided whether to being popular
> or elitist is the way to go. Any opinions?

I still think the two tiered system is best, that way we can have the advantages
of both elitism and populism. We could have a layman class, in which virions
were admitted if they passed a simple multiple choice test administered as a
form on the internet. (by admitted I mean just that we say congratulations, put
some vital info in a data base somewhere, and give them access to some otherwise
secret parts of the the web page where we could put among other things, a
printable certificate.) Then we could also implement a higher level of virion,
which would imply a greater understanding of what exactly is going on. (what
exactly is going on anyway?) I'm not sure how this would be different than the
lower level, but maybe some of the more difficult concepts, mathematical proofs,
more scientific ideas, and less palatable ideas could be introduced at this
level.

> >That said, I also think you may be able to spread the virus more if you had
> >things such as official membership. Maybe you do and I didn't see it? This
>
> Agreed. But first I think we should attempt to articulate our common
> beliefs so that potential members can decide whether they would like
> to join. This has been one of the main activities on the list since
> it started.

Sometimes I feel like being a member of this list is like being on The People's
Front of Judea (from Monty Python's "Life of Brian"). "We will now elect a
panel to decide whether to vote to take immediate action to save Brian's life."

Maybe a more permanent record of some of the concepts expressed here would allow
us to move in a less circular direction. If we could make some decisions that
reflect a majority we could begin to post them on the web page. An example:
Most people on this list seem to be either atheists or agnostics. Could
questioning of religious dogma be a goal? With faith as a major sin (or was
that changed?) that seems like one common belief. This could be accomplished by
some sort of questionnaire on the page that changes maybe once a week. The
results could be posted from previous weeks, and we can see if people on this
page want a elitist or popular group.
Maybe to facilitate a multiple choice response, you could propose the question
on the mailing list, we could nominate answers and discuss, and then we could
vote on all nominated answers. Back to the two tier system: Betas could
nominate and vote, but Alphas could only vote.

We could also begin compiling some sort of database of the members (or at least
a head count). If someone doesn't want to use their real name fine. Paranoid
about your address that's fine too, but I think this could be interesting
information. I would like to see the demographics on CoV. (age, sex,
occupation, level of education, etc.) This could be helpful in knowing who we
appeal to, and then we could address how to broaden our appeal, or how to target
specific groups.