Re: Becoming a religion

From: joel garry <>
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2015 09:12:07 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <>

On Friday, March 20, 2015 at 8:47:56 PM UTC-7, Noons wrote:
> On 21/03/2015 3:20 AM, Mladen Gogala wrote:
> > Is it really not possible for you to play nice?
> Yeah, that's what that list has become: a place where dissent and open
> and frank discussion is discouraged and everyone "plays nice". Hence
> why I left.
> > I am really loathe to start banning people from
> > the list, as I think it can be a slippery slope
> BWAHAHAHA! Thank God someone finally said it...
> > If people leave, the
> > value of the list diminishes.
> Hear that, Mladen? We're not "people". That's why the value has not
> diminished for our leaving. And others. It wasn't just us.
> > implications is that the list, somehow, has a value and that the list
> > administrator has a duty to protect the "value" from the bad guys like
> > yours truly.
> In other words: toe the line or your value goes. Perfectly in character
> for that lot.
> > This
> > is becoming eerily similar to scientology, with the word of L. Ellison in
> > place of the word of L. Ron. Same hysteric reactions seen from the
> > priests in Scientology can also be seen on the list.
> Hint: what makes you think it's not being inspired by EXACTLY and
> precisely the same thought process?
> > This priesthood thing, of course, has a $$ sign written all over it, just
> > like the other "priesthood" casts. It's an attempt to monopolize the
> > consulting because such a monopoly could make money for the cast members.
> Typical Accenture politics. That's why they were mocked and reduced to
> nothing here in Australia after many well publicized dishonest "audits"
> by Arthur Andersen. Changing the name didn't change the flies.
> > oracle-l. Now, it seems to be the time to leave oracle-l to the "valued
> > members" and go with LinkedIn again. Apparently, LinkedIn doesn't have to
> > "protect value" for the shareholders. I think I will leave the new church
> > of Oraclelogy all by itself.
> See ya there. There are other places too, but I won't go into it.
> LinkedIn is more than enough.

Personally, I think linkedin is worse. The vast majority of the replies to articles are some variant of "great article!" or sometimes incoherent ramblings just to get noticed. I don't mind getting skills rating - from you guys, it actually means something, most are useless, often pandering. Of course, most of the articles are just blather from people who think they have to publish or perish. Even with the rare rough diamond, it's still difficult to take seriously. The whole thing is tinged with the crappy marketing it engenders.

I think all of this illustrates there is simply less relation between thoughtful and informative conversation and the particular forum/format than many would like to believe. Get the right people together and the forum succeeds in spite of any failings. Get some cabal going and at least on some level it is a fail. And it seems all fora have life cycles.

All we want is a place to help, learn and communicate, right? You'd think that is like asking for world peace.


-- is bogus.
Received on Mon Mar 23 2015 - 17:12:07 CET

Original text of this message