...I think we need to see the data on who gets disrespected more on the web, males or females, and by whom and in what number. Just open the buffers and do some content analysis. It can't be that hard and there's no expectation of privacy in a public forum, right?

We need to quit playing fast and loose with the anecdotes and start researching the issue.

And I also think that if we're moving in the direction of enforcing certain standards of ethics, behavior, speech, etc, we need to post examples of what's not allowed, and what is, in the common, "flaming," situations. Then we need to encourage folks to look at the standards whenever they cross the line by means of a friendly, "thump," on the nose.

If that doesn't work, the worst thing we could do is insist that X cease and desist. We just need to let them know that the buffers are open, IP addresses are being recorded, and that the individual's posts will be monitored for X weeks, or whatever. If that doesn't chill their s*t, then, by all means, bring the IPs into the picture and let them decide what to do next. If we're still not getting relief, bring law enforcement actions against both the individual and the IP.

Of course if it's a proxy IP, we'll have to involve Interpol or some outside authorities. Serial abusers will probably tend to use the same IP's more than once -- usually because of speed considerations -- so, eventually, we'll develop parity with the flesh and bone world in cyberspace.

I think we need to let cyberspace evolve and correct some of the errors we commonly make in the world of 3D. If we shoot the messengers, we stop getting messages. So let them all in. Let the abusers make SUBSTANTIAL investments of themselves in the online world, and then, when we have what we need to correct the problem, slam the trap shut on their greedy little fingers.

I was raised by a cadre of women who hated and resented men and male authority. I was also raised by a misogynist ass who got away with far more than we ever could in this day and age. I love both of my parents, but they both were obsessed with the opposite sex. They loved to hate each other.

It's taken a few years of swinging back and forth in the trees, but I think I have a fairly middle of the road perspective on these issues.

Bottom line: if we're not helping one another get over this most potent of elitist attempts at sowing dissention among the middle classes, we're part of the problem. Let's recognize when we're being manipulated and respond appropriately and effectively.

Point 1:

It is impossible to scientifically prove any claim with respect to "totality" because science is based on sensory perception. Sensory perception requires that there be "difference" between "this" and "that" in order to even register as existential. So the issue of God's existence, or not, is not a subject that science can comment on. Intelligently. By definition, God's existence as an omniscient entity precludes the presence of any perceptual difference. Which also precludes any possibility of scientific proof as to existential affirmation.

Those scientists who attempt to use science to prove or disprove the existence of God are turning science into a religion instead of using it as a tool for the discovery of the humanly experienced universe/multiverse.

Point 2:

The persecution of the Gnostics of the early Christian church was, itself, the first apostacy of the Catholic Church. The consequences of that persecution should, therefore, be held in abeyance pending further information and revelation. The idea of a church canon was a fear-based response to watching one's fellows fed to lions and burned alive in some unspeakable ways. The Catholic churches' need to unify what, apriori by God, was already unified, essentially denied the existence of God as a relevant entity and made the church a political, temporal and terrestrial entity which supplanted all belief in any God but the church.

The proper argument should not be whether the gnostics were heretics, but whether or not the Catholic church, itself, should be considered anything more than a warmed over organization inculcated with 2,000 years of human banality. While some might consider this organization "evil," we might also recognize that it is one of the oldest and most successful human organizations ever to hit the globe with much to teach us about ourselves.

Another argument could be made with respect to whether or not the Catholic church needed to organize and centralize its dogma into a canon in order to overthrow Rome. Many gnostic traditions and temperments are widely available to those who seek spiritual growth and "gnosis" in spite of every single attempt on the part of human beings to expunge and squeeze gnosticism out of existence.

In my book, gnosticism has operated alot like ultimate truth. Very gentle, very available, and insistent on nothing from human beings. Gnosticism is not some "ooga-booga" form of rocket science that only smart people get; the key tenet of gnosticism is that each person has their own relationship with a God of their own understanding. The nature of that relationship, when, indeed, one finds a viable entity to fulfill this need, is spelled out in the Ten Commandments. Particularly when one reads those commandments not as "thou shalt not," but as, "one can not successfully...."