From: Samantha Atkins (samantha@objectent.com)
Date: Sat Jan 19 2002 - 03:49:45 MST
Hmmmm. Are we actually expected to take it as a major downer if
a "founder" objects or rebukes us on something we say? What
for? Call me dense but someone would have to actually come up
to my e-face and say point-blank that I was anti-extropian in
this that and the other way and to please desist or split. But
perhaps I am just dense about these things.
It is extremely on topic imho to talk about all and any aspects
of current socioeconomics and how they could be better or we
wish to see them change moving forward and why extropianism
would be served by them doing so or not. At least it seems
inescapable these things are on topic if we are really about
defining/visioning and implementing a more extropian future. I
don't know how you would go about it without considering where
you are and where you want to go and what might be between here
and there and how to deal with it.
- s.
Damien Broderick wrote:
> At 02:24 AM 1/18/02 EST, T.0. Morrow wrote:
>
>
>>I find off-topic discussions by others tiresome, and suspect this never
>>
> *was*
>
>>suitable subject matter for this list, and so will let it go at that.
>>
>
> Am-MAZE-ing.
>
> I can only read this as a rebuke from one of the founders of extropianism,
> telling me that a discussion of one way to enhance health broadly in the
> community, and the varieties of ways to fund that, is OFF TOPIC for this list.
>
> It seems to me just barely possible that what got up T0M's nose about my
> posts wasn't the *topic*; it was my horrid opinions.
>
> I need a ruling on this from Max or Greg. If T0M is right, I'll thank
> everyone on this list for several years of fascinating and sometimes
> infuriating conversation, and be out of here quicksmart.
>
> Damien Broderick
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 13:37:35 MST