From: Lee Corbin (lcorbin@tsoft.com)
Date: Thu May 15 2003 - 19:08:16 MDT
Michael Wiik writes
> Instead of specific subjects like [WAR] or [IRAQ] what if we made
> everything one of the following categories:
So what category is *your* post (i.e., *this* thread) in?
> [FYI]: _fyi_topic_
> Items of possible interest to extropians. Should contain an abstract or
> a very few quotes along with a URL. You must be totally objective in
> topic title and text. Must not be replied to directly.
>
> [COMMENT]: _comment topic_
> A supported comment you have no obligation in discussing further. The
> _comment topic_ must be a previously posted _fyi_topic_. By 'supported
> comment' I mean you *must* include a URL which either agrees (at least
> in part) with your position OR provides some background information
> which you reference. Must not be replied to directly.
WHAT?? The first *two* categories you compose are "not to be
replied to"! What kind of an email forum is that? How did
such a funky, limiting rule come into your head?
I'm sorry ;-) but I'm already criticizing your idea. But I
definitely believe that nothing should be above criticism,
and (as a loyal adherent of PCR) firmly contend that criticism
is the life blood of progress.
The very idea of applauding someone posting a "hit-and-run" message,
doubtless filled with the most incendiary material, is laughable.
> [DISCUSS]: _discussion_topic_
> A topic you wish to discuss. The _discussion_topic_ must be a previously
> posted _comment topic_. It is obligatory for the topic starter to paste
> in the entire FYI or COMMENT message into the first post. Supporting
> your position with URLs is encouraged but not required. Let the flames
> begin. You cannot start a DISCUSSion on your own COMMENT.
I love your choice of vocabulary: "must", "obligatory", "required",
"cannot". What part of Europe did you say you were from? Well,
lemme tell you something, buster, [cowboy rant about freedom and
individuality suppressed for the sake of decorum].
> [META]: _meta_topic_
> Instead of comments and discussions on meta topics, we leave this as
> normal (as in, you are free to reply directly to meta topics)
>
> And that's it. Seems to me it has the virtue of simplicity. All
> discussions start with an FYI, then require someone to COMMENT on it,
> and then someone else to start a DISCUSSion.
>
> What do you think?
Oh. Okay. So it was okay to respond to this. How unfortunate.
It would have been so much more enjoyable if it had been forbidden.
I wish I knew why you were so uninterested in receiving criticism.
That's one of the main reasons I ever post anything. How can one
tell if one's ideas are going off the rails, or if one is blind
to some hypnotic writer or other, if one does not encourage
criticism of one's (and seemingly seductive) ideas?
Lee
P.S. You are hereby given permission to respond to this.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu May 15 2003 - 19:20:55 MDT