From: Emlyn O'regan (oregan.emlyn@healthsolve.com.au)
Date: Thu May 15 2003 - 21:51:15 MDT
Lee seems to have gone off half cocked... he didn't try to actually
understand the system you were proposing. Had he done so, he would have
noticed that it is actually a structure for critical discussions to be able
to take place, which imposes a limited requirement for substantiation of
claims (should be a good thing even for PCR).
I have a few comments:
1 - Can you post a [DISCUSS] in response to an [FYI]? If not, a [COMMENT] is
required in between, which seems unnecessarily limiting.
2 - It'd never work on the extropians list; this list is a free-for-all
(both its greatest strength & weakness). You'd need to set up a new list to
enforce the rules on, likely including human or automated moderation to do
the job.
3 - It's a bit cumbersome, given that you can't just hit "REPLY". It'd be
nice if the moderation automation did the following:
- If a post has a tag and a subject seen before (unless it is FYI),
let it through
- If a post hasn't got a tag, then
- if the subject matches an existing [FYI], [COMMENT], or
[DISCUSS] then
- Add [DISCUSS] to the subject and insert the
related post into the body
- else if the subject matches an existing [META] then
- Add [META] to the subject and insert the related
post into the body
Umm, that doesn't take into account subjects like "re: [FYI] ...", but you
get the idea. You should be able to guess the correct format for most posts
that are incorrectly formatted, and reformat them appropriately, otherwise
bounce them.
Emlyn
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Michael Wiik [mailto:mwiik@messagenet.com]
> Sent: Friday, 16 May 2003 12:05 PM
> To: extropians
> Subject: RE: [META]: Yet another idea for discussions
>
>
> Lee Corbin writes:
>
> > So what category is *your* post (i.e., *this* thread) in?
>
> I assume pan-critical rationalism requires you to start criticizing
> immediately as you read a message, however, much writing
> effort could be
> saved by reading the entire post prior to responding (or at least the
> 5th paragraph).
>
> > 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.
>
> Well, whatever. To me it's all design. And when I design,
> first I build
> up, then I take away. I design a bit beyond the requirements,
> so I can
> see where I can add value within the budget. I keep awareness of
> constraints, but experience teaches what issues can be
> bypassed in this
> phase.
>
> Then I begin to trim away redundancies, and extraneous material. When
> there is nothing else to take away, then I'm done. But the
> idea must be
> allowed time and space to grow. If I begin to take away too
> early, then
> I limit my possibilities. I trust my background thinking, and unless
> it's some sort of dire emergency, avoid designing and implementing on
> the same day. I 'sleep on it', and before I sleep, try to
> think how it
> could be different or if I've failed to see some error.
> Sometimes just
> the build-up can take weeks.
>
> How do you develop your own ideas? Do you alternate mental
> sentences of
> creativity with criticism? Do you find yourself constantly
> shooting down
> your own thoughts, before they're allowed to take flight? If
> not, why do
> you have the need to do so to others?
>
> Take a another look at your post. Is there any constructive
> criticism?
> Do you suggest any improvements or alternates? Or do you
> immediately and
> simply reject the notion we can become more productive if we
> structure
> our discourse a bit. Does your post do anything to extend the
> conversation, or does it just attempt to end it?
>
> My post had been up there for a good day. No one had responded. The
> topic was dead as far as I was concerned. Your post had no value
> whatsoever, except to demonstrate to yourself your alleged
> 'PCR' skills
> and stroke your own ego.
>
> -Mike
>
> --
>
>
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu May 15 2003 - 22:03:10 MDT