From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> So the answer is: If you don't like a thread don't contribute. If John or
> Gautam, Jereon, Dan, me or anyone else says something you don't like,
ignore
> it. The thread will die.
>
I'm back and was a bit surprised by the correspondence on the list. I won't
go over the details that have already been hashed out, but will make some
observations that are fairly well in line with the observation made by Zimmy
above.
Back in March-April, it looked as though Brin-l was about to fade away.
There were only 264 posts in April. At that time, there was even a
suggestion that unattractive threads, QM and free will being named
specifically, were keeping people from posting.
I was very surprised by this. Why would the existence of a thread that is
boring to someone stop them from posting on a thread that was interesting to
them? For all the time I've been on, I've used the delete key a great deal.
Back in '98 and '99, there were about 1600 posts a month. I certainly could
not think about each one in order to properly reply. I chose the threads I
was interested in, and kept those messages and barely skimmed the other
messages. Yahoo groups is good for this; for a long time I would copy from
there to mail in order to post (a problem with our family's networking
situation required this).
For the last two months, we have been close to that level. New voices have
been heard and have contributed to the vitality of posts. Some old friends
have dropped off, and continue to drop off.
My memory of the posts is not that JDG or Gautam have suddenly changed their
posting styles and started to rant. My memory is that passions come and go
in debates. Limiting the acceptable topics doesn't seem reasonable at all
to me. I don't want to go through a self censorship program every time I
write something. (This does not include rechecking my posts for bad
manners, that is quite reasonable.)
One of the fascinating things about the last month posts, for me, is the
information I obtained on the cultural differences between the US and other
countries around the globe with respect to manners. I've seen people write
things that appear to be quite acceptable according to their conventions,
but are considered rude by other people. I've seen strong arguments and
hurt feelings evolve over nuances of words. It was an education for me.
Which brings my last point of disagreement with some of the sentiments
expressed. It is that, by debating a point strongly, one walls oneself off
from understanding other points of view. I learn a great deal more from a
well researched and argued debate than friendly off the cuff remarks. I'm
not against being silly, but I think that silliness tends to add spice to a
discussion, it is hard to keep 2000 posts a month going on silly comments
alone.
I enjoy the list because it contains intelligent, thoughtful people from a
variety of different backgrounds. We have people here with access to a lot
of different sources of understanding and information. I have not found the
opportunity to debate with people like Gord, Zimmy, or Gautem elsewhere.
One finaly point, in defense of someone I've gone after pretty hard in
debates. I don't know anyone who has put the effort into keeping on topic
(Brin's work) debates going as JDG. When things were rough last year, he
made a concerted effort to keep things going. He has certainly done more to
consciously contribute to the list than I have. I would suggest that this
should count for a lot more than any dislike of debating styles.
Dan M.
