> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On
> Behalf Of Erik Reuter
[snip]
> Why do they have to be mutually exclusive? For example, you and Nick
> can be emotional with each other, and I can be objective and "cold", as
> you say, in my posts. If my style upsets you, you can choose to read my
> posts or not. If I'm not interested in your discussions, I won't get
> involved. Why is this so unthinkable?
You seem to be equating participation in a thread being involved, and the
converse -- if one doesn't post in a thread, then one isn't involved in it.
If each thread of discussion had its own list, that would be true. But they
aren't, they are posted to an entire community of subscribers. If you want
us to be truly free to be uninvolved in your pissy exchanges with Jeroen,
then perhaps the two of you should create a list for that purpose, to which
anyone interested in it will be free to subscribe.
I've been trying for years to come up with ways to "subscribe" to the best
of Internet discussions, so I'm no stranger to the fundamental idea you're
expressing. But I have yet to see (or invent) a workable system. One of
the rather major issues is defining "best," of course, especially defining
it in a way that can be automated, lest I spend an inordinate amount of time
"subscribing" and "unsubscribing" from people and threads.
Even if I could automate this, intuition tells me that that slicing and
dicing by a significant portion of the active participants will destroy the
ineffable forces hold communities together. Even when I seek to subscribe
to the "best of," I've assumed that it will be useful to me only as a
lurker; as a participant, one needs to read enough of a list to have a good
sense of many of the people and how they interact.
Maybe it's as simple as not wanting to belong to a community full of people
who only stick around for the good times.
Nick
