----- Original Message -----
From: "Jesse Mazer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], firstname.lastname@example.org
Subject: Re: Many worlds theory of immortality
Date: Tue, 24 May 2005 18:36:51 -0400
> "aet.radal ssg" wrote:
> >> From: "Jesse Mazer"
> >> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], email@example.com
> >> Subject: Re: Many worlds theory of immortality
> >> Date: Thu, 12 May 2005 14:48:17 -0400
> >> Generally, unasked-for attempts at armchair psychology to explain
> >> the motivations of another poster on an internet forum, like the
> >> comment that someone "just wants to hear themself talk", are
> >> justly considered flames and tend to have the effect of derailing
> >> productive discussion.
> > I indicated that it wasn't a flame and just an observation. You
> > later prove me right.
> My point was that the *type* of comment you made is generally
> considered a flame merely because of its form, regardless of
> whether your intent was to provoke insult or whether you just saw
> it as making an observation. It just isn't very respectful to
> speculate about people's hidden motives for making a particular
> argument, however flawed, nor does doing so tend to further
> productive debate about the actual content of the argument, which
> is why ad hominems are usually frowned upon.
> >> but hey, this list is all about
> >> rambling speculations about half-formed ideas that probably won't
> >> pan out to anything, you could just as easily level the same
> >> accusation against anyone here.
> > If it's not going to pan out anyway, then it's pretty
> > meaningless. If it's "rambling" it's fairly incoherent, >and if
> > the ideas are half-formed then what's the point to begin with?
> 99% of brainstorms don't pan out to anything, and brainstorms by
> definition are usually half-formed, but all interesting new ideas
> were at one point just half-formed brainstorms too. Perhaps I
> should have left out "rambling", I only meant a sort of informal,
> conversational way of presenting a new speculation.
Clearly, the method and definition of brainstorming that you're accustomed to is different than mine. The "half-formed idea" is what initiates the brainstorm for me, which is fully formed when the storm is over, ie. the ground is parched and in need of rain, the storm comes and when it's over, the ground is wet and crops can grow. Sorry, I just couldn't think of a snappy computer metaphor, being as I'm from the 1930's, as I have been told.
Sign-up for Ads Free at Mail.com