> > Well, if you were to read the content of the thread, it reminds me of an > occasional > theme that also occurs here. It's the notion that conversations about > philosophy are stupid and technical topics are substantive.
As a possible target of having that sentiment, I'd like to be clear that I don't hold it. What I do object to are the traps of: - Deadly Embrace: The idea that if we only go at it long enough, we'll agree somehow. In math, convergence. Judging from the length of this type of thread, I think they are divergent. - Semantic Arguments: Endless fine points on the meaning of the words and goal of the conversation. - Ill Defined: This actually is less a problem as we tend to notice the ill defined discussions and correct. But it is annoying. As I am :) - TL;DR: I'd prefer long posts to be in two parts, as is becoming standard on the web: summarize in a paragraph or two the core of the discussion, followed by "TL;DR" (Too Long; Didn't Read), followed by the detail, especially when difficult to separate the wheat from the chaff. There, that's not so bad is it? -- Owen
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
