You obviously have no future in politics, my friend (nor do most of us here, I’m proud to say).
:-) On Jan 26, 2014, at 6:16 PM, Owen Densmore <[email protected]> wrote: > 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
