On 08/13/2015 04:13 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
Insisting on any one topic would be the intent of a reductionist. Now back to philosophy!
I suppose that depends on how you define "topic", eh? I can imagine picking a single topic, staying on it, yet winding one's way through how that topic (or elements or compositions thereof) impact every area of every other topic. E.g. how do Boeing 777s affect the microbiome? On 08/13/2015 04:00 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:
I was not trying to inhibit anyone. I was trying to tease about the fact that no matter how interesting something is to one person, that same thing is likely to be a bore to someone else. And therefore, there should be NO guidelines in friam, other than the politeness, kindness, and forbearance that have been shown me in abundance.
Right! I know. You're even more open-minded than I am in that sense, I think. But _if_ there's someone out there who thinks there exists inappropriate content (or even the complement, appropriate content), I'd like to hear their heuristics for knowing what's on either side of the boundary. My own opinions have evolved since I joined. I'm sure others' have, too. -- ⇔ glen ============================================================ 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
