While I suppose you're sticking more closely to Jon's topic by pointing out the power and semiotics, my point can be used to argue that even the concept of a "public letter" is nonsense these days. "Public letter" is unparsable in the current language. You have to change languages to make it parsable. And if we stick to the modern language (ha! no "post" necessary 'cause modern() is recursive), it renders such attempts at coercion absurd. So it literally can't be counterproductive (or productive).
Insistence on these interpersonal modes *is* a symptom of hyper-individualism ... the arrogance that some individual (Nick, Glen, whoever) is somehow important in any scheme whatsoever. Even those who reserve the accusation of "individualist" for right wingnuts are addicted to the obsolete language. The parser warning is simply the most glaring when a behaviorist does it. >8^D On 2/15/21 10:05 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote: > I object for a different reason: It suggests that the person ought to reply. > It's calling a person out by name rather than by letting the content of a > reply speak for itself. Since there are by design many eyes (potentially) > on a list e-mail, inviting some to respond but not others is > counterproductive. -- ↙↙↙ uǝlƃ - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
