Oh, I was thinking of people that just forward some other document, presumably 
one they agree with.   Then they are startled  when it gets deconstructed.

-----Original Message-----
From: Friam <[email protected]> On Behalf Of u?l? ???
Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2021 11:16 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] WAS Friday Fodder IS NOW: dangly bits

Well, to be fair, construction is more difficult than destruction (though 
perhaps not more difficult than de-construction). So if an OP submits a 
construct, especially one that's easy to tear down in a disrespectful way, it's 
competent practice to be gentle and precise when making one's incisions. 

But what I see, mostly, is people who simply want to talk and enjoy the sounds 
of their own voice, their own subject, their own universe of discourse [⛧], 
which always nudges a good faith critic back onto their heels. So, competent 
criticism in wild and woolly fora like this one often comes in the form of 
blunt rejection of OP premises.


[⛧] Tu quoque warning! Just because I'm a hypocrite doesn't mean I'm wrong.

On 3/23/21 10:45 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
> I've had several experiences in the working world where people do seem to 
> give special status to the original post.   In the politically correct view, 
> the original post is one where we can reflect on its wisdom (and sometimes 
> apply thumbs-up or smiley-face emoticons) but it is awkward and frowned upon 
> to question any premises in the referenced article!   To me it all seems like 
> a coercive way to control conversations.   
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Friam <[email protected]> On Behalf Of u?l? ???
> Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2021 10:28 AM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] WAS Friday Fodder IS NOW: dangly bits
> 
> Oooooooh! A refusal to eat one's own dog food 
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eating_your_own_dog_food>. That's a heinous 
> crime!
> 
> A complete conversation about spandrels must include thread bending.
> 
> On 3/23/21 10:17 AM, [email protected] wrote:
>> “Tangential”  would seem to  understate the case.  Please reply here 
>> if you want to talk about Arnold’s dangly bitsl  Please please do not gum up 
>> a perfectly good conversation about spandrels.


--
↙↙↙ 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/
- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
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/

Reply via email to