--------------
/ theory
Roeland wrote,
> > "The" thread has a way of being hard to pin down in c-space,
> >doesnt it?
>
> Provided that it stays within certain parameters, I don't have too
> tough a time of it.
>
I agree. Up to a point in the cognitive process, the human brain is
remarkably good at keeping track of data versus noise. The
question is, is commuter-facilitated communication simply an add-
on to that process, or does it *change where that point is?
> >A response simply by introducing a new word can lead to
> >branches; discussion raises new slants, related issues,
> >precedents or parallels form other fields, etc etc.
>
> There was a time when I really enjoyed contemplating such navel fuzz.
> However, at the end of a long day of facilitation and research, I just
> don't have the energy.<sigh>
Could you have a meta-problem, do you think?
> >... is trademark reconciliation *intrinsically* difficult to
> >resolve, or it is our manner of proceeding that makes it seem that
> >way?
>
> Actually, I believe the issues are resolvable, or I wouldn't be wasting
> time trying to resolve them. Neither would the others. I don't *think*
> people enjoy bickering so much. All sides have reasonable fears that they
> want to see addressed. It is a matter of identifying the concerns and
> addressing them accordingly.
I entirely agree -- if everyone expressed their *fears, rather than
what they individually conceive as the *resolution of those fears,
we'd be in the midst of a much different discussion -- which I
believe would be *ahead of one in which every 'position' is already
derivative. But that requires allowing the cutoff point for 'keeping
track' to change... (By 'allowing,' I dont mean abandoning but
*managing where that point is at a given time.)
In this view, subject lines are just another tool, as would branches
be, whether the discussants 'break out' to other lists or to ad-hoc
'backchannel' groups, or simply organize (i.e. make explicit in
some way) our 'natural' tendencies to respond to every word/ topic
stimulus that occurs to us .
Btw, you might look at my post ' [IFWP] Re: CCL-LLC'
----------------
/ method
> >> Good, then why not state it?
> >>
> > Because it is evident from the context.
>
> You are playing at this point, I refuse to play the 20 questions game.
> Please state your case plainly.
...
> Actually, the position of the trademark contingent stifles new TLD
> development because the name, regardless of TLD assignment, could be
> considered a violation.
Thank you for the affirmation. This is precisely what I felt to have
been expressed by the words "the DN tree is being inverted."
----------------
/ application
> Do you run a name server? It doesn't work that way and can not be coerced
> that way either.
...
> > there is certainly no reason
> >why wwwwwww.mhsc.com cant cope with them *as well as* the
> >myriad of folks who would also like to use MHSC as their SLD.
> >
> >As Greg commented, in fact this is already done in practice. I can
> >only say Im amazed that this had never been mentioned earlier.
>
> I am quite aware of the practice. IMHO, such a system is difficult to
> manage and doesn't scale well as a result.
Aren't 'can't be coerced' and 'difficult to manage' two rather different
ideas? At any rate, it seems like persuading a server to cope with
the difficulties would be a sight easier than getting it to recognize
graphical logo's in URLs ;-)
Cheers,
kerry
