Hi Russell,
I see the Metadiscussion has metastasized somewhat, but thanks for that bit
of background on the list.
On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 10:54 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 01, 2013 at 11:30:39AM -0500, Roger Clough wrote:
> > Hi Platonist Guitar Cowboy
> >
> > Nothing human is off-
Hi Russell Standish
Fine.
- Receiving the following content -
From: Russell Standish
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2013-02-01, 16:54:48
Subject: Re: Re: [Metadiscussion] Off topic posting on the everything-list
On Fri, Feb 01, 2013 at 11:30:39AM -0500, Roger Clough wrote:
>
On Fri, Feb 01, 2013 at 11:30:39AM -0500, Roger Clough wrote:
> Hi Platonist Guitar Cowboy
>
> Nothing human is off-topic to me.
> Which suggests that materialism and brain science are off-topic.
By contrast, discussion of materialism and neuroscience is definitely
on-topic, and has often been d
On 01 Feb 2013, at 09:57, Kim Jones wrote:
"akin to FRACKING" - to hell with bloody auto spell correct
K
On 01/02/2013, at 7:48 PM, Kim Jones wrote:
The other thing is, there may well be other fora and lists to
discuss posts someone wishes to define as "metadiscussion" but that
does
posting on the everything-list
Now that the long time users have spoken, I feel the noobs should be
represented as well, so my two virtual cents:
On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 2:35 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 31 Jan 2013, at 11:05, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 12:46 PM, Kim
"akin to FRACKING" - to hell with bloody auto spell correct
K
On 01/02/2013, at 7:48 PM, Kim Jones wrote:
> The other thing is, there may well be other fora and lists to discuss posts
> someone wishes to define as "metadiscussion" but that does not mean that
> there exists the same quality
The other thing is, there may well be other fora and lists to discuss posts
someone wishes to define as "metadiscussion" but that does not mean that there
exists the same quality of thinkers on those other lists and fora as there do
on this particular one with whom you might have insightful exch
Might I add, I nearly choked on my proverbial cereal reading the heading
'abortion should be self-limiting since it cleans the gene pool' or some
such crap from rclough, and was about to fire back until I realized that
provocation is the *purpose* of trolling. So - I consider him a troll.
On Fr
I agree with you Russell. It's nice to have new thinkers contributing ideas
as I was getting bored with Weinberg vs Clark, but at a certain point this
group will lose interest for me completely if 90% of the threads are about
stuff unrelated to the original 'everything' list concept. It's not th
Hi PGC,
I have never suggested moderation of the list. It has been tried
before (not by me), and it doesn't work. Also, if you are aware of the
events on the FOR list leading up the the establishment of FOAR,
(http://www.hpcoders.com.au/blog/?p=5) you would realise that I'm in
perfect agreement wi
Stathis, you are close to have written what I wanted to add to Russell's
outcry. I wrote some time ago to Roger asking him to "give back our list" -
to no avail.
Now I would add only one 'catch'phrase of Russell to your invaluable post:
..."*the list has been remarkably troll-free*"
implying th
Now that the long time users have spoken, I feel the noobs should be
represented as well, so my two virtual cents:
On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 2:35 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> On 31 Jan 2013, at 11:05, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 12:46 PM, Kim Jones
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I'm
Hi Russell Standish
I have no problem with the idea that the universe is sort of ultimately
mathematical, except that equations by themselves can't
do anything except just be there. So nothing can happen.
All you have is an a priori.
The other problem I have is that such a universe as you propo
On 31 Jan 2013, at 11:05, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 12:46 PM, Kim Jones
wrote:
I'm getting a bit jack of this term "metadiscussion" becuse it only
ever gets applied to what other people are choosing to discuss.
People talk about what people want to talk about. It'
On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 12:46 PM, Kim Jones wrote:
> I'm getting a bit jack of this term "metadiscussion" becuse it only ever gets
> applied to what other people are choosing to discuss. People talk about what
> people want to talk about. It's about taste, perception, preference and
> prejudice
I'm getting a bit jack of this term "metadiscussion" becuse it only ever gets
applied to what other people are choosing to discuss. People talk about what
people want to talk about. It's about taste, perception, preference and
prejudice. Even WITH rigidly adhered-to rules and conventions, this s
16 matches
Mail list logo
