Re: Proposed FAQ addition
- From: David Friedman <ddfr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 05 Jun 2008 12:27:33 -0700
In article <1ii2b1p.f3zc13vovwlcN%darkhawk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
darkhawk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Darkhawk (H. Nicoll)) wrote:
Zeborah <zeborah@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"Do we want on-topic but controversial threads moved to r.a.sf.m ?"
What does rasfc think about this?
My thought is "That seems blatantly foolish", but I am only empowered to
speak for myself and the squirrel in my pocket.
And yet ... . My impression of the dynamics is that people get just as
upset when it is on topic, that what many object to is not the subject
but the "what are your reasons for thinking that, what evidence do you
have for that, here is why you are wrong, here is the evidence you are
wrong, why don't you either withdraw your claim or offer
counter-arguments to defend it" approach.
And I'm not sure I have ever seen anyone here upset over a casual and
non-controversial post that happens to be off topic, even if not on cats
or chocolate.
--
http://www.daviddfriedman.com/ http://daviddfriedman.blogspot.com/
Author of _Harald_, a fantasy without magic.
Published by Baen, paperback in bookstores now
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Proposed FAQ addition
- From: Catja Pafort
- Re: Proposed FAQ addition
- From: Helen Hall
- Re: Proposed FAQ addition
- From: Graham Woodland
- Re: Proposed FAQ addition
- From: Bill Swears
- Re: Proposed FAQ addition
- References:
- Proposed FAQ addition
- From: Zeborah
- Re: Proposed FAQ addition
- From: Dan Goodman
- Re: Proposed FAQ addition
- From: Jonathan L Cunningham
- Re: Proposed FAQ addition
- From: Zeborah
- Re: Proposed FAQ addition
- From: Jonathan L Cunningham
- Re: Proposed FAQ addition
- From: Zeborah
- Re: Proposed FAQ addition
- From: Darkhawk (H. Nicoll)
- Proposed FAQ addition
- Prev by Date: Re: Fun with D'ik and Jhein
- Next by Date: Re: Proposed FAQ addition
- Previous by thread: Re: Proposed FAQ addition
- Next by thread: Re: Proposed FAQ addition
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading