Re: Is President Bush becoming irrelevant?
- From: Shannon Jacobs <Shannon.Jacobs.nospam@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 1 Jun 2008 14:21:45 -0700 (PDT)
No, I haven't given your [Rita's] peculiarities a lot of thought,
though I admit that I find them annoying. Seems to be similar to the
religious debate between the top posters and the inline people. Many
people regard me as some sort of heinous sinner because I have
concluded that top posting usually produces more thoughtful and
coherent replies. (The punchline there is that I also believe top
posting is less confrontational--though that is based on the theory
that all of the participants in a discussion are actually seriously
and sincerely interested in addressing the real issues. That is rarely
true in any discussion that is open to all interested participants.)
The topic to which I have given some serious thought is whether or not
the signal can be recovered from the noise that dominates the
newsgroups--and my considered conclusion is "probably not". In
particular, I think the Wikipedia approach is showing far more promise
in gathering the supposed 'wisdom of crowds'. However, there is a deep
problem in that Wikipedia is pretending there is such a thing as a
neutral point of view. Myself, I don't think there is any god's-eye
viewpoint, and certainly not one that is available to us lowly humans.
However, I do think we can often find deeper realities from the
interplay between viewpoints... A kind of evolution of ideas?
As regards you [Rita] in particular, the question is whether you are
primarily contributing signal or noise. If signal, then your self-
censorship would represent one form of information loss. You may
disagree, but I think every human being has unique value to contribute
to the sum of human knowledge. It's just harder to dig it out of some
On the other hand, if you are primarily contributing noise, then one
more noise source scarcely matters. I still believe constructive
filtering with reputation weighting is the only hope--and it's an
increasingly feeble hope.
On May 31, 10:30 am, Rita <R...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Fri, 30 May 2008 16:01:14 -0700 (PDT), Shannon Jacobs.
On May 31, 5:54 am, Rita <R...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Fri, 30 May 2008 12:45:59 -0700 (PDT), "rick++"
Who is this "President Boosh"?
I faintly re-collect the name, but doesnt strike a bell.
He's the guy John McCain met with for 37 seconds at the
Phoenix airport yesterday. Someone Mccain used to know.
Dang, the other guy beat me to the punch. Of course, if we want to
take it seriously, we could ask if Dubya has ever been relevant.
However, I'm still curious about your [Rita's] no-archive tag. In
light of this latest comment, I have to add one candidate possibility.
You just recognize that you make a lot of transient or worthless posts
and you think it's some sort of exercise of personal responsibility if
you do what you can to make them go away. In that case, and assuming
you're sincere, then you must have very negative thoughts about anyone
who dares to reply to you without using the no-archive flag.
I am well aware if someone replies to me and quotes my post it is
not archived unless that poster requests it. I do think whether
someone archives posts or not is hardly a matter of any moment.
At times on Usenet I've allowed them to be archived, and other
times not. Perhaps just how I felt when configured my newsreader.
But tell, you what, I'll give it some deep thought, and perhaps
I'll be able to psychoanalyze myself and find out what hidden
motivation I have.
Alternately, you might be some kind of techno-elitist demonstrating
the superior features of your NNTP client program. Or maybe you're
near death and just want to fade away quietly?
Or maybe you just think it's a clever new way to 'win' arguments.
After all, you can claim the last word as soon as your opponent loses
interest or gets busy for a few days.
Seems this matter is one you have given a lot of thought to. Bored
In retrospect, I have to laugh that I once imagined that the
newsgroups could evolve in the direction of something like Wikipedia.
Of course, that was years ago, and I had no idea that Wikipedia would
ever exist or that it would be interesting (but problematic). In those
years I imagined that the main problems of newsgroups could be
addressed with really powerful searching features. Ha ha. That joke's
on me, eh?
I guess so.
- Prev by Date: Beat him, hell ! She cleaned his clock in PR
- Next by Date: Re: Time mag. (Michael Kinsley) on Obama
- Previous by thread: Beat him, hell ! She cleaned his clock in PR
- Next by thread: Re: The Obama Way of Ending Divisiveness