Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2002 20:18:33 -0700 From: Dave Hayes <dave@jetcafe.org> To: Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com> Cc: Joshua Lee <yid@softhome.net>, nwestfal@directvinternet.com, chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? Message-ID: <200209130318.g8D3Ic163118@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com> writes:
> Dave Hayes wrote:
>> > The mailing list exists to serve the group. That is its purpose.
>>
>> I disagree. The mailing list exists to enable communication between
>> parties interested in the topic that the list serves. "Serving the
>> group" implies it does or can do more than this.
>
> Mailing lists on equipment *I* own exist to serve *me*.
>
> If *I* am a group, then mailing lists on equipment the group
> owns exist to serve *the group*.
So a mailing list will bring you tea and crumpets if you but ring a
bell?
>> > I have responseded to a single troll message.
>>
>> This goes directly counter to what I suggested. Ok.
>
> Failure to follow your advice is hardly damning. 8-).
I never said it was damning. Those are your words. ;)
>> > I did so to belittle the troll. I did this as a means of
>> > demonstrating to the group that I in fact did not support the
>> > statements of the troll.
>>
>> But by responding, you gave the troll a small percentage of your time,
>> and you implicitly acknolwedge the troll's existance, granting that
>> troll beingness for the duration of your response. This is not
>> "ignoring the troll". ;)
>
> Nevertheless, it served me to do it.
And still you give the troll power.
>> > Further, I did it in a way that acknowledged only the existance of
>> > the posting itself, rather than acknowledging the content which the
>> > troll wished me to acknowledge.
>>
>> Regardless, you still gave some acknowledgement of existence. This
>> only incentivizes the troll further.
> Nevertheless, it served me to do it.
And still you give the troll power.
>> > I have, further, repeatedly responded to your argument about the
>> > "maturity level it takes to ignore something you don't like". I
>> > have done so by pointing out that I prefer the participation of
>> > immature, by your definition of "mature", contributors to the
>> > participation of trolls.
>>
>> At last. We see that it is your "preference" and not some "moral
>> imperative" or "deduced axiom of behaivor".
>
> My preference in this case derives from a definition of the group
> which the mailing list serves, said group being exclusive of trolls,
> by definition.
>
> It is not merely a product of my own desires.
What else could a "preference" be?
>> > You have repeatedly pointed out that you do not value participation
>> > of people who do not meet your criterion for "maturity".
>>
>> Yes, this is my preference.
>
> However, this is at odds to the groups goals, which is participation
> in the project.
I'm not so sure. If someone who contributes to the project can't
ignore a simple troll, are they mature enough to take the inevitable
criticism of their work, however constructive?
>> > I have pointed out that it does not *matter* to the community
>> > what you, personally, value, what matters to the community is
>> > what the *community* values.
>>
>> This all brings back the very first posting I made:
>>
>> > To see trolls as a bad thing is to ignore what brings communities
>> > together in the first place.
>
> Since you want do deperately to be asked...
Actually I don't.
> What brings communities together in the first place?
> How does seeing trolls as a bad thing ignore this?
I don't think you are ready for this discussion.
>> This entire conversation is analogous to the following short skit:
>>
>> Dave: <points> Look at that shooting star
>
> Terry: We need an asteroid defense system
Dave: For such small asteroids? They aren't worth thinking about,
except as a thing of beauty.
Terry: Chances are, one day a big one will come. All asteroids
share the same Schelling point, therefore we have to defend against
all sizes with the same mechansim. Remember, the simplest devices
are the best ones.
Dave: You'd take shooting stars away from the people who want to
see them just because a big one MIGHT hit the planet? Are you aware
of the odds of this happening?
Terry: Thinking of odds is not the correct way to think. I'm sure
you've heard of discrete pleonastic pan-rational mathematical asteroid
prediction?
Dave: Say what?
Terry: It is possible to predict that, at some future deterministic
point, given that all elliptic curves have modular form, and deriving
from a known set of assumptions that only the inner scientist acolytes
know, that a life-threatening asteroid WILL hit the planet.
Dave: Ok so when would that be?
Terry: Well we don't know exactly, that is why we have to build
our defense system.
Dave: But that will remove the ability for everyone to see shooting
stars!
Terry: If you want shooting stars, go to a local planetarium where
they are allowed to congregate.
------
Dave Hayes - Consultant - Altadena CA, USA - dave@jetcafe.org
>>> The opinions expressed above are entirely my own <<<
A Law of Computer Programming:
Make it possible for programmers to write in English and you
will find the programmers cannot write in English.
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200209130318.g8D3Ic163118>