[Theforum] blah blah. Or, who gets to edit articles

[.jeff]

dan,

><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
> From: Daniel J. Cody
>
> > backstabbing there?  playing nice here?  what?!
>
> precisley the problem with closed lists, i can't point
> out examples
><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><

more precisely the problem with lack of evidence, you can't point out any
examples.  i honestly fail to see where any part of the posts since friday
could be construed as backstabbing.

><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
> and i understand the nature of the discussion because
> its been hashed out numerous times before.
><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><

are we reading the same archives?  the topics currently being discussed (in
a 99% civil tone i might add) are almost entirely new.  i can't recall
having ever discussed the issues surrounding the after-effects of posting
non-english articles.  i probably can't recall it because we've never
encountered this situation until now.

><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
> the ideas aren't 'locked away' on my machine like some
> treasure i'm trying to protect.
><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><

i didn't say you were trying to protect them.  i just felt that you were
trying to hold them over the head of the rest of us.

><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
> furthermore, that list is public. its in the archives.
> 'accountable'??!
><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><

i felt that you were trying to hold the rest of us accountable for these
ideas not being worked on. if nobody knows what these ideas are that you're
talking about, nobody but yourself is accountable for these ideas.

so the ideas, as you say, are in the archives.  that doesn't help me unless
i have time to go skimming the archive looking for them.  even then i might
miss some of the things that seemed like good ideas to you.  wouldn't my
time be better spent actually working on the details of the ideas than
looking for them?  you've already cataloged what seemed like good ideas to
you, why not save me the time of looking for them myself?

><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
> how does me not reading the 'issues' correlate('thereby')
> to continuing the cycle? if i don't respond to those
> issues - therefore breaking the cycle, your reasoning
> makes no sense.
><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><

i didn't say that not reading the issues continues the cycle.  i said that
continuing the cycle happens when you don't respond to the specific issues,
but you rant about them in general.

moreover, rather than responding to these issues in the forum they
originated in, you respond to them in very general terms in a new forum that
may or may not be aware of the issues or the conversation that's already
taken place surrounding those issues.  i can only imagine how this sort of
action comes across to those who aren't privy to the conversation you
reference from another list.  i'm sure it's confusing as hell.

so, how is responding in only general terms breaking the cycle?  if you want
to break the cycle, don't respond at all.  however, keep in mind that you're
only breaking the cycle insofar as far as yourself is concerned.  other
participants in the discussion will choose to break the cycle when they're
ready.

><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
> can i assume that because you didn't break down the rest
> of my argument into bite sized chunks that you agree
> with it?
><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><

if i don't respond to a specific piece, it's probably because i agree with
it and have nothing useful to add to the discussion on that piece.  if i
have *anything* to add, in agreement or disagreement, i'll address it.

><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
> [...] or is it easier to discredit what i'm trying to
> say when you only respond to the things you disagree
> with?
><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><

discredit?  no.  i'm not trying to discredit you.  this isn't a
cross-examination, although sometimes when discussing things with you it
feels to me like you're a hostile witness.  ;p

when i respond to things with disagreement it's because i disagree with what
you're saying (see how simple that is?).  remember, it's discussion about
the ideas not the people behind the ideas.

thanks,

.jeff

http://evolt.org/
jeff at members.evolt.org
http://members.evolt.org/jeff/