Meta-discussion
Locked
 
|
I am just now skimming a book, _Shop Class as Soulcraft_ by Matthew B.
Crawford. It relates to the (meta) discussion(s) at hand in the following manner: Crawford has a BS in Physics and a PhD in Philosophy yet chooses to make his living as a Motorcycle Mechanic (supplemented by writing books like this one). He apprenticed as an electrician starting at age 14 and between his BS and his PhD worked as an electrician (residential), under his own shingle. His voice is more like that of Henry Petrotski, Michael Pollan, or Bill McKibben than Robert Persig, but the motorcycle tie-in is powerful. Especially if you ride and maintain motorcycles. Crawford is erudite and astute in his writing and apparently in his life. He would likely support Glen's regular assertions that *doing* matters more than *thinking* or maybe more pointedly: *doing* is what matters, and *thinking* is another matter altogether. And this is a man who obviously spent a lot of years training his *thinker*, despite also having spent his time working with his hands and choosing to continue to do so on a daily basis. I believe that some of the discontent being expressed on this list, perhaps most acutely attributed to Doug, aka TrollBoi (grin), is roughly predicated on the assumption that there is a whole lot of *talking* going on and not (necessarily) a whole lot of *doing* even (perhaps?) in the form of *careful* thought, which in my book is a form of *doing*. (more on this on Glen's thread maybe). I share Nick's hope (more a belief) that there is in fact a dialectic ongoing within these frayed and tangled threads... I certainly will claim to have been informed by others' perspectives and persuaded by their reasoned arguments. I very much appreciate Nick's attempts to nudge various threads back into some form of dialectic. I don't know that my own efforts are as effective, though I do have plenty of off-list communication amongst some of the folks I know here independent of FRIAM that tells me that I do at least provide entertainment or it's weak cousin, distraction. Doug alluded to there being no shortage of *pontification* here, and while I think I *do* feel that from time to time, here and there, what I suppose I feel I hear more of is *speculation* which I happen to hold in high esteem... following my own round-n-round-the-mulberry-bush with Glen on "Scientific Method" and in particular "Hypothesis Generation". Speculation is either part of or one mechanism of hypothesis generation (in my experience). There are a number of topics of discussion here which do little to move me. It is within the context of *those* discussions that I find myself judging others' contribution as being possibly idle or worse, vainglorious. (Just to pontificate and tangent, did anyone here know that "vainglory" was once it's own deadly sin independent of "vanity" which is just an expression of "pride"?). I am, despite being a programmer by trade (once full time, now only incidentally) and a computer scientist (partly by training, much by practice), not terribly interested in the details of the latest nuances of programming languages whether that be JavaScript, Python, or Haskell. Nor of the latest details of network security or cryptography. Or the best cell phone coverage/plan/device/snafu. But I mostly just skim over them, see if there is a gem I can learn from and go on. Gawd knows I have enough things to have opinions on without including detailed nuances of these bits of tradecraft. I am, at best, an armchair Cosmologist. I've been around (BS Physics in the 70's, 30 years at LANL) deep physics and the cosmology that it supports to feel that I've "heard it all". I *love* the many things that evolved through the 80's and 90's in this arena but I have ceased to keep up... so again, I just read on through and look for nuggets without getting my knickers in a twist if I hear something that sounds wrong to me or if I simply get bored. I am not easily bored, but some of the talk here (probably a near perfect complement to what bores Doug) bores *me* to distraction. But I *love* learning. I love my own process of learning by doing, but more to the point, many acts along the continuum of learning by hypothesis generation and testing (with iteration). I *love* watching others exercising their curiosity and get rewarded in many ways. And this is the very best part of FRIAM... when someone reports or shares a new discovery they just made (themselves more than in the popular press) or insight they had. And when a discussion yields a new understanding of a given problem, of a given situation, even better. I also love language. Not just the sound of my own "voice" but the many truly erudite voices here that rise up above the babble from time to time. There are several here who regularly teach me new words, or better yet, a more nuanced understanding of words I thought I already knew inside and out. Sadly these processes are messy. Many mistakes must be made. People must make silly declarations which they might have to retract or modify later. Others will have to snark at them to get them to notice. Darwinian evolution is tragically inefficient by any *engineering* standard and so is this form of sharing the curiosity, wonder and occasionally, aha! that comes about. I find Doug's "Trolling" affectionate... just as Marcus called him out on checking in on his (love to hate) Nexus4 to harangue us when he should be enjoying his Rosarita (is that a type of Margarita?) at the Dragon (is that in Austin?) and the company of a world much less (obviously) self-involved than the discussions on this list. I found the image of Doug and Pamela sitting side by side in Adirondack chairs sharing a tub of popcorn while the rest of us cavort in front of them, endearing. Obviously our thrashing entertains them, and I take that to be "just enough" encouragement to continue. just my $US.02 - Steve ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com |
|
|
On 4/23/13 6:45 PM, Steve Smith wrote:
> he should be enjoying his Rosarita (is that a type of Margarita?) at > the Dragon Hmm, I have to clarify some terminology here. I believe it's known as a Rosalita at the Pink Adobe. Don't you just hate auto-correct on mobile devices? Marcus ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com |
|
|
Ha, gotcha. The Rosarita is a Margarita recipe invented by Rosalie back in the late 50's. You remember that, right Marcus? On Apr 23, 2013 8:05 PM, "Marcus G. Daniels" <[hidden email]> wrote:
On 4/23/13 6:45 PM, Steve Smith wrote: ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com |
|
|
On 4/23/13 8:08 PM, Douglas Roberts wrote:
> > The Rosarita is a Margarita recipe invented by Rosalie back in the > late 50's. You remember that, right Marcus? > Exhibit A, page 2. http://www.thepinkadobe.com/PinkAdobeDinnerMenu1012.pdf ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com |
|
|
Damn, I stand (sit, actually) corrected. Remind me to never bet against you. On Apr 23, 2013 8:20 PM, "Marcus G. Daniels" <[hidden email]> wrote:
On 4/23/13 8:08 PM, Douglas Roberts wrote: ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com |
|
|
As long as we are picking nits and
splitting hairs, the menu refers to "Rosalea" as opposed to
"Rosalie".
A Margarita by any other name would taste as fine?
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com |
|
|
We used to go there in the mid-80's and sit next to her and Rhett Butler, her black dog and tell her stories about our parrots. On Apr 23, 2013 8:27 PM, "Steve Smith" <[hidden email]> wrote:
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com |
|
|
In reply to this post by Steve Smith
Steve Smith wrote at 04/23/2013 05:45 PM:
> I am just now skimming a book, _Shop Class as Soulcraft_ by Matthew B. > Crawford. Added to my wish list! Thanks. https://www.powells.com/biblio/9780143117469 > I believe that some of the discontent being expressed on this list, > perhaps most acutely attributed to Doug, aka TrollBoi (grin), is > roughly predicated on the assumption that there is a whole lot of > *talking* going on and not (necessarily) a whole lot of *doing* Well, you also have to consider that this is a mailing list. If I still lived in Santa Fe, I'd meet with y'all on Fridays and I like to think there'd be more doing from my end. ... or maybe not. But on a mailing list, what else is there but talk? There can be _links_ to projects, and with other tools, there can even be collaboration. But it seems to me that anyone who subscribes to a mailing list shouldn't expect anything more than talk. Expecting something else would be akin to insanity, like expecting your hammer to get up and dance for you. > even (perhaps?) in the form of *careful* thought, which in my book is > a form of *doing*. That's a consideration. It seems to me that it's the _type_ of talk that irritates Doug, not that talk is the only thing that exists on a mailing list. But because Doug almost never participates in the discussion (other than to ridicule it), it's difficult to know what type of discussion he would prefer. Eric's foray into the relationship of the Higg's mechanism to the cosmological constant seemed well-tuned. It would be exciting to see Doug (or anyone else) launch into potential mechanisms for inflation or related to metaphysical hypotheses for what might go on outside our universe. Personally, I'd love to see people smarter than me discuss David Deutsch's multiverse. > I share Nick's hope (more a belief) that there is in fact a dialectic > ongoing within these frayed and tangled threads... Well, FWIW, I learn quite a bit from this list. To me, it's less about mind-changing and more about fleshing things out in a way not previously conceived. > Doug alluded to there being no shortage of *pontification* here, and > while I think I *do* feel that from time to time, here and there, what I > suppose I feel I hear more of is *speculation* which I happen to hold in > high esteem... I don't feel the need to classify interactions as "pontification" or "speculation" so much. I do _try_ to classify things, but mostly for whatever tiny audience I might have. If it were up to me, all classifications would come with a time/space/context caveat, because they're always false. As a result, pontification is not pontification. To invert the focus, if a classification I made remains stable for a long time or across many contexts, then I begin to worry that I'm stuck in some hobgoblin hyper-consistency rut. I've either stopped learning ... or perhaps I've become God. And if I were to bet on which is most likely, I'd take the former. ;-) > There are a number of topics of discussion here which do little to move > me. It is within the context of *those* discussions that I find myself > judging others' contribution as being possibly idle or worse, > vainglorious. I think the key to happiness is stated well by Nick's outburst: Nicholas Thompson wrote at 04/23/2013 12:52 PM: > Just do your thing. Don’t feel judged when other people do a > different thing, don’t feel slighted when other people don’t want to > do your thing, don’ t judge others for doing something you don’t > understand. Just do you damned thing. It’s really quite easy. One side issue, of course, is sheer volume. You can't read/hear/see everything. So, you have to filter. You can rely on others to filter for you, or you can filter yourself. For some reason, I'm comfortable filtering things for myself. I can hear speeches from Obama, Bush, or Ahmadinejad and decide for myself what to believe and what not to. I enjoy reading "false flag" nonsense from the nutjobs on the internet. But when I don't want to read it, it's easy to ignore. If you haven't developed these ignorance skills, then deluges of information (high or low signal-to-noise) can be difficult to deal with. My autistic nephew, in particular, has a very tough time choosing which information to pay attention to and which to ignore. For such people, tools like procmail, bayesian spam filters, and peer-reviewed journals are critical. There is a personality type, however, that won't willingly give in to such constraints. They _want_ to read/hear/see everything, even though they can't. When/if they miss a piece of information, they feel left out, anxious, or somehow inadequate. I think it's a type of obsessive compulsive disorder. One of my previous bosses was like this. He was so embarrassed when/if you pointed out an article or factoid that he wasn't aware of, he would either _lie_ and claim he knew about it or use some defense mechanism (like pretending he was late for something to cut the conversation short) to avoid the embarrassment he imposed upon himself. I don't know what to do with these people, except lead by example and freely, and often, admit my ignorance. [*] Did you Read it? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P7VgNQbZdaw Steve Smith wrote at 04/23/2013 05:45 PM: > I am not easily bored, but some > of the talk here (probably a near perfect complement to what bores Doug) > bores *me* to distraction. That's interesting. Nothing here bores me because, as soon as I recognize that I don't care about some thing, I mark the thread "read" and move on. (Oh, threaded e-mail readers are also a critical tool.) > Sadly these processes are messy. Many mistakes must be made. People > must make silly declarations which they might have to retract or modify > later. Others will have to snark at them to get them to notice. Unfortunately, snark doesn't work with me. I just view snarkiness as either laziness or arrogance. Also unfortunately, it can take a long time and a lot of work to bring me to a "teaching moment". That's an unfortunate consequence of my upbringing. My only solution is the golden rule. I try to treat others as I'd like others to treat me, which includes ignoring me when I bore them ... like now, I'm sure. [*] Of course, it's also useful to be on the lookout for the humility topos: http://thesecondpass.com/?p=6028 -- =><= glen e. p. ropella Sign my release from this planet's erosion ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com |
|
|
Glen -
Thanks for throwing down here. While I agree with your point made a while back that we could drive a truck or a train through our likely differences in opinion about this and that, I appreciate that you seem to have a similar bandwidth to my own... it doesn't seem to phase you to sort through the relatively high volume of this list, and more pointedly *my* high volume. >> I believe that some of the discontent being expressed on this list, >> perhaps most acutely attributed to Doug, aka TrollBoi (grin), is >> roughly predicated on the assumption that there is a whole lot of >> *talking* going on and not (necessarily) a whole lot of *doing* > Well, you also have to consider that this is a mailing list. If I still > lived in Santa Fe, I'd meet with y'all on Fridays and I like to think > there'd be more doing from my end. ... or maybe not. But on a mailing > list, what else is there but talk? There can be _links_ to projects, > and with other tools, there can even be collaboration. But it seems to > me that anyone who subscribes to a mailing list shouldn't expect > anything more than talk. but of course *that* begs the classification issue you so nicely illuminated. > Expecting something else would be akin to insanity, like expecting your > hammer to get up and dance for you. I've seen it happen... but I think I was using a sawzall to cut through the 1x8 it was sitting on at the time. >> even (perhaps?) in the form of *careful* thought, which in my book is >> a form of *doing*. > That's a consideration. It seems to me that it's the _type_ of talk > that irritates Doug, not that talk is the only thing that exists on a > mailing list. But because Doug almost never participates in the > discussion (other than to ridicule it), it's difficult to know what type > of discussion he would prefer. <grin> Doug, IMO (as a meat-space friend) prefers to have lots of talk going on around him so that he can cherry-pick particularly egregious (or not) things to make fun of, often to good effect. I'm used to it... just as his cats are used to his game of "cat bowling"... animals in general but mammals (and birds) in particular seem to be quite adaptable. > Eric's foray into the relationship of > the Higg's mechanism to the cosmological constant seemed well-tuned. It > would be exciting to see Doug (or anyone else) launch into potential > mechanisms for inflation or related to metaphysical hypotheses for what > might go on outside our universe. > > Personally, I'd love to see people smarter than me discuss David > Deutsch's multiverse. Yes, me too... >> I share Nick's hope (more a belief) that there is in fact a dialectic >> ongoing within these frayed and tangled threads... > Well, FWIW, I learn quite a bit from this list. To me, it's less about > mind-changing and more about fleshing things out in a way not previously > conceived. referencing forward again, I also appreciate the serendipitous factoids others offer up, but in my case, it includes entirely new ways of thinking about something as opposed to simply hanging more hats on the existing coat tree that seems to be my mind. Alternative structurings of said complex adaptive coat-tree if you will. >> Doug alluded to there being no shortage of *pontification* here, and >> while I think I *do* feel that from time to time, here and there, what I >> suppose I feel I hear more of is *speculation* which I happen to hold in >> high esteem... > I don't feel the need to classify interactions as "pontification" or > "speculation" so much. I do _try_ to classify things, but mostly for > whatever tiny audience I might have. If it were up to me, all > classifications would come with a time/space/context caveat, because > they're always false. As a result, pontification is not pontification. Agreed. While someone may speak authoritarially and conclusively (in tone) on some topic which I happen to already know plenty about or perhaps on the opposite end, have little interest in, I understand that to others, the same stuff may be excruciatingly illuminating and interesting. > To invert the focus, if a classification I made remains stable for a > long time or across many contexts, then I begin to worry that I'm stuck > in some hobgoblin hyper-consistency rut. I've either stopped learning > ... or perhaps I've become God. And if I were to bet on which is most > likely, I'd take the former. ;-) It is the nudging me out of hyper-consistency ruts that I value more than simple additional factoids and even minor parallax offerings (referring back to Nick's interest in dialectic). I think I share with you a general preference for, or appreciation of, a "many worlds" interpretation of sentience. Each one of can/should/and-defacto-does live in a separate universe (or even multiverse in some cases) constructed of our own experiences and intrinsic nature. Nick may hold high some ideal of a convergent unification of those within an individual and a group and perhaps across all humanity or sentient beings, while I (and perhaps you) prefer a cross-fertilization and combinatoric relation between same? We are more of the 6 mutually contradictory ideas before breakfast camp to frame it in Alice-World terms. > I think the key to happiness is stated well by Nick's outburst: >> Just do your thing. Don’t feel judged when other people do a >> different thing, don’t feel slighted when other people don’t want to >> do your thing, don’ t judge others for doing something you don’t >> understand. Just do you damned thing. It’s really quite easy. Yes, Nick stated that well... thank you Nick! > One side issue, of course, is sheer volume. You can't read/hear/see > everything. So, you have to filter. You can rely on others to filter > for you, or you can filter yourself. For some reason, I'm comfortable > filtering things for myself. I can hear speeches from Obama, Bush, or > Ahmadinejad and decide for myself what to believe and what not to. I > enjoy reading "false flag" nonsense from the nutjobs on the internet. > But when I don't want to read it, it's easy to ignore. > > If you haven't developed these ignorance skills, then deluges of > information (high or low signal-to-noise) can be difficult to deal with. > My autistic nephew, in particular, has a very tough time choosing which > information to pay attention to and which to ignore. For such people, > tools like procmail, bayesian spam filters, and peer-reviewed journals > are critical. Despite continuous thread-hijacking/drift, I find that this list gives me a huge amount of filtering *and* prisming. By prisming, extending the metaphor, when you or anyone else on the list expresses something even vaguely different than what I'm familiar with or even prefer, I can use my (gathered) understanding of where each of you stands to get a little more parallax (and sometimes chromatic spread). Occasionally these offerings turn out to offer me something like a rut-jumping experience, using your metaphor. In fact, it is not filtering as much as illuminating or reflecting perhaps. Half of what flies through this list I would never hear of if not for the list, so it isn't just filtering or prisming, it is gathering/reflecting. > There is a personality type, however, that won't willingly give in to > such constraints. They _want_ to read/hear/see everything, even though > they can't. When/if they miss a piece of information, they feel left > out, anxious, or somehow inadequate. I think it's a type of obsessive > compulsive disorder. One of my previous bosses was like this. He was > so embarrassed when/if you pointed out an article or factoid that he > wasn't aware of, he would either _lie_ and claim he knew about it or use > some defense mechanism (like pretending he was late for something to cut > the conversation short) to avoid the embarrassment he imposed upon > himself. I don't know what to do with these people, except lead by > example and freely, and often, admit my ignorance. [*] > > Did you Read it? > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P7VgNQbZdaw I can't normally watch much Portlandia but this snippet was classic and so on topic! Online conversations, in their asynchrony and relative obscurity allow for a variant where someone says "did you read it?" and the other busts out their browser, looks it up, skims it and pretends they already knew all about it. I've a good friend/colleague in Australia who does this with me openly... she's a bit younger than I and likes to pretend that she's lived as long and piebald life as I have... and she openly, during a (video) Skype session will respond to a "do you know about X?" question with me by pretending to do something else while she looks it up, skims it and then pretends she already knew about it. She does this openly and with an impish grin... and it is very fun and refreshing. Other times, she just says "no" in a deadpan fashion that connotes "and I don't care". She matches me by trying to throw me a curveball now and again (often wonderfully, fantastically contrived) and I go through the same motions... it is an interesting form of co-learning. >> I am not easily bored, but some >> of the talk here (probably a near perfect complement to what bores Doug) >> bores *me* to distraction. > That's interesting. Nothing here bores me because, as soon as I > recognize that I don't care about some thing, I mark the thread "read" > and move on. (Oh, threaded e-mail readers are also a critical tool.) Well, to modify that... it *would* bore me if I tried to give it the same attention I give things that *don't* bore me. I've learned enough of the regular "voices" on this list to actually be able to learn/appreciate things (even Marcus' nuances of Haskell and Owen's nuances of JavaScript, or Bruce's vPython, or HTML5 or WebGL or ... Doug's ongoing cagematch with Google ). I actually enjoy what some call Guerin's "Complexity Babble" (not so much here, but elsewhere) because I know that at the core of there is plenty of insight and deep motivation even if some of the surface might be questionable. >> Sadly these processes are messy. Many mistakes must be made. People >> must make silly declarations which they might have to retract or modify >> later. Others will have to snark at them to get them to notice. > Unfortunately, snark doesn't work with me. I just view snarkiness as > either laziness or arrogance. Well, it depends on how well I'm aligned with the snark and/or how clever it is. As I age, I find myself much more entertained by being the butt of good jokes. At 8 it confused me, at 14 it infuriated me, but now it mostly just gives me more parallax on myself as well as the snarker. I think Rich Murray's response to my (and other's) semi-snark about Woo Peddling was a great example, I think he may have grinned in glee at things others would have found barbed! Alternatively, one of my favorite quotes of all time was a boss of mine going through her own crisis in life who related one of her aphorisms (she was working on this, not living it quite yet). "Your opinion of me is none of my business!" > Also unfortunately, it can take a long > time and a lot of work to bring me to a "teaching moment". That's an > unfortunate consequence of my upbringing. My only solution is the golden > rule. I try to treat others as I'd like others to treat me, which > includes ignoring me when I bore them ... like now, I'm sure. A good re-statement/reframing of Nick's "outburst" on the topic. I depend on many here not opening my messages or at least not going past my first line if they find me tedious or just weird. I'm surprised how often I get comments/engagement (online or offline) from people who have actually read as deep (in several senses of the term?) as we are here now. > [*] Of course, it's also useful to be on the lookout for the humility > topos: http://thesecondpass.com/?p=6028 I *think* I get this... in the vein of "The lady doth protest too much!"? - Steve ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com |
|
|
On Wed, Apr 24, 2013 at 04:00:15PM -0600, Steve Smith wrote:
> Glen - > > > >Personally, I'd love to see people smarter than me discuss David > >Deutsch's multiverse. > Yes, me too... You could always come over to FOAR for that sort of discussion. Or even FOR, if you don't mind the potential for being banned for some arbitrary reason (http://www.hpcoders.com.au/blog/?p=5). Cheers -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Principal, High Performance Coders Visiting Professor of Mathematics [hidden email] University of New South Wales http://www.hpcoders.com.au ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com |
|
|
Nothing I love better than being thrown
out of a bar. Exchanging a few blows with the bouncers, maybe
landing a rabbit punch or two on the way through the door and
coming back the next night for another round!
Rules for the anti-FOAR list: If FRIAM had these standards, half of us would be banned within the week, and the remaining lurkers would never post... the sound of *no* hands clapping! Thanks! - Steve On Wed, Apr 24, 2013 at 04:00:15PM -0600, Steve Smith wrote:Glen -Personally, I'd love to see people smarter than me discuss David Deutsch's multiverse.Yes, me too...You could always come over to FOAR for that sort of discussion. Or even FOR, if you don't mind the potential for being banned for some arbitrary reason (http://www.hpcoders.com.au/blog/?p=5). Cheers ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com |
|
|
Yeah, but at least FOAR allows top-posting! Nothing on the internet is more irrational than the bias against top-posting. And I mean it. The bias against top-posting is the lower bound of rationality. Hm. Would it be oxymoronic to claim the existence of an upper bound on irrationality? Is there an ordering relation on irrational reasoning? On 04/24/2013 10:01 PM, Steve Smith wrote: > Nothing I love better than being thrown out of a bar. Exchanging a few > blows with the bouncers, maybe landing a rabbit punch or two on the way > through the door and coming back the next night for another round! > > Rules for the anti-FOAR list: > > # Use of profanity, insults or excessive ad-hominem is discouraged. > Please keep this civil. > # Keep things on-topic. If your posting can't be related to something > in the books mentioned above, please take it offline. > > # Don't feed the trolls. If someone posts something obviously > outrageous in order to stir up trouble, simply don't respond to it. > Keep responses to more subtle points that you disagree with. > > If FRIAM had these standards, half of us would be banned within the > week, and the remaining lurkers would never post... the sound of *no* > hands clapping! -- glen =><= Hail Eris! ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com |
|
|
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text. Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing? A: Top-posting. Q: What is the most annoying thing in e-mail? On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 8:05 AM, glen ropella <[hidden email]> wrote:
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com |
|
|
In reply to this post by glen ropella
On 4/25/13 8:05 AM, glen ropella wrote:
> "Nothing on the internet is more irrational than the bias against top-posting." On 4/25/13 8:59 AM, Robert Holmes wrote: > Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text. Top-posting encourages those that don't dissect one proposition at a time but just want to give their Facebook Analysis. (Thumbs up, thumbs down without defending the details of their position.) Marcus ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com |
|
|
In reply to this post by Robert Holmes-3
See below. From: Friam [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Robert Holmes [NST ==><==NST] Q: Does anybody know of an algorithm that creates an archive (in Word, Preferably) of posts in their actual temporal order? A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?A: Top-posting.Q: What is the most annoying thing in e-mail?[NST ==> Thanks, Robert, for the clarification. <==NST] On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 8:05 AM, glen ropella <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Nothing I love better than being thrown out of a bar. Exchanging a few > blows with the bouncers, maybe landing a rabbit punch or two on the way > through the door and coming back the next night for another round! > > Rules for the anti-FOAR list: > > # Use of profanity, insults or excessive ad-hominem is discouraged. > in the books mentioned above, please take it offline. > # Don't feed the trolls. If someone posts something obviously > outrageous in order to stir up trouble, simply don't respond to it. --
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com |
|
|
In reply to this post by Marcus G. Daniels
On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 09:28:31AM -0600, Marcus G. Daniels wrote:
> On 4/25/13 8:05 AM, glen ropella wrote: > >"Nothing on the internet is more irrational than the bias against top-posting." > On 4/25/13 8:59 AM, Robert Holmes wrote: > > Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text. > Top-posting encourages those that don't dissect one proposition at a > time but just want to give their Facebook Analysis. (Thumbs up, > thumbs down without defending the details of their position.) > > Marcus There's plenty of other things way more annoying than top-posting. Not removing irrelevant parts of the cited text is one. Going off on a wild tangent unrelated to the original conversation another. But hardly worth a ban - people can filter and ignore stuff that is poorly presented. -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Principal, High Performance Coders Visiting Professor of Mathematics [hidden email] University of New South Wales http://www.hpcoders.com.au ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com |
|
|
In reply to this post by Steve Smith
On Wed, Apr 24, 2013 at 11:01:55PM -0600, Steve Smith wrote:
> Nothing I love better than being thrown out of a bar. Exchanging a > few blows with the bouncers, maybe landing a rabbit punch or two on > the way through the door and coming back the next night for another > round! > > Rules for the anti-FOAR list: > > # Use of profanity, insults or excessive ad-hominem is discouraged. > Please keep this civil. > # Keep things on-topic. If your posting can't be related to something > in the books mentioned above, please take it offline. > > # Don't feed the trolls. If someone posts something obviously > outrageous in order to stir up trouble, simply don't respond to it. > Keep responses to more subtle points that you disagree with. > > If FRIAM had these standards, half of us would be banned within the > week, and the remaining lurkers would never post... the sound of > *no* hands clapping! > > Thanks! > - Steve Well nobody's been banned yet, aside from a few blatant spammers. And the rules have been followed pretty well, except perhaps for the "staying on topic" one - that gets stretched quite a bit at times. But a good old free-for-all on Deutsch's multiverse will be definitely on-topic! Cheers -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Principal, High Performance Coders Visiting Professor of Mathematics [hidden email] University of New South Wales http://www.hpcoders.com.au ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com |
|
|
Russel -
Thanks! Actually, I didn't find anything on the description pages about banning.... I thought it was *your* reference to banning (or maybe Glen) that I was responding to. Top posts and all that... I myself, am probably too rambly/tangenty for any list less seasoned by my presence than this one. But let's see if something emerges on FOAR of merit regarding Deutsch and the Multiverse! - Steve > If FRIAM had these standards, half of us would be banned within the > week, and the remaining lurkers would never post... the sound of *no* > hands clapping! Thanks! - Steve > Well nobody's been banned yet, aside from a few blatant spammers. And the > rules have been followed pretty well, except perhaps for the "staying > on topic" one - that gets stretched quite a bit at times. But a good > old free-for-all on Deutsch's multiverse will be definitely on-topic! ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com |
|
|
Steve Smith wrote at 04/25/2013 08:08 PM:
> But let's see if something emerges on FOAR > of merit regarding Deutsch and the Multiverse! I subscribed. But, _sheesh_, 41 e-mails since I stopped reading yesterday. And lots of acronyms and jargon. It'll take quite an investment to ramp up. Thanks for the link Russell. -- glen e. p. ropella, 971-255-2847, http://tempusdictum.com Give good people the power to do good and that power eventually will be in the hands of bad people to do bad. -- Harry Browne ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com |
|
|
On Fri, Apr 26, 2013 at 09:01:41AM -0700, glen e. p. ropella wrote:
> Steve Smith wrote at 04/25/2013 08:08 PM: > > But let's see if something emerges on FOAR > > of merit regarding Deutsch and the Multiverse! > > I subscribed. But, _sheesh_, 41 e-mails since I stopped reading > yesterday. And lots of acronyms and jargon. It'll take quite an > investment to ramp up. Thanks for the link Russell. > There is currently a very active (and sometimes heated) discussion about something called the movie graph argument (MGA), which proposes to show that computationalism is incompatible with materialism. It is quite technical. Just ignore it if it doesn't interest you. As for multiverse stuff, most of the participants are died-in-the wool MWI people. You could try asking a question, or posing a difficulty that the Multiverse might have. Or you could ask about Deutsh's physical turing principle. Just suggestions. Until the current MGA discussion dies down, I'm trying to avoid other threads - but I'll no doubt weigh in on something that looks interesting. Cheers -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Principal, High Performance Coders Visiting Professor of Mathematics [hidden email] University of New South Wales http://www.hpcoders.com.au ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com |
«
Return to Friam
|
1 view|%1 views
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |