Re: Scott and George's Teaching Thread

On Aug 21, 6:51 pm, herbzet <herb...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
MoeBlee wrote:
On Aug 21, 5:45 am, george <gree...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Aug 20, 7:21 pm, G. Frege <nomail@invalid> wrote:
On Mon, 20 Aug 2007 20:08:11 -0000, Scott <ToaTe...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Okay, let's start with the basics. What kind of notation [...]?

I'd prefer the following (rather typical) conventions:

Cancel this message.
Can't you read the title of the thread?

Can't you read the first post in this thread in which is said:

"You're welcome to contribute if you feel like it."

Anyway, title, first post, nor directive from the Department of
Homeland Security can or SHOULD dictate that people should not enjoy
the full prerogative to put, as often as they like, their two cents
into any thread that is open for posting.

No, but perhaps good taste and consideration for others should dictate
certain behavior. In a public commons setting, such as a public park,
do you really think it's cool to behave in any old way, so long as it
isn't actually illegal?

First, in a public park, people do, and should, have a great amount of
freedom.

Second, I am NOT saying that I approve of ANY way of behaving. Look,
the poster G. Frege came in with his own suggestions on the subject of
this thread and it is THAT that george took as a basis for directing
G. Frege to desist from such posting.

Third, the analogy is in general poor anyway for reasons too tedious
to bother with.

Would you be offended if people continually
butted in to your conversations, with the justification that you're
in public, so your conversation is public?

That's an absurd analogy. A thread is not such a conversation as is
two people talking to one another over a cup of coffee.

How about on a bus? In
a restaurant? On the street?

A news group thread is quite unlike those other situations. First, in
such situations, no matter how much one might will to concentrate on
certain voices, one cannot overcome that sound waves from drown out
others so that certain interruptions make certain conversations
physically impossible. Second, the very nature of a news group thread
is to allow sequential posting (G. Frege's post does not drown out
other posts) and from diverse people who are not in a situation of
private conversation. Third, even though one might argue that there is
a virtual drowning out, I disagree. It is george's option - he has
complete freedom to choose which posts he wishes to read - and it is
the thread starter's option to choose which posts to read, and the
thread starter has full choice not to read G. Frege's posts, and the
thread starter even made explicit that others ARE welcome to post
aside from george (and even though that others have every prerogative
to post without such permission or invitation from the thread
starter). george has no standing to claim direction of who may or may
not post what in this thread.

If you require communicating
with someone on an exclusive basis, then it's not reasonable nor
realistic in an open thread to expect that all others who wish to put
in two cents must defer to you in that plan.

The thread starter was explicit in saying that there is not such a
requirement. And the thread starter has no standing to demand such a
requirment anyway. Unmoderated news group threads are to allow
participation of various people. Neither the thread starter nor george
have a basis to claim moderation of a thread in an unmoderated group.
And it is important to keep that point out front. If george wishes an
exclusive conversation, then he needs to find an appropriate means for
that, and if he requires a moderated thread, then let him arrange for
one. It is PERNICIOUS to allow someone to verbally bully so as to
dictate who may post what where in open news group threads. And
obviously I mean that such prerogative is within some reason so that
things like spam are not included. G. Frege's post was WELL within
reason in that regard.

Moreover, you have even taken the prerogative to post in this thread
at your own will.

It's not reasonable to expect that from unreasonable people. It is
realistic or unrealistic to the degree that people in general can be
persuaded to act in a reasonable and considerate manner.

In open news group threads, the very idea is that people may put their
two cents in at will. That is the beauty of it. When someone writes a
post, then it is NOT reasonable to demand that others curtail the
exercise of their prerogative to express their own thoughts, concerns,
opinions, or wisecracks in response to the post and included in the
thread in which the post was made so that the response is available to
be read (or not read, as george or anyone else has full freedom) in
sequential relation with the original post. That prerogative is, at
least by me, to be CHERISHED, even as a matter of principle, and thus
I VERY strongly resent and do not honor george to have any standing
whatsoever to curtail that prerogative.

MoeBlee

.