Re: JSH: Critical phase

jstevh_at_msn.com
Date: 03/26/05 

Date: 26 Mar 2005 15:24:54 -0800

karllarc wrote:
> James says:
> But that goes directly against the brainstorming process as NOT being
> critical early is part of the process.
>
> So the assumption you are correct fails, and your position is refuted
> by what brainstorming is.
>
> Wrong. Brainstorming should be done by oneself or with others who
show
> interest in helping you with your effort. I totally agree that while
> first coming up with an idea, you should let the ideas come as they
> will. But it makes no sens to post a bunch of crap ideas to a
> newsgroup, especially since it is sort of a community and everyone
> there asks you to stop. You're not helping yourself, since you don't
> take anyones advice. And if you just need to see your ideas in
writing,
> type them up and ponder away. All you do by posting every idea that
> flies into your head is annoy people, the same people who might be
> willing to work with you, and actually help you with your ideas.
>

So now you're saying what brainstorming MUST be?

It seems to me that you are making some very huge leaps throughout this
segment, but I need to try and consider your point of view, and even
start with the assumption that you are right.

First, you claim that brainstorming *should* (emphasis mine of course)
be done by one's self or with others who show interest in helping you.

Why?

Next you say it makes no sense to post a bunch of crap ideas to Usenet,
but if you're brainstorming, how do you know they're crap?

More than likely most will be crap, but hey, you're brainstorming, so
you don't know yet.

Next you claim that all I do is annoy people by posting every idea that
flies into my head, when I don't actually do exactly that, as you're
back to what I call mind reading, again.

I do not believe you read minds.

I think you should refrain from taking positions on what my thoughts
may be.

You can continue despite that suggestion, of course.

And as for your assertion that I just annoy people, I rely on what
feedback I get, and it indicates I annoy SOME people who feel a need to
control Usenet, who go on and on in postings they make that are meant
to control postings I make.

And there are others who seem to be annoyed who just tune out, which is
in line with how Usenet actually works--readers make a choice to read,
or not read.

And some people claim to be entertained by my postings, and I can do
web searches to see what looks like they have some popularity, but I'm
willing to look with a critical eye at that interpretation.

That is, you may be right, but I don't think I should just accept what
you say without you giving proof or some concrete evidence to support
your position.

For instance, I have noticed that the people who spend the most time
arguing with me, also tend to be people who try to tell me how to post,
when to post, or even to not post at all--in direct contradiction with
the philosophy of Usenet.

Is that observation in error?

James Harris

Relevant Pages

  • Re: volcanic co2 gas
    ... Can't say I like it but hey this is usenet anyone can put what ever crap ... they like in their postings, ...
    (uk.sci.weather)
  • Re: JSH: Critical phase
    ... >> But that goes directly against the brainstorming process as NOT being ... > Next you say it makes no sense to post a bunch of crap ideas to Usenet, ... Examine the idea for obvious flaws or inconsistencies, ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: junk post
    ... This is usenet. ... Can you filter out the "crap postings"? ...
    (rec.food.cooking)
Quantcast