From: Michael Wiik (mwiik@messagenet.com)
Date: Sun Aug 18 2002 - 09:24:53 MDT
lcorbin@tsoft.com wrote:
> But I mentioned two bad effects that you aren't addressing.
> (1) the unlikely random surfer who comes across only the highly
> inflammatory posts, and so comes away with a very negative view,
> and [...]
Lee, this response is pure troll. Since you've been active in the Manhatten
threads, perhaps you have a clue since iirc that thread included concerns
about how to stop the lone individual from committing acts of mayhem.
Now, you are correct in that I didn't address every concern imaginable. Since
you had just started this thread, I assumed (incorrectly) that you actually
had a goal in mind, the one implied by the subject line you chose. I assumed
(again incorrectly) that if a poster starts a thread, he or she isn't looking
immediately to start shooting ideas down, but is instead looking to build
something up first.
To me, this is the essence of both design and planning: first you add, then
you trim. You don't start trimming in the early 'add' stage.
To your credit, you do admit it's 'unlikely'. I think that is the key word
here. I'm not sure how to handle such unlikely events, but would welcome
ideas, or rather I would if I was planning to remain in this thread.
Then you continue:
> (2) such a person who in turn loudly characterizes
> extropians in a derogatory way and who is listened to widely
> by a group or sect. (These are the only two specific mechanisms
> that I have thought of, and for reasons I gave, don't think
> either leaves Extropianism vulnerable.)
And that's wonderful, as isn't this the definition of troll given by Harvey
Newstrom? You begin with two criticisms, and why I appreciate that fact they
were given in a 'concerns that need to be addressed' tone, you then follow
with a disclaimer that indicates they are not important.
Then you conclude with:
> Your idea of an official disclaimer wouldn't necessarily have any
> effect on (1) or (2).
The purpose of stating this is lost on me. I parse your whole paragraph as:
1) There are two concerns you haven't addressed .
2) Neither of these concerns leaves extropianism vulnerable .
3) You're disclaimer idea may not address concerns identified in 1 above .
So, if I can be allowed one or two good slams, as seems important to your
conversation style, let me say:
slam 1) Official disclaimers are common on web sites, especially those that .
slam feature discussion boards. It is not 'my idea' .
slam 2) The concern of readers coming across random archive messages could .
slam be addressed by appending the official disclaimer to the end of each .
slam post when it's archived .
slam 3) None of these methods will stop the determined cut and paste .
slam terrorist, who assembles new thoughts from out of context words and .
slam phrases, puts quote marks around them, and claims this is another's .
slam position .
I think my initial thoughts that you were not worth arguing with was
correct. This has all been a waste of time. I'll make sure to ignore your
posts in the future.
---- This message was posted by Michael Wiik to the Extropians 2002 board on ExI BBS. <http://www.extropy.org/bbs/index.php?board=61;action=display;threadid=52809>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:16:13 MST