From: Greg Burch (gregburch@gregburch.net)
Date: Thu Oct 10 2002 - 20:42:18 MDT
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Lee Daniel Crocker
> Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2002 12:35 PM
>
> Actually, that thread was about Lee Corbin; my online manners
> haven't risen to the level of their own thread until
> yesterday. But anyway I do understand the value of even
> those kinds of "politeness" that get in the way of clear
> expression, but as I said I'm stil not very good at it.
Damn -- Lee, I apologize. Someone mistook me for Greg Bear one time --
but not in person. I suppose our names are about as similar as yours
and Lee Corbin's.
> I look at it this way: the human comminunication network is
> not very different from an electronic communication network,
> and protocols serve the same purposes. The overriding
> principle in creating protocols is
> this: be conservative in what you produce, and liberal in
> what you accept. That's the way to write software that keeps
> the network flowing smoothly. But notice that there is a
> distinct assymmetry there: the more conservative the senders,
> the fewer kinds of messages can be sent over the protocol;
> the more liberal the receivers, the /more/ kinds of messages
> it can handle. So while I may agree that politeness can be a
> good thing, it is important to note that (1) it is not an end
> in itself, only a /means/ to the end of better communication,
> and communication should be favored when the two conflict;
> and (2) it is /more/ important to emphasize the politeness
> and tolerance of /listeners/ than speakers.
Wise thoughts. How would you judge your response to Olga by these
standards?
Greg Burch
Vice-President, Extropy Institute
http://www.gregburch.net
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:17:29 MST