META off-topicality/Re: This list

[Guest guest]

On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 22:38:31 -0000

" Anton " <michaelantonparker@...> wrote:

>This topic comes up periodically, and the consensus has always been

>that the serendipitous and unpredictable interactions of our

>ineffable life-based orbits defies deterministic circumscription, and

>defines its own category of discourse. (Okay, I'm not quoting anyone

>exactly here!)

The wordsmith is at it again, LOL!

However, lest we lapse into lackadaisacalness, there

>are two details that loom large. One being well-implemented already

>at the hands of our wisely minimalistic, yet mighty leader,

>Idol, who instituted the invaluable POLITICS tag.

Yes mighty has done well here. Anton <weg> might it be that our own

chastising at the hands of our minimalistic leader made us sensitive to

the inclusion of the POLITICS tag? <bsg>

The other being an

>ongoing area of concern with--how shall we say--considerable

>opportunities for improvement, none other than the incredibly

>**simple** act of thoughtfully inserting accurate key words in the

>subject lines of posts. I very happily skip over many posts with the

>POLITICS tag or a subject line that doesn't interest me. It's a

>small burden for the fecundity of our interpersonal synergies.

Here! Here!! And may I just add that it would be soooooooooooo nice that

if someone is top posting they don't leave a long email intact beneath

a one or two sentence response. The same goes for those who bottom post

by writing a sentence or two beneath a loooooooong post.

>

>All that aside, I have to admit I sort of regret getting embroiled in

>the fairly unproductive recent exchanges on gay marriage, and I've

>been ignoring this religious debate of the past few days. I think

>religion is too important and core to our self-identities to be fair

>game in this context; as much as the young and idealistic

>logic/science types like and me are compelled otherwise, there

>is nothing to gain from these debates and we risk compromises to the

>supportive community atmosphere that ranks as the highest desideratum

>for the list in my view.

I think that is a pretty accurate assessment. My own problem with the

topic as it is currently constituted is that it requires a level of

detailed discussion such that you really can't do it justice on a nutrition

list, although contrary to some I think it is very much worthy of

discussion, but is really futile on a list of this nature. You risk

alienating many people in a way say the libertarian thread would not. In

other words, as you say, not really " fair game in this context. "

Nonetheless, I would never tell anyone to stop. My delete button is

working just fine but, IMO, I think this discussion has evolved to the

point where it would be more fruitful on the NT Politics list.

On the other hand, I think this list is remarkably self-policing and

people usually come to a point where they say enough is enough without

ripping out someone's throat. Unless it is a late responder like me

stirring up the waters a couple of weeks later <g>.

I usually read all the off-topic posts eventually, which presents a

great temptation to restart something that may have already settled down

(no Heidi, I'm leaving the libertarian thread alone for now, until it

rears its head again, LOL!).

I delete regularly on-topic posts that are covering something that is of

no interest to me. I also don't read people who regularly top or bottom

post in the manner I described above or whose spelling and grammar is so

bad that it requires an effort on my part to figure out what they are

saying. Hey, we all have to figure out ways to filter the volume on this

list and that is one of my ways of doing so.

BTW, " desideratum " ? I like that :-)

Liking

http://tinyurl.com/3d8n5

" They told just the same,

That just because a tyrant has the might

By force of arms to murder men downright

And burn down house and home and leave all flat

They call the man a captain, just for that.

But since an outlaw with his little band

Cannot bring half such mischief on the land

Or be the cause of so much harm and grief,

He only earns the title of a thief. "

--Geoffrey Chaucer, The Manciple's Tale

[Guest guest]

Fern wrote.

Anyway, I'm realizing I'm one of a very few on this list who feels this

way, so I need to either decide to put up with it or leave the list.

Fern,

You are not alone. . .I find light bantering entertaining. . .but many times it

get s abusive that is not fun or productive it exhausts me.

Sheryl

Sheryl Illustrations

http://dovedesignsrus.com

[Guest guest]

On Fri, 27 Feb 2004 02:52:03 -0000

" Anton " <michaelantonparker@...> wrote:

>@@@@@@

>> Anyway, I'm realizing I'm one of a very few on this list who feels

>this

>> way, so I need to either decide to put up with it or leave the list.

>>

>> Thanks for sharing your thots.

>>

>> ~ Fern

>@@@@@@@

>

>Fern, you're probably in the majority with your feelings, but many

>people may not want to get involved with those kinds of topic on a

>public forum. I'd guess (I'm big on guessing) that something like 90%

>of this list shares your traditional Christian values. I think it's

>just that the other 10% includes some prolific posters (and then

>there's who just likes to argue I think :-) ).

Again Mike I think you are right on.

I remember once hearing Rush Limbaugh say that one of his secrets to

success (and when you sign the largest radio contract in history -

$300,000,000 - you must know something about marketing success) is that

he does not base his show on those who call in, as that is a very tiny

and self-selected percentage of his audience. Rather he gears things to

the bulk of his audience (99%) who will never pick up the phone or send

him an email. He said most talk show hosts fail because they gear their

material to those who actually call, which is not necessarily representative

of most who are actually listening.

All that to say that if we want to preserve this very nice community we

have built here it might be wise for us prolific posters to remember the

group at large.

On the other hand, I do know from my private emails that there are MANY

people who do not feel competent to jump in our OT discussions but who

follow them nonetheless. But I do think we need to be aware at times

that we as active posters might need to reel in our enthusiasm for

debate on nearly every topic imaginable.

On the one hand it is what makes this list so interesting (as opposed to

talking about making out with hens as one moderator does or chastising

every newbie who asks a question they could have found the answer too in

the archives), yet it can also get out of hand at times.

While I have a

>much more liberal take on that particular issue of gay marriage than

>you (and I have no idea what you guys have been discussing lately,

>although the subject lines make me nervous), I certainly hope you'll

>stick with the list and continue to share your outlook and NT

>experiences!

You see now if the state would just get out of the relationship business

(something which I advocated in a long ago thread) your view or Ferns'

view wouldn't matter, at least regarding this list. I dare say this

thread would have never gone beyond Lierre's original subject. And if

the state got out of the food business I could get my raw milk....oh

wait...am I'm getting caught up in this thread?...hmmmm....the beer is

starting to have its effect. Best be signing off, LOL!

Liking

http://tinyurl.com/3d8n5

" They told just the same,

That just because a tyrant has the might

By force of arms to murder men downright

And burn down house and home and leave all flat

They call the man a captain, just for that.

But since an outlaw with his little band

Cannot bring half such mischief on the land

Or be the cause of so much harm and grief,

He only earns the title of a thief. "

--Geoffrey Chaucer, The Manciple's Tale

[Guest guest]

@@@@@@@@

>

Yes mighty has done well here. Anton <weg> might it be that our

own

> chastising at the hands of our minimalistic leader made us

sensitive to

> the inclusion of the POLITICS tag? <bsg>

@@@@@@@

Yes, Sleth*, the scars will never heal, but I'm a better person for

it

*I know you have another alibi, but this has been your " name " in my

mind for a long time, so I just had to use it...

@@@@@@@

You risk

> alienating many people in a way say the libertarian thread would

not.

@@@@@@@

[translation: nobody could possibly be offended by pie-in-the-sky

faff like the libertarian thread(s).]

@@@@@@

> I usually read all the off-topic posts eventually, which presents a

> great temptation to restart something that may have already settled

down

> (no Heidi, I'm leaving the libertarian thread alone for now, until

it

> rears its head again, LOL!).

@@@@@@@@

Ah, " leaving alone for now " , eh? So you don't want to admit that it

died a merciful death at the single sharp blow of my OBP (Odd-Berry

Principle)?

Mike

SE Pennsylvania

[Guest guest]

At 01:51 AM 2/27/2004, you wrote:

>Yes, Sleth*, the scars will never heal, but I'm a better person for

>it

>

>*I know you have another alibi, but this has been your " name " in my

>mind for a long time, so I just had to use it...

hee.

speaking of names, around the house i refer to the michaels, chris, and

paul as " the boys " ...my family comes into the office and sees me rolling my

eyes and ask " oh, the boys are at it again, huh? "

but i love you guys!

-katja

[Guest guest]

From: " Anton " :

> @@@@@@

> > Anyway, I'm realizing I'm one of a very few on this list who feels

> this

> > way, so I need to either decide to put up with it or leave the list.

> >

> > Thanks for sharing your thots.

> >

> > ~ Fern

> @@@@@@@

>

> Fern, you're probably in the majority with your feelings, but many

> people may not want to get involved with those kinds of topic on a

> public forum. I'd guess (I'm big on guessing) that something like 90%

> of this list shares your traditional Christian values.

Well, as someone with Christian values, that is of course encouraging. But

I imagine to the other 10% it's not.

I guess my thing is, on a list like this, why does that difference need to

matter? It really shouldn't with the topic at hand. And yet when comments

are allowed to be dropped as they are so often, it does become a matter of

significance to many.

I've been on lists where I had no idea what the religious or political

affiliation was of the people I was interacting with. And in many ways I'd

prefer that.

> I think it's

> just that the other 10% includes some prolific posters (and then

> there's who just likes to argue I think :-) ).

Me thinks so too. (Still like ya you're just exasperating to try

to " discuss " with! Of course, you may think the same of me. <g>)

> While I have a

> much more liberal take on that particular issue of gay marriage than

> you (and I have no idea what you guys have been discussing lately,

> although the subject lines make me nervous),

Trust me, they made me nervous too.

> I certainly hope you'll

> stick with the list and continue to share your outlook and NT

> experiences!

Thanks, Mike. Much appreciate the encouragement.

~ Fern

[Guest guest]

From: " Deb " :

> Hi fern,

>

> i agree with you, but being new to the list, i didn't want to say

> anything.

Hi Deb! Welcome to the NT list. It's a wild ride, sometimes exasperating

but always informative.

> what i;ve done is cancwel the digest, and just come to the board to

> read the messages. that way i can skip the politicals and just read

> what interests me.

It just seems to take so long to sort thru the posts on the site. I

think they could've set that up better, but I know they need to get their

ads in to pay for all our verbosity, so that likely contributes to the

cumbersomeness of their boards.

Thanks for your comments Deb!

~ Fern

[Guest guest]

From: " Sheryl " :

> Fern,

> You are not alone. . .I find light bantering entertaining. . .but many

times it get s abusive that is not fun or productive it exhausts me.

I agree, Sheryl. You've said it well. Thanks.

~ Fern

[Guest guest]

Fern wrote:

Trust me, they made me nervous too.

Fern,

I can usually just skip over the " junk " mail I get from this group. . .But the

Subject lines lately made me nervous too. . .Hate that!

Sheryl

Sheryl Illustrations

http://dovedesignsrus.com

[Guest guest]

From: <slethnobotanist@...>:

> Here! Here!!

shouldn't that be " Hear! Hear! " as in " listen to this! " ? It has always

bugged me when I see it spelled " here, " so I've FINALLY looked it up, and

sure enough it's " hear! hear! " It's a phrase that " originated in the

British parliament in the 18th century as a contraction of 'hear him, hear

him'. It is still often heard there although sometimes used ironically

these days. "

http://phrases.shu.ac.uk/meanings/178100.html

Anyway, just thot I'd throw that into the mix on this on topic/off topic

list.

> I think that is a pretty accurate assessment. My own problem with the

> topic as it is currently constituted is that it requires a level of

> detailed discussion such that you really can't do it justice on a

nutrition

> list, although contrary to some I think it is very much worthy of

> discussion, but is really futile on a list of this nature. You risk

> alienating many people in a way say the libertarian thread would not. In

> other words, as you say, not really " fair game in this context. "

But if you allow all kinds of other OT subjects and comments, then it's

hard to differentiate between what is truly " fair game in this context " and

what is not. BESIDES alienating those who don't have the time to sort thru

it all. Yes, one can hit the delete button but when you do it a zillion

times a day it eats up more time than you think.

~ Fern

[Guest guest]

At 11:07 AM 2/27/04 -0500, you wrote:

> Yes, one can hit the delete button but when you do it a zillion

> times a day it eats up more time than you think.

>

> ~ Fern

Actually, I find it kind of fun sometimes ... downloading 87 messages,

thinking " oh gosh, this is gonna take FOREVER to read! " , and finding that

by the time I've spent two or three minutes deleting ... VOILA! Only 30

to read! What a relief!

MFJ

In a world where nothing is truly reasonable, nothing can be truly mad.

~Ian Holm, The Advocate