[FRIAM] Friam Norms of Thread Bending

[thompnickson2 at gmail.com]

Three comments: 

While I accept (and enact) the general rule that threads will be bent and we shouldn't get our knickers in a twist about it, I don't think that precludes a request from one of us not to bend a particular thread. 
On what planet is "please" coercive? 
You-guys aren't, by any chance, confusing Deconstruction, Reconstruction, and Destruction?


Nick Thompson
ThompNickSon2 at gmail.com
https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/

-----Original Message-----
From: Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com> On Behalf Of Marcus Daniels
Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2021 12:27 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam at redfish.com>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] WAS Friday Fodder IS NOW: dangly bits

Oh, I was thinking of people that just forward some other document, presumably one they agree with.   Then they are startled  when it gets deconstructed.

-----Original Message-----
From: Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com> On Behalf Of u?l? ???
Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2021 11:16 AM
To: friam at redfish.com
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] WAS Friday Fodder IS NOW: dangly bits

Well, to be fair, construction is more difficult than destruction (though perhaps not more difficult than de-construction). So if an OP submits a construct, especially one that's easy to tear down in a disrespectful way, it's competent practice to be gentle and precise when making one's incisions. 

But what I see, mostly, is people who simply want to talk and enjoy the sounds of their own voice, their own subject, their own universe of discourse [⛧], which always nudges a good faith critic back onto their heels. So, competent criticism in wild and woolly fora like this one often comes in the form of blunt rejection of OP premises.


[⛧] Tu quoque warning! Just because I'm a hypocrite doesn't mean I'm wrong.

On 3/23/21 10:45 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
> I've had several experiences in the working world where people do seem to give special status to the original post.   In the politically correct view, the original post is one where we can reflect on its wisdom (and sometimes apply thumbs-up or smiley-face emoticons) but it is awkward and frowned upon to question any premises in the referenced article!   To me it all seems like a coercive way to control conversations.   
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com> On Behalf Of u?l? ???
> Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2021 10:28 AM
> To: friam at redfish.com
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] WAS Friday Fodder IS NOW: dangly bits
> 
> Oooooooh! A refusal to eat one's own dog food <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eating_your_own_dog_food>. That's a heinous crime!
> 
> A complete conversation about spandrels must include thread bending.
> 
> On 3/23/21 10:17 AM, thompnickson2 at gmail.com wrote:
>> “Tangential”  would seem to  understate the case.  Please reply here 
>> if you want to talk about Arnold’s dangly bitsl  Please please do not gum up a perfectly good conversation about spandrels.


--
↙↙↙ uǝlƃ

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/