[FRIAM] [dis]integrated

[uǝlƃ ☤>$]

Ha! Don't make the mistake of thinking because I act one way, my actions are an attempt to control your actions. You do whatever floats your listing boat. I was explaining my is→ought inference, not yours.

However, to whatever extent another finds my laid out rhetoric plausible, they are free to refer to it or steal it or ridicule it at their leisure. A difference between a pithy witty chat-oriented post and a long-winded rhetorically and contextually rich post is that it is *easier* to steal or refer to the latter. Those who tend to assume a shared, implicit inter-subjectivity produce less referencable, less copyable, less criticizable artifacts.

An employee of mine once claimed "you don't understand my process". My response was simply, "well, if I don't see at least sporadic interim artifacts, I'll never understand your process. Similarly, many of the students and postdocs I interact with simply refuse to commit broken (not finished) code to a repository. They post semi-reports of "results", if we're generous, but what in hell am I supposed to do with that garbage? At the very least, post an entire narrative. Those of us who know narrativity is a hallmark of self delusion won't *believe* your narrative. But at least we can parse the damned thing.

On 10/12/21 1:36 PM, Frank Wimberly wrote:
> Why should any particular forum adhere to a set of rules or some arbitrary
> definition?  In the CS Department at Carnegie Mellon there was the Opinion
> Bboard.  The rule was that anything goes.  A discussion of erotic fantasies
> (euphemism) emerged.  A woman who was a high level administrator became
> offended.  She posted, "who cares about what turns you kaboom dickheads
> on?" (euphemism)  Unfortunately she posted that pithy question to the
> General Bboard, which was for announcing seminars, visiting speakers, etc.
> Anyway, Opinion was the most followed Bboard, among dozens, in that
> community, I believe.
> 
> ---
> Frank C. Wimberly
> 140 Calle Ojo Feliz,
> Santa Fe, NM 87505
> 
> 505 670-9918
> Santa Fe, NM
> 
> On Tue, Oct 12, 2021, 1:58 PM uǝlƃ ☤>$ <gepropella at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> Well, similar to your "why must I mean all that" reaction to my past
>> attempt at some kind of state space reconstruction of a pithy post from
>> you, I can construct *many* generative models for your "Matters to
>> what/whom?" post. But if it'll simply end with another pithy rejection of
>> whatever I reconstruct, it feels like a waste of time. It's safe to assume
>> I'm never on the same wavelength. The problem with communication is the
>> illusion that it exists.
>>
>> I could make yet another post to the mailing list asking "what does that
>> mean?" ... but that's not optimal because: a) you don't retain message
>> threading and don't quote much of the prior content and b) email fora are
>> not chat, as I've argued a lot before and don't need to argue again. So,
>> chatty posts to fora like FriAM exhibit a misunderstanding of what email
>> fora (or usenet etc) are and what they're fit-to-purpose usage patterns
>> facilitate.
>>
>> I feel like it might be appropriate to have a Discord or IRC channel for
>> pithy chat. It might be appealing to those who also like the Zoom meetings
>> or maybe even the in person meetings at the coffee shop. But those are less
>> interesting to me. I post here because I like contextually laden posts. I
>> give SteveS a lot of guff for his bloviating posts. 8^D But I like them.
>> Both he and EricS make full posts and tend toward less chatty, witty
>> repartee.
>>
>> On 10/12/21 12:12 PM, Jon Zingale wrote:
>>> "Bah. I understand it can be fun to troll. But if you can't make at least
>>> an attempt to avoid blankface pithiness, I can't respond."
>>>
>>> Sorry, I thought we were one something like the same wavelength there.
>> Care
>>> to expand? Feel free to call me if you imagine that I am in anything but
>>> good faith chatting with you now.


-- 
"Better to be slapped with the truth than kissed with a lie."
☤>$ uǝlƃ