Stathis, you are close to have written what I wanted to add to Russell's outcry. I wrote some time ago to Roger asking him to "give back our list" - to no avail. Now I would add only one 'catch'phrase of Russell to your invaluable post: ..."*the list has been remarkably troll-free*...." implying that whoever disregards WeiDai's initiatives does misuse his generosity in maintaining the list. I went through crises on other lists generated by closed minded religious terrorists and most lists survived. I hope this one will as well, in spite of much discussion I really do not understand with my limited science.
John Mikes Ph.D.(chem) D.Sc.(polymers) and for the past 3 decades a (ret.) homespun agnostic philosopher. On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 5:05 AM, Stathis Papaioannou <stath...@gmail.com>wrote: > On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 12:46 PM, Kim Jones <kimjo...@ozemail.com.au> > wrote: > > I'm getting a bit jack of this term "metadiscussion" becuse it only ever > gets applied to what other people are choosing to discuss. People talk > about what people want to talk about. It's about taste, perception, > preference and prejudice. Even WITH rigidly adhered-to rules and > conventions, this still applies. The challenge is to take WHATEVER is > spoken about and MAKE that relevant somehow (to whatever you want to make > it relevant to). That's harder, more interesting and dare I say it - more > relevant a process than simply corralling all thinking under one topic or > heading. As soon as you start to set up rules, conventions and expectations > the population divides into those who feel that it is to their advantage to > play by the "rules" and those who believe that this is a constraint. This > list is remarkably troll-free. For that very reason I see no need to > restrict what is spoken of. The ensemble theories of everything probably > won't come from the brains of those who are exclusively obsessed by these > things anyway since by now their perception is circular and their belief > supports their belief. You need random thinkers, people who will break the > local equilibrium and who will introduce the creative concept of "idea > movement" from time to time. > > I like the idea of a moderator-free list, but nonetheless I agree with > Russell. The list was set up with a particular purpose in mind but in > the last few months the range of discussion topics has changed > radically. The Internet is large and there are plenty of other forums > in which to discuss politics and religion. Could we return to the old > list please? > > > -- > Stathis Papaioannou > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
