At the very minimum, nick wants to take an email exchange and render it as a "correspondence", in the classic literary sense: i.e., in the order in which it was written. Because all the messages would be on the page in front of you, no quotation would be necessary, except possibly in the case of larding. Because Nick is a lazy old coot, he wants the software to do most of the work for him. He then intends to strip away all the identifying material and fatten his purse by publishing your good ideas under his own name. Now is that clear?
Conceptually, this is easy as pied. In point of fact, because of all the quotation, it is next to impossible. Nick Nicholas S. Thompson Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology Clark University http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/ -----Original Message----- From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Steven A Smith Sent: Friday, October 28, 2016 4:11 PM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam@redfish.com> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] THREAD BENDING ALERT: Was "Is Bezos a Bozo?" IS NOW"Reading Email exchanges chronologically" Glen - > Just to help ensure my sanity, my email subject window looks like this: > > <https://goo.gl/photos/thJWHVxy8cfPv3Qq7> https://goo.gl/photos/thJWHVxy8cfPv3Qq7 > > I've always assumed everyone else's does too... So, when one looks at > the content of a mailing list like this, they can _see_ trees of > threads, right? If not, I highly recommend a modern client. 8^) It > helps a lot. I agree... but I think many/most don't see this view and I don't believe many will obtain one soon nor easily. > Maybe you can tell me how "Nick is wanting" structures your thoughts > different from "Nick wants"? I think it is my perceived tentativeness of what I think Nick wants... meaning I'm not sure he knows what he wants or understands the implications of what he wants. I'm not sure about the grammatical or semantic roots of this (why I use "is wanting" over "wants") but it is interesting to me that you can call it out so clearly. Unfortunately I am probably conflating or convolving my own unsureness of what I *think* Nicks wants into what I believe to be his own lack of clarity... For contrast, I think I would be MUCH less likely to use the same phrasing to describe my understanding of what I *think* YOU want... or Marcus... or many others here who have a crisper sense of confidence in what you are asking/suggesting. Our patron St. Stephen of Guerin, I am *much* more likely to use "he is wanting".... perhaps Renee's "I am wanting" vs "I want" reflects some of this same ambiguity of detail? If she were more precise in her own mind about what she wants, might she be more likely to use the more assertive? Hey Nick! Don't you love it when people talk about you like you aren't here? - Steve ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe <http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com> http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
