Did the CSGNet server die? Or is everyone paralyzed by conflict over something?
[From Rick Marken (2004.09.24.1730)]
Sep 24, 2004 2:02:33 Bruce Nevin write:
Did the CSGNet server die?
Apparently not. I got this.
Or is everyone paralyzed by conflict over something?
I think we may be paralyzed by lack of conflict. The one nice thing
about having hostile people posting to CSGNet is that they push on
one's controlled perceptions pretty hard, making posting a reply as
natural as protecting oneself from falling off a log.
I will say that I've recently heard an awful lot of self -described
economics experts declaring, all over the media, that all these tax
cuts for the wealthy are necessary to keep businesses investing so that
the economy grows and produces jobs. And that repeal of these tax cuts
will drive us into recession. It's kind of fun to watch, but depressing
when I think about the actual human consequences of beliefs that are
not only unfounded but directly contradicted by evidence.
I bet that'll pick things up;-)
Regards
Rick
···
---
Richard S. Marken
marken@mindreadings.com
Home 310 474-0313
Cell 310 729-1400
[From Bruce Nevin (2004.09.24 20:50 EDT)]
Rick Marken (2004.09.24.1730)--
···
At 05:32 PM 9/24/2004 -0700, Rick Marken wrote:
Sep 24, 2004 2:02:33 Bruce Nevin write:
Did the CSGNet server die?
Apparently not. I got this.
Or is everyone paralyzed by conflict over something?
I think we may be paralyzed by lack of conflict.
Actually, I was hoping for more discussion of Bruce Abbott's excellent
proposal. Maybe even some people saying "Yeah. I agree to that." How about
you? Surely conflict isn't the only occasion for comment!
/Bruce Nevin
[From Rick Marken (2004.09.24.1930)]
Bruce Nevin (2004.09.24 20:50 EDT)
Actually, I was hoping for more discussion of Bruce Abbott's excellent
proposal. Maybe even some people saying "Yeah. I agree to that." How
about
you? Surely conflict isn't the only occasion for comment!
No. Not conflict. But a disturbance to something I'm controlling (which
is not always a result of conflict) helps. What was Bruce Abbott's
proposal? I guess it didn't disturb anything enough to get me to post.
Regards
Rick
···
---
Richard S. Marken
marken@mindreadings.com
Home 310 474-0313
Cell 310 729-1400
[From Bryan Thalhammer (2004.09.25.0730)]
Rick,
Right you are! I had a big dose of control system effects when I went to
visit my doc yesterday. There seem to be big disturbances regarding the
reference levels of perceptions in the "economic," "moral," and "patriotism"
out there!!!
When you push a control system... it pushes back! Right you are!
--Bryan Thalhammer
Norridge, IL
···
[Rick Marken (2004.09.24.1730)]
Sep 24, 2004 2:02:33 Bruce Nevin write:
> Did the CSGNet server die?
Apparently not. I got this.
> Or is everyone paralyzed by conflict over something?
I think we may be paralyzed by lack of conflict. The one nice thing
about having hostile people posting to CSGNet is that they push on
one's controlled perceptions pretty hard, making posting a reply as
natural as protecting oneself from falling off a log.I will say that I've recently heard an awful lot of self -described
economics experts declaring, all over the media, that all these tax
cuts for the wealthy are necessary to keep businesses investing so that
the economy grows and produces jobs. And that repeal of these tax cuts
will drive us into recession. It's kind of fun to watch, but depressing
when I think about the actual human consequences of beliefs that are
not only unfounded but directly contradicted by evidence.I bet that'll pick things up;-)
Regards
Rick
---
Richard S. Marken
marken@mindreadings.com
Home 310 474-0313
Cell 310 729-1400
[From Bruce Nevin (2004.09.25 10:54 EDT)]
[From Rick Marken (2004.09.24.1930)]
Bruce Nevin (2004.09.24 20:50 EDT)
Actually, I was hoping for more discussion of Bruce Abbott's excellent
proposal. Maybe even some people saying "Yeah. I agree to that."
Reference: Bruce Abbott (2004.09.18.1030 EST)
How about you? Surely conflict isn't the only occasion for comment!
No. Not conflict. But a disturbance to something I'm controlling (which
is not always a result of conflict) helps. What was Bruce Abbott's
proposal? I guess it didn't disturb anything enough to get me to post.
Another reason to post is ongoing control. I guess you're not controlling
what you appeared to be controlling (along with the rest of us) at the last
business meeting a couple of months ago in Chicago.
/Bruce Nevin
···
At 07:32 PM 9/24/2004 -0700, Rick Marken wrote:
[From Rick Marken (2004.09.25.0840)]
Bruce Nevin (2004.09.25 10:54 EDT)
Reference: Bruce Abbott (2004.09.18.1030 EST)
OK. Here's Bruce A.'s basic proposals:
1. No personal attacks on others.
2. No foul or obscene language.
I think these are fine. I'd rather go with principles than with rules.
Principles like "respect for others", "intellectual curiosity" and
"scientific integrity" would be enough for me.
Another reason to post is ongoing control. I guess you're not
controlling
what you appeared to be controlling (along with the rest of us) at the
last
business meeting a couple of months ago in Chicago.
I'm still controlling for an improved tone and higher intellectual
quality for posts to CSGNet. But the main disturbances to that
perception have disappeared so I'm not that interested in doing
anything about them at the moment. I'm sure the same or new
disturbances will eventually resurface and we'll have to rethink
moderating the list again.
Regards
Rick
···
---
Richard S. Marken
marken@mindreadings.com
Home 310 474-0313
Cell 310 729-1400
[FRom Dick Robertson, 2004.09.25.1825CDT]
···
From: Bruce Nevin bnevin@CISCO.COM
Date: Friday, September 24, 2004 7:51 pm
Subject: Re: hello?
[From Bruce Nevin (2004.09.24 20:50 EDT)]
Actually, I was hoping for more discussion of Bruce Abbott’s excellent
proposal. Maybe even some people saying “Yeah. I agree to that.”
How about you? Surely conflict isn’t the only occasion for comment!
I guess I could agree to it, pending on how it turns out in actual practice.
Best,
Dick R
[From Bruce Nevin (2004.09.25 22:13 EDT)]
Dick Robertson, 2004.09.25.1825CDT
I guess I could agree to it, pending on how it turns out in actual practice.
I was having a little trouble parsing this. I suggests that if someone
makes a personal attack or uses obscene or vulgar language you might
withdraw your agreement. I don't think it means that you reserve the right
to reciprocate in kind, that would be out of character for you.
Maybe you're thinking of the notorious difficulty of defining these things?
But I still can't quite parse how your agreement is conditional on how it
turns out in practice.
/Bruce Nevin
···
At 06:23 PM 9/25/2004 -0500, Robertson Richard wrote:
From Dick Robertson, 2004.09.26.1640CDT
···
From: Bruce Nevin bnevin@CISCO.COM
Date: Saturday, September 25, 2004 9:13 pm
Subject: Re: hello?
[From Bruce Nevin (2004.09.25 22:13 EDT)]
Dick Robertson, 2004.09.25.1825CDT
At 06:23 PM 9/25/2004 -0500, Robertson Richard wrote:I guess I could agree to it, pending on how it turns out in
actual practice.I was having a little trouble parsing this. I suggests that if someone
makes a personal attack or uses obscene or vulgar language you might
withdraw your agreement. I don’t think it means that you reserve
the right
to reciprocate in kind, that would be out of character for you.Maybe you’re thinking of the notorious difficulty of defining
these things?
Yes, in the sense that I have grown very sensitive to unintended consequences (I reviewed all kinds of them in my book, you might recall). So, I intended to say that if the results turn out to be something I didn’t anticipate and am not happy with, I would reconsider. I had already solved the problem for myself with the delete key. It does take some self discipline to stick with a resolve that says, “based on sufficient past experience I’m not even going to have a peak at this person’s posting anymore.” That seemed to be the fatal hangup that some of our members foundered upon.
Any clearer?
Best,
Dick R
[From Bruce Nevin (2004.09.26 19:40 EDT)]
Dick Robertson, 2004.09.26.1640 CDT --
Yes, in the sense that I have grown very sensitive to unintended
consequences (I reviewed all kinds of them in my book, you might recall).
I am embarrassed to say that I haven't yet read your book (the copy that I
bought from you in Chicago), though it is at the top of the waiting stack.
This comment whets my interest even more!
So, I intended to say that if the results turn out to be something I
didn't anticipate and am not happy with, I would reconsider.
So you agree not engage in personal attacks or to use foul or obscene
language in your CSGNet posts, but if you are unhappy with the results you
would reconsider and feel free to send such messages after all?
Any clearer?
That seems clear, yes. But I'm not convinced I've got it right. It sounds
like you have some desired results in mind, but if so I'm not able to
imagine them. But let be. I don't really need to know. I was just trying to
understand.
/Bruce Nevin
···
At 04:41 PM 9/26/2004 -0500, Robertson Richard wrote:
[From Bjorn Simonsen (2004.09.27,09:00 EST)]
From Dick Robertson, 2004.09.26.1640CDT
>Yes, in the sense that I have grown very sensitive to
>unintended consequences.
> Any clearer?
I think Bruce Abbot's proposals are PCT-ish.
> Reference: Bruce Abbott (2004.09.18.1030 EST)
> 1. No personal attacks on others.
>
> 2. No foul or obscene language.
They are PCT-ish because personal attacks very often are mentions about the
attacked person's actions. We know people don't control their actions, they
control their perceptions.
Therefore a PCT-er doesn't attack other.
Of course we can attack others references.
Here I agree with "I will fight for your right to say what you mean, even if
I don't agree with your meanings".
Maybe Bruce Abbot should revise his first rule to:
1. No personal attics on others actions.
And we know that the sender of obscene language neither control his/her
actions.
Including Bruce Abbot's rules will change the ground we live on. It is as we
put up a wall we afterwards have to walk around. We have to reorganize. And
it is possible for everyone to wish a new reference; "I wish to re-read all
mails I send and eliminate obscene language.
I support Bruce Abbot's proposals.
bjorn
[From Dick Robertson, 2004.09.27.0920CDT]
···
From: Bruce Nevin bnevin@CISCO.COM
Date: Sunday, September 26, 2004 6:41 pm
Subject: Re: hello?
[From Bruce Nevin (2004.09.26 19:40 EDT)]
Dick Robertson, 2004.09.26.1640 CDT –
At 04:41 PM 9/26/2004 -0500, Robertson Richard wrote:Yes, in the sense that I have grown very sensitive to unintended
consequences (I reviewed all kinds of them in my book, you might
recall).
I am embarrassed to say that I haven’t yet read your book (the
copy that I
bought from you in Chicago), though it is at the top of the
waiting stack.
This comment whets my interest even more!
Good.
So, I intended to say that if the results turn out to be
something I
didn’t anticipate and am not happy with, I would reconsider.So you agree not engage in personal attacks or to use foul or obscene
language in your CSGNet posts, but if you are unhappy with the
results you
would reconsider and feel free to send such messages after all?
You’re pulling my leg, aren’t you? Can you cite any instance where I have ever used foul or obscene language in one of my posts?
Any clearer?
That seems clear, yes. But I’m not convinced I’ve got it right. It
soundslike you have some desired results in mind, but if so I’m
not able to
imagine them. But let be. I don’t really need to know. I was just
trying to
understand.
Since, by definition, I can’t anticipate unintended consequences, my statement that, should there be any, I would reconsider my stand on what kind of rules I would or wouldn’t like to see applied on CSGnet, I can’t predict in advance the outcome of any reconsidering that I would do.
Best,
Dick
[From Bruce Nevin (2004.09.26 19:40 EDT)]
Dick Robertson, 2004.09.27.0920CDT --
You're pulling my leg, aren't you? Can you cite any instance where I have
ever used foul or obscene language in one of my posts?
Like I said, totally out of character. I agree. That's why I was puzzled.
> >Any clearer?
>
> That seems clear, yes. But I'm not convinced I've got it right. It
> soundslike you have some desired results in mind, but if so I'm
> not able to
> imagine them. But let be. I don't really need to know. I was just
> trying to
> understand.Since, by definition, I can't anticipate unintended consequences, my
statement that, should there be any, I would reconsider my stand on what
kind of rules I would or wouldn't like to see applied on CSGnet, I can't
predict in advance the outcome of any reconsidering that I would do.
Ah! I thought you were talking about your agreement to avoid personal
attack or foul language (an agreement which I agree seems redundant in your
case). Now I see you were talking about your stand on what kind of rules we
should have. Two different levels (a confusion of logical types).
Failure of this to work would not lead you to withdraw your agreement, but
could lead you to reconsider your stand.
Sorry to be so dense.
/Bruce Nevin
···
At 09:22 AM 9/27/2004 -0500, Robertson Richard wrote:
[From Dick Robertson, 2004.09.28.1255CDT]
···
From: Bruce Nevin bnevin@CISCO.COM
Date: Monday, September 27, 2004 3:57 pm
Subject: Re: hello?
[From Bruce Nevin (2004.09.26 19:40 EDT)]
Dick Robertson, 2004.09.27.0920CDT –
At 09:22 AM 9/27/2004 -0500, Robertson Richard wrote:You’re pulling my leg, aren’t you? Can you cite any instance
where I have
ever used foul or obscene language in one of my posts?Like I said, totally out of character. I agree. That’s why I was
puzzled.Any clearer?
That seems clear, yes. But I’m not convinced I’ve got it
right. …
Since, by definition, I can’t anticipate unintended consequences, my
statement that, should there be any, I would reconsider my stand
on what
kind of rules I would or wouldn’t like to see applied on CSGnet,
I can’t
predict in advance the outcome of any reconsidering that I would do.Ah! I thought you were talking about your agreement to avoid personal
attack or foul language (an agreement which I agree seems
redundant in your
case). Now I see you were talking about your stand on what kind of
rules we
should have. Two different levels (a confusion of logical types).Failure of this to work would not lead you to withdraw your
agreement, but
could lead you to reconsider your stand.
Right
Sorry to be so dense.
Quite the contrary. I appreciate your sticking with it until I made myself clear. Since I have some literary aspirations, it is very good exercise to learn how I might be coming across.
Best,
Dick