Michael Baldwin, Bruce
November 23rd 06, 11:48 AM
Peewee AKA Peter J Ross wrote:
> On Fri, 17 Nov 2006 16:00:05 -0600, Tim Skirvin
> > wrote in news.groups:
>
> > Peter J Ross > writes:
> >
> >>> Actually, I'd like clarification this too, Peter - are you looking
> >>> for wide-scale collaboration, for better documentation, or for something
> >>> else?
> >
> >> I'm looking for a section of your site in which anybody willing to
> >> register a username and password can post anything they want to post.
> >
> > That's a solution, and I'm not asking about those. What I'm
> > interested in is what your *problem* is - what are you trying to do? -
> > and not how you're trying to get there.
>
> I'm trying to give ordinary Usenet users (the worthless scum on whom
> you like to trample) a voice.
>
> Since you've voted to deny them a voice on Usenet, maybe they can have
> a voice on the Wiki?
>
> > What do you want users to get out of the B8MB wiki that they
> > can't get out of it now?
>
> Participation. That's what I want them to be allowed to have.
>
> >> A real wiki, IOW.
> >
> > In your opinion.
>
> <this is a David Tholen moment>
On what basis do you make that k'lame, Peewee?
> >> Do you really not find the idea interesting?
> >
> > I do find it kindof interesting, but not enough to endorse
> > actually doing it on our equipment. If somebody else set it up in
> > parallel, I'd probably poke at it.
>
> You're missing the point, perhaps on purpose.
>
> The point is that DISSENT IS ALLOWED even on your website.
So you wish to disallow dissent, Peewee? No surprise there, really.
> >> Are you sure that vandals would prevail?
> >
> > Fairly sure, yes, but it'd be an interesting run.
>
> So why not try it?
Irrelevant, Peewee.
> >> Either discuss my suggestion or make it clear that you're discussing a
> >> different suggestion of your own, please.
> >
> > Err, your suggestion isn't allowed to evolve? I guess that if you
> > really are making a suggestion just to prove a point, and not to actually
> > try to improve things, that's a reasonable position to take. Me, I'm here
> > to try to improve things.
>
> You snipped silently again.
"Clasic".
> Me, I'm here to try to improve things too, but I temporarily forget
> that forcing you to resign is the first essential step. Without you,
> ******s like Kamens would be easy to dispose of. The problem is that,
> unlike Kamens, you're not a moron, so I'm tempted to try to have
> rational discussion with you from time to time.
>
> Please renew my kooksite listing.
Non sequitur.
> On Fri, 17 Nov 2006 16:00:05 -0600, Tim Skirvin
> > wrote in news.groups:
>
> > Peter J Ross > writes:
> >
> >>> Actually, I'd like clarification this too, Peter - are you looking
> >>> for wide-scale collaboration, for better documentation, or for something
> >>> else?
> >
> >> I'm looking for a section of your site in which anybody willing to
> >> register a username and password can post anything they want to post.
> >
> > That's a solution, and I'm not asking about those. What I'm
> > interested in is what your *problem* is - what are you trying to do? -
> > and not how you're trying to get there.
>
> I'm trying to give ordinary Usenet users (the worthless scum on whom
> you like to trample) a voice.
>
> Since you've voted to deny them a voice on Usenet, maybe they can have
> a voice on the Wiki?
>
> > What do you want users to get out of the B8MB wiki that they
> > can't get out of it now?
>
> Participation. That's what I want them to be allowed to have.
>
> >> A real wiki, IOW.
> >
> > In your opinion.
>
> <this is a David Tholen moment>
On what basis do you make that k'lame, Peewee?
> >> Do you really not find the idea interesting?
> >
> > I do find it kindof interesting, but not enough to endorse
> > actually doing it on our equipment. If somebody else set it up in
> > parallel, I'd probably poke at it.
>
> You're missing the point, perhaps on purpose.
>
> The point is that DISSENT IS ALLOWED even on your website.
So you wish to disallow dissent, Peewee? No surprise there, really.
> >> Are you sure that vandals would prevail?
> >
> > Fairly sure, yes, but it'd be an interesting run.
>
> So why not try it?
Irrelevant, Peewee.
> >> Either discuss my suggestion or make it clear that you're discussing a
> >> different suggestion of your own, please.
> >
> > Err, your suggestion isn't allowed to evolve? I guess that if you
> > really are making a suggestion just to prove a point, and not to actually
> > try to improve things, that's a reasonable position to take. Me, I'm here
> > to try to improve things.
>
> You snipped silently again.
"Clasic".
> Me, I'm here to try to improve things too, but I temporarily forget
> that forcing you to resign is the first essential step. Without you,
> ******s like Kamens would be easy to dispose of. The problem is that,
> unlike Kamens, you're not a moron, so I'm tempted to try to have
> rational discussion with you from time to time.
>
> Please renew my kooksite listing.
Non sequitur.