Wiardgroup

Heh...you are right, I forgot about the good ol' cybernetics trap of
information content.  :-)

Regards,

Bill
______________________________________________________________________
 Bill Sequeira, Ph.D.
 Principal, Axon Hillock


> From: "drmabuce" <drmabuce@yahoo.com>
> Reply-To: wiardgroup@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2002 22:07:41 -0000
> To: wiardgroup@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [wiardgroup] re: web groups: salons OF erudition or walls of
> grafitti?
> 
> Hi All,
> To my great horror and embarrassment I discover that I misspelled
> my SUBJECT line…
> The ONE piece of text most often repeated-
> Oh well, lest I succumb to the sin of pride.
> 
> First off: THANKS
> Thanks to all of you who posted your thoughts so far
> And no less THANKS
> To those of you who have READ them…
> A receiver is just as much work as a transmitter
> 
> This expands on my motivation for the original post.
> It was the member list that moved me. I wanted to do something that
> would give us all something to READ; something with a little meat on
> the bone. And y'all have done us proud in no more than 24 hours!
> 
> Liquidcolor said:
> 
> It's a testament to the allure and  mystique of the Wiard modular that
> there are more members in this group than the Serge group.
> 
> !!! - that's interesting , and  my surmise is that this list is as
> deep as it is wide. I just sprinkled the surface with a little bit of
> food and look what surfaced!!!!!
> I observe that there are also many more members than there are
> 'customers' (and my inner Tom Poston urges me to theorize (at the risk
> of Grant's justifiable irritation) that this is a testament to the
> price of the modules) but I  think that non-Wiard folks have PLENTY to
> say about Wiard and it is to the benefit of everyone to hear it - most
> particularly the 'the designer'. IMO  The open nature of this group
> comprises it's greatest potential to do good. There was not a single
> response to my original post that did not contain something useful to
> me. 
> 
> 
> 
> Aurealialuz said:
> idiocy posted to the web is eternal now, i'm  sure as shit not going
> to try to negatively immortalize myself  anymore than i already have.
> 95% of my posts or replys to people get composed and then deleted.
> "oh, no one cares anyway and i'll  probably just end up looking
> stupid." 
> 
> Point taken. 
> These groups are publishing - plain and simple. And there is risk in
> exposing oneself. The comment above bowled me over with it's full-on
> honesty. Aurealiuz NAILS a serious issue there. How much of that 95%
> aborted posts would have helped a reader further down the food chain?
> On the other hand I've seen groups so submerged in trivial flotsam
> that syntht's ratio of:
> 
> "it's like mining diamonds (10 tons of earth moved per carat)."
> 
> Is generous.
> 
> Clearly balance is required for these forums to work.
> I submit that a strategy for balance could be founded on the
> principles of fair debate.
> 
> Bill said:
> A good critical exchange should leave both (or multiple) parties with
> valuable information of the points of view exchanged, and should
> enable them to choose in the future based on  info they did not have
> before. This enriches everyone.
> 
> This is great stuff. Herein contained is a pretty good litmus test for
> deciding whether to post a remark in a public forum. In a word:
> CONTENT. Is there INFORMATION in what you are about to say?
> 
> But dr…..
> Anything I think is information Right? Virtue or Vitriol-
> 
> In my view , if your opinion contains no information other than
> X=scumlicking imbecile, (especially if this august assertion is
> unsupported by evidence) then it contains no information  and I think
> that it should be confined to private channels. Now everything can be
> twisted semantically (even math)(!) but I believe that anyone who, in
> good faith, wishes to communicate and not merely insult can discern
> for themselves whether  a remark contains INFORMATION or not. I would
> add my own  clarification to Bill's remark above and that is that , in
> a public forum, one never knows what 'info they did not have before'
> and so the basics can't be repeated enough and anyone who sneers out
> loud at even the most trivial and basic contributions do great harm to
> the medium.
> 
> In deference to reality I make a BIG distinction between public forums
> and private email though. I feel that duty binds to participation in
> an open public forum. But, in the realm of private communication, I'm
> an anarchist. In that realm (to quote Henry V): "a man's soul's his
> own"
> 
> With the barest tap on the faucet this group produced a whole pond of
> ideas overnight. My personal opinion is that Grant started Wiard as a
> message in a bottle to find out if anyone is out there. If nothing
> else, this thread proves that we are out here and there are a LOT of
> bottles in the water.
> Thanks again for proving it
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> wiardgroup-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> 
> 
> 
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> 
> 
>