[MD] Changes in 2011

[rapsncows at fastmail.fm]

Ian,


On Tue, 4 Jan 2011 07:11:51 +0000, "Ian Glendinning"
<ian.glendinning at gmail.com> said:
> Hi Tim, a long mail ...

[Tim]
yes.  I took the liberty to dump a bunch of stuff on your lap.

> [Ian]
> I didn't mention anyone specifically,

[Tim]
Okay, now I get the point of you 'xxxx' which replaced 'Marsha'


>[Ian] but all I can say is it's a
> pragmatic matter of balance. I count myself firmly amongst the misfits

[Tim]
You had a bunch of posts after this one I replied to earlier.  I read
some of them.  I saw then that you too might be a misfit!

> [Ian].... but we can't ALL be misfits, and life's too short to give credit
> (and hope of progress) to literally every contributor ....

[Tim]
hmmmm...  about the 'hope of progress' that is.  First, Marsha wasn't
just any misfit.  Second, if I use your definition of 'progress' from
below, then, by definition, she provided a great deal of 'progress'.

> [Ian] Horse is
> sincere with his patience in giving people plenty of time and
> opportunity to react to issues expressed, but ultimately as I said
> life's too short for a single moderator or for endless repetition over
> many years.

[Tim]
It is Horse's forum so even if he weren't sincere or patient, that's
okay too.  Anyway, your assessment seems reasonably fair to me;
certainly I have no grounds with which to contradict you.  But I stick
to my conclusion that he has significantly diminished the Quality of the
current make-up of this HIS forum by trouncing Marsha.  And I still see
little motivation for his having done so: what other than the fact that
he was done with her?  I just think that he had a momentary myopia, that
he significantly undervalued Marsha, and that we are all worse off for
it.

> 
> [Ian] Progress is whatever experience evolves out of the dynamic balance. DQ
> needs sq too. No confused pre-conceptions, or over-riding question to
> answer upfront.

[Tim]
so 'progress' is whatever happens?!  By definition, then, Marsha could
not have hindered progress, and, what's more, must have contributed
significantly to the 'progress' that IS occurring here.  (Or are you
saying that the sq that Marsha brought was not 'evolved'?)

> 
> Two meta-issues.
> 
> What to make of my responding ? Nothing formal. I'm just very
> sympathetic to Horse's role, since I experience the issues first hand
> in the management of several other social media forums in other
> organizations and history of email flame-wars. Selecting one quality
> pattern is always at the expense of another - that's why these are
> hard choices and must be part of a process. Oh, and I'm very
> opinionated ;-)

[Tim]
first, the pattern that was chosen seems to be 'not-Marsha'; and I don't
see how that is higher quality than 'Marsha'.  I am baffled.  I can
imagine situations in which Horse would have to exercise his executive
authority: it's just, how does Marsha come anywhere close?

second, 'sympathetic to Horse's role': that seems to tie it together. 
Thanks.

> 
> [Ian] Responding to the rest of your long mail Tim ? Hmmm. I'm not sure I
> really know who you are or where you're coming from (yet), so I am
> keeping you at arms length, so to speak. No offense taken or intended.
> 
> Ian

[Tim]
no offense intended or taken on my part either.

Tim
-- 
  
  rapsncows at fastmail.fm

-- 
http://www.fastmail.fm - A no graphics, no pop-ups email service