[MD] Changes in 2011

[rapsncows at fastmail.fm]

Dan,

On Wed, 5 Jan 2011 11:03:59 -0600, "Dan Glover" <daneglover at gmail.com>
said:
> Hi Tim
> 
> My suggestions are aimed at the moq.focus discussion, which was
> conceived as a more deliberate and focused way of exploring Robert
> Pirsig's work.

[Tim]
whoops!  My bad, thanks for setting me straight.

> [Dan] It has been tried several times over the past few years
> but it seemed to always flounder and fail in the end.

[Tim]
this is an interesting fact though.  I hope I can say this and have it
come out cleanly.  I mean no offense or anything to anyone by it.  It is
just that my experience here has led me to think that it would be real
tough to maintain that kind of focused exploration over a long period. 
So it seems to make sense.


> [Dan]
>[SNIP]
> It is my opinion that this might lend a sense of urgency that
> otherwise is lacking... that members might take it more seriously and
> put deeper thought into what they are saying, and why.

[Tim]
did you think that my suggestion about a 'highly concentrated'
designation for certain threads might help towards this, in the 'open'
forum?

> [Dan] The limited
> membership would mean less traffic, less "noise" if you will. lt has
> been relatively quiet of late but when things really get going, it is
> easy to get lost, believe me.

[Tim]
I'll believe you!  I can start to imagine it too.  But it seems there is
a natural, self-corrective dynamic that should reduce the noise level
before too long.  Unless of course there was a large bath of malicious
individuals intent on corrupting and destroying the forum (it would have
to be large enough because a malicious lone-wolf would tire himself out
before too long - one can only energize himself so much with
destruction.  And, for reference, if such a situation were to arise, it
seems wisdom would suggest the best way, if it can be tolerated, is to
let him die a natural death).

> 
> [Dan] Now, I never joined the old focus discussions myself. I disliked
> having to restrict my writings to the moderated topic. It never
> appealed to me. And I really don't know if I would join now, to be
> honest, although if Horse and others saw some value in pursuing it, I
> might give it a try. If I am allowed to join, of course...

[Tim]
thanks for the honest admission therein.

> 
> [Dam] As far as topics go, I pretty much shy away from religion and
> politics. But I am intrigued by Horse's mention of the MOQ and
> politics, as I can see some real value there, if members stay away
> from left wing/right wing bullshit, which has been the problem in the
> past. I would like to explore the ramifications of how Quality can
> effect changes at a basic grassroots level when it comes to politics,
> and how this affects us all in everyday ways.

[Tim]
hmmmm...  it sounds as if there is good potential for an interesting
discussion brewing, on basic grassroots level ... politics.


> 
> Anyway, it is good to hear from you, Tim, and here's hoping you stick
> around a while,
> 
> Dan
> 

Thanks, Dan, I appreciate that,
Tim
-- 
  
  rapsncows at fastmail.fm

-- 
http://www.fastmail.fm - Email service worth paying for. Try it for free