SIGIA-L Mail Archives: Re: SIGIA-L: This is not a directly IA r
Re: SIGIA-L: This is not a directly IA related post. <anquish>Why Can't We All Just Get Along?!?</anguish>
From: Adam or Susan Polansky (adamp_at_concentric.net)
Date: Mon Nov 19 2001 - 14:52:21 EST
With freedom comes responsability. I don't know who I'm quoting but with
the open communication that we love comes the need to discriminate on our
own. I've been on the list since its inception. Sometimes there are
threads that don't interest me because they may not be particularly relevant
to me or because I dislike those times when the argument does denegrate into
an "I'm-right-your-wrong and to prove it I'll publically question your
intelligence" scenario. That said, I've not seen it all that often and when
I do, I prefer to separate the wheat from the chaff myself.
We're smart people and I hope not easily offended given the environment
where most of us work. For myself, my time is not so valuable that I need
someone else to decide what I'm exposed to, how much and where the value
lies. Discerning for myself what is useful is the price I pay for the
timely insight and useful information that is the typical fare of SIGIA-L
(even if it is sometimes couched indelicately). I also wouldn't want to
commit anyone to policing our discourse. It's a dirty job that most people
wouldn't want and I would hold suspect the motives of anyone who did.
Someone said that you can decide what to read (for the most part) from the
subject line. Doesn't that sound a little like "If you don't like what's on
TV, change the channel"? Good advice I think.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tim Salam" <ia_at_timsalam.com>
To: "ia list" <sigia-l_at_mail.asis.org>
Sent: Monday, November 19, 2001 12:46 PM
Subject: Re: SIGIA-L: This is not a directly IA related post. <anquish>Why
Can't We All Just Get Along?!?</anguish>
> From: "Nancy Sims" <nsims_at_umich.edu>
> > Agreement all the time is not much help to actually
> > hammering out any contentious issues. Topics come up repeatedly because
> > they're things people disagree about, and disagreement leads to the
> > kinds of posts Samantha characterizes as "cringe-worthy".
> > Arguments are necessary to stimulating discourse.
> I am reminded of my personal spin on a wise saying:
> "In innovation, when two people agree, one of them is not useful."
> tim salam
> information architect
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2
: Sun Nov 23 2003 - 22:54:53 EST