Hi David
On 13 Jul 99, at 18:26, David Buchanan wrote:
> Maybe fewer posts would be rejected if the topic selection process
> itself was more refined. It seems that we have had several topics that are
> nearly impossible to discuss because they're based on meaningless
> questions. righteousness? souls? clones? free will? This sets up a
> situation where we've lost before the game even begins. It'll be a lot
> easier to keep folks interested and on topic if the plane is actually
> going somewhere, rather than straight into the ground.
Isn't the whole point of the MOQ that it provides a 'better' answer to
many old questions? Where previous systems provide no answer or
a confused answer, maybe the MOQ can straighten some of them
out or at least throw some new light on them. We won't know until
we try.
> I'll suggest again that all topic proposals contain a quote from the
> book, followed by a question that isn't loaded. "What does Pirsig mean by
> this?", strikes me as a good question to ask about any quote. It would be
> hard to go wrong that way. Keep the question simple. Let the answers be as
> complex as they want to be.
The process for topic selection is democratic and open. If we start
playing around with it we'll only get accused of interfering. By all
means provide a question in the above way - either on the LS or MD.
If you remember, I suggested a structured question format some time
back, in addition to the free form approach. The general response
was hardly overwhelming. C'est la vie!
> I would like to suggest that the Lila squad has not been hijacked so
> much as some of the passengers have bailed out of the plane. This
> doesn't change the flight's direction or cause a crash, it just lightens
> the load. A hijacking would mean a forced change in direction and
> destination. Nothing like that has occured.
Yeah, but some passengers bailed out clutching parts of the plane.
> It seems to me that posting is a gift, not a responsbility.
So why don't we post those gifts to the right place?
> And I really don't get this idea that LS members are cheated by parallel
> conversations that they never even see. This is even more true if the
> unseen posts are deemed irrelevant to the LS topic.
On 13 Jul 99, at 21:54, drose wrote:
> Reposting on the MD is not a problem as far as I can tell.
> Discussion germane to the LS discussion inevitably finds its way
> into private e-mail discussions. What difference does it make if the
> MD list takes a tangential discussion and runs with it?
As with David's comment above, there is no problem when the
discussion is private, or at a tangent to the LS topic, or has been
thrown off by the LS, or rejected etc. It is when exactly the same
subject is being discussed AND when cross-posting occurs. The two
lists are separate. Parallel discussions and cross-posting can have
an adverse affect on that subjects continuity.
> It's rare that I agree with David B, but as an MD-only subscriber I
> appreciate the occasional post from the LS side. I have often spent
> an evening browsing in the LS archives because of something I
> have seen posted over here.
It's good if LS discussions can throw up further discussions on the
MD. But at least let the months discussion run it's course on the LS
first. Is a small amount of restraint for a short period asking too
much?
> Let me add my thanks for the great website and discussion. I really
> appreciate your effort.
Thanks. And to all of you who have made similar comments.
Anyway, I don't think that this discussion will get much further. I
would make a final request to MD members to wait until the end of
the months discussion on the LS before taking it up over here and
**please** do not to cross-post.
Horse
MOQ Online Homepage - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Unsubscribe - http://www.moq.org/md/index.html
MD Queries - horse@wasted.demon.nl
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:03:07 BST