stars2man2

View profile

More options Nov 5 2007, 4:27 pm
From: stars2man2 <stars2...gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 05 Nov 2007 20:27:51 -0000
Subject: Re: $40M Sprawl Magnet?

Part of the theory of digitals tools is to use them to enhance
understanding and community. Like I could use a hammer to get a screw
in, but the screw driver makes a better tool for the same job. Using
one over the other brings different results, but they both essentially
get the same job done...
A thread is used to focus the discussion on a singular topic. If you
notice when you hit reply the entire message is copied into the new
message box for you to type in. This allows us to delete all the
useless repetition, but also allows you to keep the key phrases we
want to respond to.... FOCUSING the discussion!
In this case I have broken both of these rules. I am not writing
anything about the thread "$40 Million Sprawl" nor did I include
anything from the last message to respond to. Mind you, there was a
time where this would result in a FLAME, or where I could even get
booted from a group for not following the expected "internet
Protocols." However if you look at my 11/4 message to this thread I
did both things. I also linked it to our other issues, which people
have since responded to.
However, the threads ideal will have all the discussions on articles
together. Just like if I read the "$40 Million sprawl" thread I would
only read about this issue.
If Fred asked me now, I would say to delete all these messages and
start over after explaining how best to use this tool.
Yes we are sharing and learning information... But if I started in
this class next term, and decided to read some of this group to see
what was discussed and decided about the articles . . . Like I would
start with the thread about the syllabus, and then the thread
"readings" but certainly leave Sprawl for last... Unless I saw an
article titled Sprawl in the syllabus.... However, as a new comer, I
would have to read everything to get the understanding we have now,
and most would not been about articles at all...
I don't mean to bang my hammer about like a spoiled child, but
Complexity issues have evolved from a very scientific forum, and an
obviously dysfunctional group is not something that brings confidence
in emerging anything to an outsider, least of all anyone skilled in
complexity science.... ;-)
Nor is it easy to deal with as an Insider. If we had one thread per
article where all the extra posts were placed under the related
articles instead of posted so randomly - - - we would now have a group
where we could easily determine which articles were valuable and which
were not.... We could even have a thread for additional data or
special events where only this type of data is posted....