Identity
Filter
Visitors
(1) (1) (1) (0) (0) (1) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (61) (0) (0) (0)Subscribers
(0)
Highest posts
Latest posts
Links
Highest posts
Latest posts
echarp wrote:
About parlement, right now I’m working on a feature that has been askedby friends of mine: “moderated mails”.Currently you can filter the web page and you can also receive andrespond by mail to all posts, I will add a threshold to only receivethe mails that get above it.“Democratically moderated mailing lists”.seems like a logical extension of the filters in place for visualisation on leparlement’s page.
On Tue, Nov 21, 2006 at 01:10:53AM -0000, Serge wrote:Well, disagreements, especially deep ones, forces us to clarify our own position, and may help find discrepancies in our own ways that we wouldn’t have faced if not pushed by a “disagreeable” person.Obviously mark’s stance on citizens is questionnable for many here.Definitely, yes. But what is worse is the online personality hedisplays.Yet I think everybody has a personal story, and everybody can change forthe best if given the opportunity to.Around a beer, or online in an irc chat, mark could possibly learn toappreciate democracy. But we have to do with what we have.(democracy, rule by the demo)
But isn’t this the whole point of the system, that because we dodisagree in sometimes important ways, we might be able to come topractical solutions that offer a greater deal of flexibility?What of the deep disagreements and disagreeable personality traits?
as you say, on the technical parts you have points of agreements (and of disagreements), which means that if the conversation can be made constructively and focus on the technical, everyone should benefit. These who disagree with Mark on his view of people as lemmings may still find some technical points that could be raised as worth examining, and Mark (or anyone in such a position of dissent/minority) would as a result get at least some points accross.So I hope I am not being rude by suggesting this, but would it bepossible for you to just collaborate on whatever is possible whilekeeping disagreements constructive and focused on the practicalfeatures and functionnalities of a TOP system?You are not being rude.Trouble is that the disagreement is profound, and the arguments hepropose amount to nothing but insults (“lemming”).Yet he also pushes for a technical system with parts which are very muchalike lomax’s and even mine’s. Shame shame shame.What do you think?
Echarp, your answer suggests you would be ready to put aside the differences and concentrate on what can actually be done. So I guess the question is, Mark, would you accept to forget about the points on which there is an obvious deadlock (such as the whole lemming rethoric) in this thread at least, and in the same fashion concentrate on making disagreements productive?
Best regards,
Serge
-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups “top-politics” group.
To post to this group, send email to top-politics@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to top-politics-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/top-politics?hl=en
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
New discussion
Answer