Why diviisions are funny, or (Re: Transparency, Community? )

[Peter Garrett]

On Thu, 31 Aug 2006 08:39:31 +0100
Matthew East <mdke at ubuntu.com> wrote:

> The simple facts are these -

And .. all *Right Thinking People* will agree with me  that ... [ insert
obligatory half-baked thoughts /ad lib/ ]

> the mailing list description has been
> amended to better reflect the original intentions for the list, which
> was important given the increasing traffic on the -users list in order
> to ensure that users seeking support are better able to get it without
> being swamped by chatter.

Matt,

As you know from my (more or less conciliatory) off list message , I, and
perhaps others, are not in *fundamental* disagreement with the division
implied by this decision.

I do think words need to be chosen carefully in this context, however.

To quote your post a second time, for clarity:
<quote>

> in order
> to ensure that users seeking support are better able to get it without
> being *swamped* by *chatter*.

</quote>

[ my emphasis ]

--------------------------------

The problem with this is as follows: ( and if anyone criticises the logic
I'll scream with despair at the lack of subtlety and humour in the
respondent) ...

Who decides which posts are "swamping" the list with "chatter" ? [ study
of loaded words is "left as an exercise for the reader" ] Suppose, for
example, that someone sees, in a somewhat technical post, several issues
that might be interpreted as ...Oh, Nooo ! ..  horrors .. *cultural*, or
*sociological* or *shudder*  ( O My!) aesthetic? 

Or the poster wants to express a view on the question that doesn't look
like

find ./ -name gobbledigook.py -print  && 
for each in $technical  
do obscurely-impressive-stuff $each ; 
make incomprehensible ;
checkinstall ; 
sleep 5h ; 
be --impressed @ $0 & none-the-wiser ;  
done


Feel free to correct my incredibly stupid clueless
syntax .... you get the drift ;-)

Now, 

if
 this *evil imposition by the collective's Thought Police * is seen
as a fairly relaxed guideline, and there is no chorus of repetitive 

" d00d,
this *totally* belongs on Sounder, - like, man,  get a clue, U R
majerly O.T." -- signed, IlliterateTechLeetD00d at coolmail.com 

- then ( *takes a breath
in the convoluted and  ugly sentence* ) maybe it really
doesn't matter...

elif

This is written in a distinctly Sounder Style (TM) to emphasise the point
that what you or John W. Geek consider interesting and valuable does not
necessarily fit with what Fred W. Human finds interesting or helpful.

fi

exit 0

To summarise:

We are in the midst of a major thought revolution. I'm not inclined to bow
to the dictates of narrow subcultural norms, and I think both Sounder and
Users lists need a variety of views, including ones that appear Content
Free to the culturally challenged.

I've made reference to the works of C.P.Snow a couple of times on the
lists - not because I think he's a particularly wonderful writer, but
because part of his thought is relevant.  Wikipedia is a useful, if
somewhat inaccurate, resource for those who think that Slashdot is an
intellectual forum ;-) ( Did you notice my intellectual and cultural
snobbery? Sort of the literary equivalent of "RTFM" 
, "luser", or "get a clue" - each equally annoying and patronising, no? )

Search terms: C.P.Snow
Brief quote:
" Snow is most noted for his lectures and books regarding his concept of
"The Two Cultures", as developed in The Two Cultures and the Scientific
Revolution (1959). Here he notes that the breakdown of communication
between the sciences and the humanities is a major hindrance to solving
the world's problems. In particular, Snow argues that the quality of
education in the world is on the decline. For example, many scientists
have never read Charles Dickens, but artistic intellectuals are equally
non-conversant with science. "

So do we want to perpetuate the divisions? 

Who is going to step forward and say authoritatively that the "technical"
is more useful or helpful than the "cultural" ? And more importantly,
which list is the more likely to attract those who need a good dose of
broadening ideas?

"Sounder" is self-selecting to a degree that is unlikely to the same
extent on "Users".

Q: Discuss the above, with pertinent reference to the thought of
Wittgenstein || Einstein || Blake || Picasso || Marx || Jackson Pollock ||
RMS || Linus || Adam Smith. Does the cultural context affect the relative
worth of these luminaries' contributions? Correlate all facts appertaining
to the climate of thought prevalent in the respective communities of the
above . All answers to be written in Posix compliant code, avoiding
Bashisms.

Please avoid bombast, verbosity and hypocrisy ;-)

[ 3000 words minimum, excluding footnotes and bibliography. Communal
debugging sessions encouraged )

Note: Footnotes and Bibliography must be formatted in the approved style,
preferably according to the conventions of Harvard, though as a concession
to those who actually originated the English language and still speak it,
Oxford/Cambridge style will be accepted. But we all know Europeans haven't
a clue, even Finns... Oh, wait... 

<obligatory-geek-tag>

Here endeth the swamping chatter.

</obligatory-geek-tag>

Peter   ;-)

When you only have a hammer, everything looks like a thumb ...