SUO: SUOP Topic :> Enabling Conditions Of Rational Discussion :> Posting Policy
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
SUOPT :> ECORD :> Posting Policy. Note 1
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
In: SUOPT :> ECORD. http://suo.ieee.org/email/thrd4.html#11856
Or: SUOPT :> ECORD. http://suo.ieee.org/email/thrd5.html#11856
Hx: SUOPT :> ECORD 01. http://suo.ieee.org/email/msg11856.html
Hx: SUOPT :> ECORD 02. http://suo.ieee.org/email/msg11857.html
JA = Jon Awbrey
TJ = Tom Johnston
Re: SUO Posting Policy (Alias JA's Postings)
Cf: TJ: http://suo.ieee.org/email/msg11867.html
TJ: 1. I find them overwhelming. But that's because I feel
obligated to skim all of them, after which I find that
I need to read a few of them. So as painful as it is, I'd
prefer to have them available. However, if you wanted to
redirect them to another list, that would be ok with me,
just as long as I could get to them.
TJ: 2. I've learned a lot from Jon, and don't want his contributions
excluded. But again, restricting them to another list would
be fine with me.
TJ: 3. I've posted some pretty lengthy emails myself, and will
now take the approach of posting to the ONT list. If what
triggers my posting is a comment in the SUO list, I'll post
a brief email to the SUO list, saying that a longer reply can
be found on the ONT list. Since my contributions focus on the
philosophical aspects of our work, the ONT list is a perfectly
good place for me to move to.
TJ: 4. Jon's contributions aren't so easily segregated into
a narrow subject matter. But perhaps he could take
a similar approach to mine. Post a synopsis to the
SUO list, referencing a longer analysis which would
be posted to another list.
TJ: 5. Also, there was some talk about creating sub-folders for contributors
to use to file their own material, either lengthy emails to the SUO or
other original material. For my own work, I think that would be helpful,
to have it all gathered together in one place. (Since I'm something of
a Johnny-One-Note, my emails tend to re-inforce one another.) Any chance
that can be done?
Tom,
Thanks for the notes of appreciation for my efforts here.
De jure definitions for what is topical for the SUO List
and what is topical for the ONT List are recorded at the
SUO Working Group Home Page:
http://suo.ieee.org/
Judgments of topicality are of course "judgment calls".
Under normal conditions of orderly reasoned discussion,
the fact that a participant posts a message to a given
list is taken as prima facie evidence that the person
in question judges the message in question to be one
that is topical for the list in question. Generally,
under normal conditions of orderly reasoned dialogue,
individual judgments are respected to the extent of
according them the benefit of any reasonable doubt
that may arise in the minds of other individuals.
Objections to the topicality of a given message
may of course be made, discussed, and courses
of action may naturally ensue as the upshot
of such discussion.
These first principles of orderly reasoned discussion are
fairly simple to state and quite easy to understand, and
so I believe that we should stick with them unless some
extraordinary cause to do otherwise is convincingly
demonstrated by all due process to be in effect.
I'll try to get some time to discuss your individual
points in more detail later in the day, or tomorrow.
Jon Awbrey
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o