Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: mmeron on 24 Dec 2006 16:40 In article <c6d03$458eda04$49ecf5e$3686(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> writes: >mmeron(a)cars3.uchicago.edu wrote: >> In article <emjf91$8qk_004(a)s952.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com writes: > >>>Yes. I don't call the fuckups leaders since they are >>>people I have to work around to get stuff done. > >> Words have meanings. If you endow them with additional meanings beyond >> those imbedded in them, you'll find your communication greatly >> hampered. A house is a house, whether you approve of the floor plan >> or not. A computer program is a computer program, whether it is good >> or crappy. And a leader is a leader whether he is a fuckup or not. >> The word "leader" by itself is a description of function, that's all, >> it doesn't, apriori, convey any positive or negative connotations. If >> you want to add such connotations, hey, that's what adjectives are >> for. It can be "good leader", "fuckup leader", "wise leader", "dumb >> leader", whatever. > >>>>Independent >>>>qualities. One who leads people off a cliff is still a leader if >>>>others follow. > >>>hmm...I've been thinking of that particular example very very very >>>often over the past six months....almost daily. > >> Oh, yes, I know. > >I've taken a look at older BAH posts. It looks like this >latest is no departure from her history. I don't think >the difficulty is one of "additional meanings" so much as >that of a completely self-referential worldview. We all have some tendencies to self-referential worldview, what's important is to be aware of this tendency and to rise above it, as far as possible. Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool, meron(a)cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
From: unsettled on 24 Dec 2006 18:13 mmeron(a)cars3.uchicago.edu wrote: > In article <c6d03$458eda04$49ecf5e$3686(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> writes: > >>mmeron(a)cars3.uchicago.edu wrote: >> >>>In article <emjf91$8qk_004(a)s952.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com writes: >> >>>>Yes. I don't call the fuckups leaders since they are >>>>people I have to work around to get stuff done. >> >>>Words have meanings. If you endow them with additional meanings beyond >>>those imbedded in them, you'll find your communication greatly >>>hampered. A house is a house, whether you approve of the floor plan >>>or not. A computer program is a computer program, whether it is good >>>or crappy. And a leader is a leader whether he is a fuckup or not. >>>The word "leader" by itself is a description of function, that's all, >>>it doesn't, apriori, convey any positive or negative connotations. If >>>you want to add such connotations, hey, that's what adjectives are >>>for. It can be "good leader", "fuckup leader", "wise leader", "dumb >>>leader", whatever. >> >>>>>Independent >>>>>qualities. One who leads people off a cliff is still a leader if >>>>>others follow. >> >>>>hmm...I've been thinking of that particular example very very very >>>>often over the past six months....almost daily. >> >>>Oh, yes, I know. >> >>I've taken a look at older BAH posts. It looks like this >>latest is no departure from her history. I don't think >>the difficulty is one of "additional meanings" so much as >>that of a completely self-referential worldview. > > > We all have some tendencies to self-referential worldview, what's > important is to be aware of this tendency and to rise above it, as far > as possible. Next time this comes along I'll quote you.
From: mmeron on 24 Dec 2006 18:21 In article <63718$458f0998$4fe7592$4726(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> writes: >mmeron(a)cars3.uchicago.edu wrote: >> In article <c6d03$458eda04$49ecf5e$3686(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> writes: >> >>>mmeron(a)cars3.uchicago.edu wrote: >>> >>>>In article <emjf91$8qk_004(a)s952.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com writes: >>> >>>>>Yes. I don't call the fuckups leaders since they are >>>>>people I have to work around to get stuff done. >>> >>>>Words have meanings. If you endow them with additional meanings beyond >>>>those imbedded in them, you'll find your communication greatly >>>>hampered. A house is a house, whether you approve of the floor plan >>>>or not. A computer program is a computer program, whether it is good >>>>or crappy. And a leader is a leader whether he is a fuckup or not. >>>>The word "leader" by itself is a description of function, that's all, >>>>it doesn't, apriori, convey any positive or negative connotations. If >>>>you want to add such connotations, hey, that's what adjectives are >>>>for. It can be "good leader", "fuckup leader", "wise leader", "dumb >>>>leader", whatever. >>> >>>>>>Independent >>>>>>qualities. One who leads people off a cliff is still a leader if >>>>>>others follow. >>> >>>>>hmm...I've been thinking of that particular example very very very >>>>>often over the past six months....almost daily. >>> >>>>Oh, yes, I know. >>> >>>I've taken a look at older BAH posts. It looks like this >>>latest is no departure from her history. I don't think >>>the difficulty is one of "additional meanings" so much as >>>that of a completely self-referential worldview. >> >> >> We all have some tendencies to self-referential worldview, what's >> important is to be aware of this tendency and to rise above it, as far >> as possible. > >Next time this comes along I'll quote you. Well, thank you. Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool, meron(a)cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
From: hill on 25 Dec 2006 11:48 hill(a)rowland.org wrote: > hill(a)rowland.org wrote: >> Winfield Hill wrote: >>> Winfield Hill wrote: >>>> Michael A. Terrell wrote: >>>>> Winfield Hill wrote: >>>>>> Winfield Hill wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 4200 postings and still going strong. Amazing. >>>>>> >>>>>> Wow, now 7200 posts and still going strong. And most >>>>>> of the posts were under the original subject title. This >>>>>> must be some kind of a record. Certainly it's a stress >>>>>> test for the Google Groups web-page display code, etc. >>>>> >>>>> Never have so many, said so much, about so little! ;-) >>>>> >>>>> I heard of one long flame war that passed 10K posts, >>>>> but I never found out which newsgroup. >>>> >>>> We passed 9000 on the 14th, and are now within 100 posts >>>> of 10,000. Keep up the good work guys, you can do it! >>> >>> Good job guys and gals, over 10,000 posts, and still >>> going strong. And still on topic more or less. I've only >>> read a smattering of the posts here and there, and there's >>> a minimum of flaming SFAICS. Nice to see. >> >> Still going strong, over 11,300 posts, no sign of slowing. > > Impressive, zoomed right past 12,000 without slowing, now > at 12130 posts and climbing towards 13000, going strong. Hmm, we're slowing down a bit folks! We're now at 12480 posts with 12500 in sight, but not so sure about 13000.
From: unsettled on 25 Dec 2006 12:34
hill(a)rowland.org wrote: > hill(a)rowland.org wrote: > >>hill(a)rowland.org wrote: >> >>>Winfield Hill wrote: >>> >>>>Winfield Hill wrote: >>>> >>>>>Michael A. Terrell wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>Winfield Hill wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>Winfield Hill wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>4200 postings and still going strong. Amazing. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Wow, now 7200 posts and still going strong. And most >>>>>>>of the posts were under the original subject title. This >>>>>>>must be some kind of a record. Certainly it's a stress >>>>>>>test for the Google Groups web-page display code, etc. >>>>>> >>>>>>Never have so many, said so much, about so little! ;-) >>>>>> >>>>>>I heard of one long flame war that passed 10K posts, >>>>>>but I never found out which newsgroup. >>>>> >>>>> We passed 9000 on the 14th, and are now within 100 posts >>>>> of 10,000. Keep up the good work guys, you can do it! >>>> >>>> Good job guys and gals, over 10,000 posts, and still >>>> going strong. And still on topic more or less. I've only >>>> read a smattering of the posts here and there, and there's >>>> a minimum of flaming SFAICS. Nice to see. >>> >>>Still going strong, over 11,300 posts, no sign of slowing. >> >> Impressive, zoomed right past 12,000 without slowing, now >> at 12130 posts and climbing towards 13000, going strong. > > > Hmm, we're slowing down a bit folks! We're now at 12480 > posts with 12500 in sight, but not so sure about 13000. All you need to do is to feed in some flamebait. Almost anything about Einstein should work. |