Re: Top posting
On Tuesday 14 June 2005 10:07 am, Basajaun wrote:
<snip>
> > Nope. Different scale entirely. That's like saying re-arranging protons
> > within a nucleus of an atom does not change the atom, but if you have a
> > group of atoms, they can form different molecules with different
> > properties depending on their arrangement.
>
> If re-arranging the protons within a nucleus produces an atom that is
> indistinguishable from the former one, how does one know he/she
> actually re-arranged anything? And if it _is_ distinguishable, how
> could one say that it "does not change the atom"?
That's my point. Scale matters. A comparison on one scale does not mean the
problem is there or the same on another scale.
> > > > As to the "as /most/ points", I have yet to see anyone saying that
> > > > show that they have the least insight into learning and perception
> > > > styles and how different types of minds/personalities read and
> > > > perceive information.
> > >
> > > This isn't about how different minds/personalities read and
> > > perceive information. It is about how things are done, why they are
> > > done that way and how one can LEARN to do it that way if one weren't
> > > lazy.
> >
> > Actually it is.
>
> It is not. We are not patronizing parents trying to "cut the wings" of
> the "creative children" who strive to communicate by means of a new,
> and equally valid, paradigm.
No. We are close minded people, like those in the 1950s or before who never
bothered with wheelchair ramps because we felt only a few people were
disabled and didn't matter. People then felt that such people didn't matter
and didn't worry about letting them participate or contribute. I know a
number of parapalegics and quadrapalegic are doing a lot of work in computers
and contributing to the field. We willingly and even eagerly adapted and
created accessibility adaptations for desktop managers because we wanted to
be inclusive.
So on a point like this, we have a choice: do we want to be like those in the
1950s and before, who excluded those different than us because we don't
understand them, or aren't willing to take an extra step and see what they
have to offer. People that think differently, or even have what is
classified as a learning disability have a lot to contribute to this and
other communities. Many times it is because of that different way of
perceiving that they have insights the rest of us don't have.
But here it seems more important to be right and follow the rules than to be
open to those who might be different.
Who is the Linux community, a group of people in a heavy minority, to say we
want to pass rules that add to the difficulty of a minority?
> We are trying to educate vandals who struggle to disrupt a consensed
> way of communication, or ignorants who do so without being aware.
Vandals is a pretty strong and judgemental word. Are you sure they are
"struggling to disrupt" anything? Educating those who are not aware is good,
but does it have to go so far as being judgemental?
Honestly, the way so many anti-top-posting posts have been so full of anger,
invective, and name-calling like this, I wonder if the issue is really about
top posting or if there is something else going on to create such a level of
anger.
> > I remember Harry Truman saying he never wanted to hear from
> > experts because all experts were people that didn't want to learn
> > anything more about their field, because if they did, they'd realize
> > there was more to learn and they weren't an expert anymore.
>
> I don't know of a single expert who thinks he/she knows everything
> about a field. Invariantly, the ones who think so, are ignorants.
> Nevertheless, this doesn't mean an expert can't know that he/she does
> know a lot. Did then Truman follow the advice of laymen?
Truman followed the advice of whoever he felt made sense. He had little
tolerance for the "experts," and often ignored them.
My point here is that I've seen a lot of people just assuming (no play on the
word, so I'm not trying to be insulting) that they are right and outright
ignoring or belittling everything that could possibly open a door and show
there is more to the topic than what they know.
> > The point I am making, which you
> > are so quick to write off is that not all people learn and process data
> > that way. It's not a point of being lazy. It is a point that different
> > people learn and process in different ways. We can be open to that, or
> > we can be closed minded about that.
>
> Yes, you are 100% right: not all people process data the same way. Some
> are dislexical, some are autistic, and some others are so far beyond
> common intelligence, that we could hardly follow their thoughts with a
> written guide.
>
> But 99% of people (reading this list, speaking English) do read
> following the same logical structures, from left to right, top to
> bottom, answer follows question, effect follows cause. Disturbing such
> an scheme annoys far more people than it intends (I don't doubt of your
> good intention as much as you doubt of mine/ours) to "liberate".
As I've pointed out: notice I do not top post. I'm not saying it's a good
style. I'm saying we should show consideration because for some people other
ways allow them to process or understand information better. While most
people can easily learn to inline post, there are those who need to keep
their thoughts together and will have problems with it. Maybe it's 1% of
this list, but maybe it'd be 5% if we weren't so stringent about it. While
that would mean 5% that top post, why do we have to exclude them when they
are people who could contribute a lot to the community?
<snip>
> Yes. The point _is_ setting rules. There are some rules that make us
> understand each other better than without them (languages, driving
> rules, laws). Those rules should only be repealed when a better way is
> found, not for the sake of it. Repealing a set of rules is merely a
> step to apply a new set, not to promote anarchy.
And I'm pointing out that some tolerance here could help a number of people in
the long run, including some of us. As Emerson said,
A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds." We can be anal and
little, or we can be open minded and aware of when a little compassion and
tolerance is appropriate.
> And then, supporting the new set of rules would invariantly be
> considered "close minded" again by some.
Only if it means excluding people or dis-empowering the minority.
Hal
Reply to: