I've thought about this for a while: What, indeed, is so different 
between Saul's posts in this newsgroup, and the other 
"political-related" posts here?

The conclusion I've come to is that virtually all politics-related 
discussions on this newsgroups have been discussions /among people/ 
first, and /about politics/ second. It's always about how individual 
people think (and feel!) about stuff going on in the world - sometimes 
backing up their opinion by external sources, but it's always /their/ 
opinion.

This is an entirely different approach from someone just presenting 
external sources, without relating to them on a personal level.

It seems to me that we, the people participating in this newsgroup, to 
the most degree prefer a discussion among peers, rather than discussing 
other people's views, let alone that of authorities. Which I consider 
quite healthy, because it shows a free spirit, and the desire to come to 
one's own conclusion rather than just believe what others say.

I also think it quite healthy because it includes both reason /and/ 
emotion, and my guess is that this is exactly what most of us like best 
about the atmosphere (do you say that in English?) of this newsgroup.

Post a reply to this message

Am 27.09.2014 21:04, schrieb clipka:

> It seems to me that we, the people participating in this newsgroup, to
> the most degree prefer a discussion among peers, rather than discussing
> other people's views, let alone that of authorities.

Just noticed that I might have picked the wrong word here: What I meant 

is highly valued, because they are experts, are perceived as such, or 
for some other reason are presumed to know better than most people. Not 
sure whether there's a single matching word for this in English.

Post a reply to this message

On 27/09/14 20:04, clipka wrote:
> 
> I also think it quite healthy because it includes both reason /and/
> emotion, and my guess is that this is exactly what most of us like best
> about the atmosphere (do you say that in English?) of this newsgroup.

Yes, atmosphere is the right word. I agree with you completely.

I would add one thing. The reason we all get on so well is that we
respect that others may hold contradictory viewpoints; we may disagree
but, although we may attempt to dissuade them from their wrong-headed (
:-) ) opinions, we don't descend to infantile name-calling.*

John

*Unless, of course, we are discussing the superiority of Vi vs Emacs
-- 
Protect the Earth
It was not given to you by your parents
You hold it in trust for your children

Post a reply to this message

On 27/09/14 20:18, clipka wrote:
> 
> Just noticed that I might have picked the wrong word here: What I meant

> is highly valued, because they are experts, are perceived as such, or
> for some other reason are presumed to know better than most people. Not
> sure whether there's a single matching word for this in English.
> 

I think the words are perfectly equivalent. We might prefix
'authorities' with 'respected' but it's not generally necessary.

John
-- 
Protect the Earth
It was not given to you by your parents
You hold it in trust for your children

Post a reply to this message

On 27/09/2014 21:19, Doctor John wrote:
> *Unless, of course, we are discussing the superiority of Vi vs Emacs

hmmm, that subject is nope opened to discussion, ever. Anyone with a
functioning brain knows...



/me hides, runs and covers, jumps in the atomic shelter and slams the door.

-- 
IQ of crossposters with FU: 100 / (number of groups)
IQ of crossposters without FU: 100 / (1 + number of groups)
IQ of multiposters: 100 / ( (number of groups) * (number of groups))

Post a reply to this message

On 27/09/2014 20:27, Doctor John wrote:
> On 27/09/14 20:18, clipka wrote:
>>
>> Just noticed that I might have picked the wrong word here: What I meant

>> is highly valued, because they are experts, are perceived as such, or
>> for some other reason are presumed to know better than most people. Not
>> sure whether there's a single matching word for this in English.
>>
>
> I think the words are perfectly equivalent. We might prefix
> 'authorities' with 'respected' but it's not generally necessary.
>


Or prefix it with cursed, damned, bloody etc.
Not always respected, often loathed.

I would just say experts.

-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

We might disagree with each otherbut there is seldom any personal attacks.

I think there is too much respect for that to happen.

-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 27-9-2014 21:19, Doctor John wrote:
> On 27/09/14 20:04, clipka wrote:
>>
>> I also think it quite healthy because it includes both reason /and/
>> emotion, and my guess is that this is exactly what most of us like best
>> about the atmosphere (do you say that in English?) of this newsgroup.
>
> Yes, atmosphere is the right word. I agree with you completely.
>
> I would add one thing. The reason we all get on so well is that we
> respect that others may hold contradictory viewpoints;

What is the point of a discussion when you agree?

> we may disagree
> but, although we may attempt to dissuade them from their wrong-headed (
> :-) ) opinions, we don't descend to infantile name-calling.*

Often it is about culture and politics. Which makes it even more 
interesting than arguing with your neighbour.
Although most regulars are (older) man from western countries.

Getting a few asians or africans on board would make things even more 
interesting (or from latin america, but I am not sure if the last one 
was a success). Definitely lacking a female perspective also.



-- 
Everytime the IT department forbids something that a researcher deems
necessary for her work there will be another hole in the firewall.

Post a reply to this message

Am 28.09.2014 00:55, schrieb Stephen:
> On 27/09/2014 20:27, Doctor John wrote:
>> On 27/09/14 20:18, clipka wrote:
>>>
>>> Just noticed that I might have picked the wrong word here: What I meant

>>> is highly valued, because they are experts, are perceived as such, or
>>> for some other reason are presumed to know better than most people. Not
>>> sure whether there's a single matching word for this in English.
>>>
>>
>> I think the words are perfectly equivalent. We might prefix
>> 'authorities' with 'respected' but it's not generally necessary.
>>
>
>
> Or prefix it with cursed, damned, bloody etc.
> Not always respected, often loathed.
>
> I would just say experts.

Hum...I wouldn't call the pope an expert, though he'd certainly fill the 

Post a reply to this message

On 28/09/2014 00:15, andrel wrote:
> Definitely lacking a female perspective also.

I think we drove the last one off.
Janet was somewhat irritated the last time she was here.

-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message