Posted by so on May 24, 2005, at 2:19:18
In reply to Re: Ok, » so, posted by Dinah on May 24, 2005, at 1:10:30
> My husband found me just fine. He's asleep now, and I'm off to finish my work. Did I give the impression that he thought I was lost?
Never mind. I just sometimes encourage people to value their real lives more than virtual interactions. I'm sure you have it under control.
> Funny thing is that I think with minor help from our diplomatic staff, I think we could have an agreement in principle.Several agreements, actually. That and a dollar might get one of us a cup of coffee. I don't see our agreements on principles as having much likelihood of affecting the way one administrator manages a board the touches the lives of hundreds of people over the course of a year.
> Except that... If the difference is that his peers speak the same language, wouldn't they also find the same difficulty in understanding what we posters were trying to say?
I would like to think discourse among them would lead to new insights, but from what I am seeing in physicians, once one declares something others can observe evidence starkly to the contrary yet say they respect their peer's opinion and refuse to challenge them by acknowledging the facts evident in test results. That might be part of why I take such offense at an effort by a physician to repress discourse that challenges ideas in favor of protecting the sensitivities of others that hold those ideas.
Nonetheless, I'm not dissuaded of my conviction. Organizational oversight has value. Maybe it's the liberal in me, who says collective power can protect people from the shortcomings of powerful individuals.
> Since you may have seen the recent numbers of atheism among mental health professionals, I'm not sure other mental health professionals would help much there.
My having seen the numbers probably wouldn't make much difference in whether other professionals would help improve operation of this board. Again, I think the processes native to an organization might require better articulation of the reasons for the fine lines he chooses to draw. It seems such a contradiction, to me, sanctioning people for writing something one intends to publish nonetheless, in perpetuity. Such gratitude. Enforcing those measures on the faith board, where he has set such a fine line for writers he has invited, just doesn't embody the kinds of compassion I would hope to see in a faith community, whatever his personal beliefs.
> The quomma is a smudge which may or may not be a comma, placed deliberately to allow for multiple interpretations of a sentence. The classic example from the book, and one that my husband and I enjoy, is the two sentences "She will do nothing which will displease you." vs. "She will do nothing, which will displease you."
Actually, I have information that the quomma is a proposed new punctuation mark that comprises a comma instead of period under a question mark, to be used in a sentence internally punctuated as a question, but not ending at the punctuation. The mark, similar in form to a semicolon, was proposed by Owen Maresh of the .... drum roll ... University of Chicago, in 2000. But then Thornton's Lexgon of Intentoinaly Ambigus Recomedations was copyrighted in 1998. I wonder if he will touch on administrative policies of asynchrounous open networks in a future publication.
poster:so
thread:491889
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20050517/msgs/502119.html