 |
Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > General Chat > (No Subject)
| Forum Quick Jump
|
 | 
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 8/16/2003 3:40 AM (GMT -6) |   | | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 8/16/2003 3:43 AM (GMT -6) | | Real people.
Not Plas-tik!
THE INDIAN IN THE CUPBOARD. 1995 Columbia Pictures Industries Inc and Paramount Pictures. | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 8/16/2003 3:52 AM (GMT -6) | | As a father of two pre-teens I saw an oportunity to refer to a movie we had scene where those with a new toy had to come to grips with the potentials of that "toy" that went far beyond their awareness, ability or control. They focused on the fun. They enjoyed the novelty. They were thrilled by how "real" everything was. But what they did not see in front of them in their own hands...and what they did not hear with their own ears from their own lips was this: That these were "REAL" people. These were not the Plas-tik figures that they had put in the magical closet and on which they had turned the key. What they had thought of as safely confined in known borders had natural and inevitable consequences beyond their awareness, ability or control.
The scene above (in the school hallway) shows the hero on the right urgently convincing his friend that it would be a really bad idea to show the teacher the two real--although toy sized--Indian and Cowboy they had brought to school in a backpack. The two unwilling time travelers had been caused, by the heros's cupboard, to take the place of two plastic play-figures that the other boy had given the hero for his birthday. The second boy had ben enraptured by the sight of the Indian; and in uncontrolable youthfulness had produced the Cowboy from the cupboard also -- much against the cupboard owning hero's wishes. Fun and excitement, and novelty took over. But at this particular moment of truth, when actions taken would have inevitable and irreversible consequences, the two boys have to make a decision.
They can focus on how "real" their toys are. Or, they can focus on the fact that the two grown men in their backpack are REAL. One has a wife. The other would like to some day. One wishes to return to the woods of the Onondaga's lands on the 1760s; the other to the excitement of westward expansion. The two little boys have to make a grown up decision. And they have to make it now.
Those who's futures reside in the fate of the cupboard found that they boys were not the "great spirit" that they first seemed. They were frightened by the consequences of their actions (including the actual death of an elderly mohawk indian, who's journey into the cupboard was precipitated solely for the sake of the bow a plastic toy held. He died of a heart attack. And it frightened the boy. The dangers latent in the boy's toy-making became apparent.)
What is so good about that movie is that it teaches the lesson that people are REAL. It teaches that each moment is REAL. And it teaches that actions have consequences -- beyond our awareness, our ability, and our control.
And that is my book report.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 8/16/2003 4:58 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by Al2Si2H4O9
Real people.
Not Plas-tik!
THE INDIAN IN THE CUPBOARD. 1995 Columbia Pictures Industries Inc and Paramount Pictures.
Here's the application of what can be learned from "The Indian and the Supboard."
The internet provides a new medium. It is a different medium. And media are different. Ronald Reagan used to stiffen up when he saw press with SLRs. Still photography edits out all context, and creates its own context. It can make foot hanging out of one's mouth stay there for an eternity. It can create a fiction by placing one expersion next to unrelated text. We know a bit of its unbounded potential for harm; and we appreciate its capacity for constructive good. We learn that what is "so real" about photos is coupled with the fact that the people really are REAL too. But as long as there are yearbooks, and as long as there is a Department of Motor Vehicles the evils of still photos will always be legend. The internet is still quite new.
Ask Gary Marsh, of the BGC what it was like during the internet war a few years ago. Ask Bethel's President Brushaber. The later gave some memorable quotes for Christianity Today (he serves them in some capacity too) about how unwitting the BGC was in becomeing the 'guinea pig' for the rest of the Evangelical world. ("The open theism debate became the sharpest dispute in BGC history, and Brushaber attributes much of the bitterness to the Internet—the Foreknowledge site ..." www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2001/003/3.42.html) Their failures were huge. The hurts even larger. As responses accumulated the growing hurt and anger grew. Proxy wars were set off. it was a mess. No wonder the surviving files are under restricted access on the BGC site!
Which leads us, I think, to this board. Here, the medium has been refined a first few baby-steps worth. Many things are surprises, but enough knowns exist to capture our focus. What is generated here, and "lives" here, and stays here -- in this particular medium -- stays in its context. And context is everything.
A board discussion exists one page at a time. Threads have a life-span, and an inertia for staying buried--that has to be overcome through effort. The context has its own editorializing media-characteristics -- much like wood has a grain direction that influences how it is carved.
To apply what is known about this board to the question JC Sites raises is to venture into the unknown. And, so, to do so we have to rely on other things for comparison. The SLR camera provides some clues. But "The Indian and the Supboard" is even more fruitful in the lessons it can teach us.
These "real" seeming people who emerge on my computer screen, who reside in JC's hard drive, are actually REAL PEOPLE.
Much is on this board's "172 MB" worth of cupboard space.
Many have undergone profound personal transitions. What was rightly entrusted to the momentary life of a "Pray for me" thread is inappropriate for de-contextualizing in the Still-Photo world of a searchable CD! The toy-players naturally will think that they can safely, in a controled manner, "snatch the bow" from the "172 MB" without anyone dying. Naturally. But instead it is in the nature of the "172 MB" to be beyond our awareness, our ability, and our control. In the movie a medic had to be called from the British WWI front to help save lives on two ocassions. No medic is possible for any damage a free-standing CD might precipitate.
On occasion I have paternalistically advized that certain things should not be posted in certain ways in public view. As an artist I am experienced in realizing how every line affects perception of every other line. But sometimes the participants chose to let the "moment"--the temporal context--claim priority. They made thoughtful decisions. But a stand-alone "172 MB" worth of cupboard space decontextualizes everything. And it eternally raises things that should be allowed to drift into the forgotten past, as God's creation seems to be designed.
Nothing on this board, nor in life, is globally searchable. Even prayer is not. Faith is not. We wait for answers. We urge growth in those we meet. But nothing is a toy. There is no magic key to safety.
I am convinced that while the hurt of a project like JC sites is proposing (He's the Toy Master here. And hats off to him for his work and craftsmanship!) would be almost entirely unforseen, that there would be hurt. And much of it would be unknown to most of us.
That is in the nature of things.
+
The reality of the Godhead, so to speak,
is intrinsically relational - or, as Basil of Caesarea put it,
God is 'a kind of continuous and indivisible koinonia,
(Letter 38, Migne, PG 32, 332a). - FERGUS KERR OP | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 8/16/2003 5:02 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Christianity Today, February 19, 2001
Did Open Debate Help The Openness Debate?
It's been centuries since Luther nailed his theses to a church door, but the Internet is reintroducing theological debate to the public square.
By Elesha Coffman | posted 2/16/01
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2001/003/3.42.html
| | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 8/16/2003 5:07 AM (GMT -6) | | A lesson from www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2001/003/3.42.html
quote:
On the negative side of the Internet question, Boyd has two primary concerns: that the Web caused the debate to be so politicized, and that electronic communication can so quickly spin out of control.
Boyd likens online discussion to a conversation on which an interested third party is eavesdropping. He says this "changes the whole flavor" of the conversation as the speakers stop listening carefully to each other and start crafting their statements as sound bites for the eavesdropper.
"By virtue of mass marketing," he says, "you lose some ground in terms of thoroughness. Now the person with the best technology has the upper hand."
Boyd's second concern, the inability to control electronic communication, arose from a lesson he learned the hard way, when he "inadvertently and indiscreetly" used a phrase—safe haven—he wishes he could just "let die."
After the 1999 vote, one of Boyd's friends asked him to comment via e-mail on the results. Boyd knew that this friend maintained a Web site, but as he wrote the e-mail, he never realized that his message might be posted for a wider audience. "I wasn't literate at all," he says.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 8/16/2003 5:14 AM (GMT -6) | | And while personally, I have tried to leave family and friend out of my posts (I got involved early, when it was a hot issue, and affected those close to me.) I have observed that this is not true of many of those who post here.
Who can predict what the effects might be on other people (Don't hink just of yourself now! Other "real" people.) Personally, professionally. Much on this board has been deeply personal.
The board says: "Please do not publish quotes from our discussion without seeking the author's permission." It says that: "...what is here is "appropriate for a conversational context."
These are REAL PEOPLE.
Not Plas-tik!
| | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 8/16/2003 5:39 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by JCsites.com
With that in mind, the same possible "taking things out of context and causing hurt" that could happen with the distribution of the retired access2000 DB, could happen just as easily via the online search feature.
Again, I say, the new database has made the same "hurt" Al2Si2H4O9 fears just as possible via the online search feature.
In my mind the potential for wrong doing with either database exists and is equal.
All I'm suggesting is the convenience of not having to connect to the internet. That's the ONLY difference I see here.
J.C. Is being a bit naive. Naive with respect to how data is handled technically. ALL searches on line here are only in a narrow format. A stand-alone data base can be "crunched" as a data base. The two are different. And the intuitive style of how they are used is different. And that difference in human interface (the psycho-linguistical aspect if you will!) makes "equal" to be not equal.
A "cupboard" is a pandora's box, Dave. If you want to give Tom a copy on-the-sly I probably wouldn't care. And the particular other people I have in mind, and are seriously worried for, may not be hurt. But if such a "toy" as you are imagining is published publicly, then it will be both "crunched" and archived. And the publishing echos of such are well beyond your imagination, Dave, or professional expertise. (It pertainst to a different field altogether.)
You seem to have made up YOUR mind, Dave. And you have your equivocation at the ready. Your rationalization.
But the difference between a published database and a public access to a black-closet known best to only those who's business it mostly is are HUGELY DIFFERENT. Perhaps they are somewhat (as I said above, they are not entirely the same--only one is crunchable as raw data) similar. But they potential for harm is hugely different.
And likd pandora's box, or the toy cupboard, what is "out" is difficult to put back in!
You are understandably exiceted, Dave. But I want to tell you that while this is technically possible, the decision cannot be allowed to be made on technical merits.
These wise words might even be your own -- I don't know:
The board says: "Please do not publish quotes from our discussion without seeking the author's permission." It says that: "...what is here is "appropriate for a conversational context."
CONTEXT IS EVERYTHING. WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT OPENS CONTEXTS THAT ARE ENTIRELY FOREIGN TO THIS ONE.
Surely it would be used by many in a similar context. Be I am ONLY addressing the potential for harm. (How are you going to feel Dave, if something you publish is used in court to harm someone?)
RE-READ GREG BOYD'S QUOTED SECTION FROM CT. (Above)
P.S.: You were only naive technically in a small way (linear searches versus parallel database crunching: that has its own "mind.") But the social naiveté is why I posted what I did in the first place. And once the hurt is inflicted you cannot just "re-boot" it. That is HUGE! | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 8/16/2003 5:52 AM (GMT -6) | | Dave, your improved search is GREAT. It means that people and call up, down load, and archive those things that interest them. And from that personal archive they can call up while onling -- just as you are suggesting that they can -- and they can share by pointing each other to threads, etc. You have it.
You don't need Pandora's Box. (Respect the "REAL PEOPLE" and their safety.)
And based on the disclaimer of this site no one is entitled to a publically published version! | | Back to Top | | |
|
JCsites.com
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 169
| Posted 8/16/2003 12:46 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by Al2Si2H4O9
quote:
Originally posted by JCsites.com
With that in mind, the same possible "taking things out of context and causing hurt" that could happen with the distribution of the retired access2000 DB, could happen just as easily via the online search feature.
Again, I say, the new database has made the same "hurt" Al2Si2H4O9 fears just as possible via the online search feature.
In my mind the potential for wrong doing with either database exists and is equal.
All I'm suggesting is the convenience of not having to connect to the internet. That's the ONLY difference I see here.
J.C. Is being a bit naive. Naive with respect to how data is handled technically. ALL searches on line here are only in a narrow format. A stand-alone data base can be "crunched" as a data base. The two are different. And the intuitive style of how they are used is different. And that difference in human interface (the psycho-linguistical aspect if you will!) makes "equal" to be not equal.
A "cupboard" is a pandora's box, Dave. If you want to give Tom a copy on-the-sly I probably wouldn't care. And the particular other people I have in mind, and are seriously worried for, may not be hurt. But if such a "toy" as you are imagining is published publicly, then it will be both "crunched" and archived. And the publishing echos of such are well beyond your imagination, Dave, or professional expertise. (It pertainst to a different field altogether.)
You seem to have made up YOUR mind, Dave. And you have your equivocation at the ready. Your rationalization.
But the difference between a published database and a public access to a black-closet known best to only those who's business it mostly is are HUGELY DIFFERENT. Perhaps they are somewhat (as I said above, they are not entirely the same--only one is crunchable as raw data) similar. But they potential for harm is hugely different.
And likd pandora's box, or the toy cupboard, what is "out" is difficult to put back in!
You are understandably exiceted, Dave. But I want to tell you that while this is technically possible, the decision cannot be allowed to be made on technical merits.
These wise words might even be your own -- I don't know:
The board says: "Please do not publish quotes from our discussion without seeking the author's permission." It says that: "...what is here is "appropriate for a conversational context."
CONTEXT IS EVERYTHING. WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT OPENS CONTEXTS THAT ARE ENTIRELY FOREIGN TO THIS ONE.
Surely it would be used by many in a similar context. Be I am ONLY addressing the potential for harm. (How are you going to feel Dave, if something you publish is used in court to harm someone?)
RE-READ GREG BOYD'S QUOTED SECTION FROM CT. (Above)
P.S.: You were only naive technically in a small way (linear searches versus parallel database crunching: that has its own "mind.") But the social naiveté is why I posted what I did in the first place. And once the hurt is inflicted you cannot just "re-boot" it. That is HUGE!
You are correct that I have made up my mind on the Poll Question. But what I have concluded is not that relevant. I am not CVM. I am not the owner of the content on this board. CVM is.
I am one member of the board, with one opinion, but I was more interested in the opinions of the other members on this subject. So honestly, thank you for offering up yours. Even though others haven't chimed in, I suspect you are not the only member of the board who has this opinion on the subject of making the old database available.
However, I also think that if every member voted, it would be 50/50. But the beauty is that I can find out if I'm right by posting the poll.
As far as me being excited to do this? No, I'm not. It was just and idea, that's all. Thanks for assigning excitability to me. 
What was is it that I wrote that made you think I have concluded that because this is technically possible, it should be done? In my original post I even admitted that I had not yet considered all the ramification of such an offering. Thanks again for assigning me the label of yet another techie who wants to do something because it's technically possible. I love that label!
quote:
CONTEXT IS EVERYTHING. WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT OPENS CONTEXTS THAT ARE ENTIRELY FOREIGN TO THIS ONE.
Surely it would be used by many in a similar context. Be I am ONLY addressing the potential for harm. (How are you going to feel Dave, if something you publish is used in court to harm someone?)
You keep mentioning how concerned you are about context and harm to members. Of course I don't want anyone harmed. Not even myself!
But on this matter of context and harm, I think it's naive to think that the risk doesn't already exist. I suppose now I'm assuming that you think there's no risk now, but if the database is made available the risk will exist. If so I apologize. I know how it feels when someone assumes and assigns lables and conclusions to me.
But please know the risk you write is VERY real, and exists now. The whole reason that note is posted above the board is because a reporter took a quote of Dr. Boyd's from the board and used it in an article.
I think it's naive of all board members to think that the pandora's box you speak of has not yet been opened. The very existence of this online forum, it's search capabilities, and past behavior of that reporter all proove that pandora's box was opened in Sept. of 2000.
That's one reason I hold all regular members/poster's in high regard. Believe me, what is said here is being watched. It takes courage to say what's been said knowing you may face some persecution for saying it on this board. In fact, that's why some members don't fill out their profile and keep a board moniker only.
While I'm not sure I agree with Meph, I highly respect him for his courage to post a thread about whether God loves Satan. In fact Meph, even said he loves Satan in that thread, then qualified it. I loved Dr. Boyd'a response to Meph. "your thread is a noble discussion, but what you've said will be taken out of context and used against you when you become famous." (I paraphrased that qoute but you can find and read it if you want.)
I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this. It's not like it's an issue of truth. I have my opinion and you have yours. But really, neither of us has any ownership, control or power to see this happen. So I'm not gonna get my undies in a bunch over this.
Just an idea, and I wanted feedback. Thanks for sharing yours  NO really.
Make Posts Not War... | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 8/16/2003 5:46 PM (GMT -6) | | Dave, some informal observations.
While sites can be sliced-and-diced, people's lives cannot. DLW does well to think. Right now posting on this site is a safer release than if he were to be overactive in faculty meetings, or being a local activist in his foreign country. The time is right for this for him right now. But I hope that his posts here are lost to the sands of time once he has a wife, kids and a mortgage. In the future I hope his posts "hide in plane sight." That will probably work.
Artists tend to hide there best tools in a clutter -- no one looks for them. A good bet is that if something is too much work nobody will try.
To answer your question...
quote:
What was is it that I wrote that made you think I have concluded that because this is technically possible, it should be done? In my original post I even admitted that I had not yet considered all the ramification of such an offering. Thanks again for assigning me the label of yet another techie who wants to do something because it's technically possible. I love that label!
It is because the answers I gave you before were not remembered. It is your forgetting them that is my clue into your conclusion. What you discounted was not my ideas, but me. My (for both me and others) needs are absolute. You took them as opinion and theory.
And the trend IS that technology is used just because. That is not a virtue. (THERE OUGHT TO BE A THREAD!)  Read C.S. Lewis' space trilogy. Tech. enthusiasts (from military technology to medicine to information technologies) can easily become the equivalent of those who cheer on the front row of boxing matches.
You say you admire those who post here. Don't. Those here mostly do it for Jesus, not themselves. But don't let yourself think that providing tech support is something spiritual. The history of Christian organization is full of business managers who (using their own 'technologies') tried to serve God by cutting the cost of paying his servants--saving God money. They were sincere, but warped.
Believe us. We craft our posts to be either as interesting or as boring as needed.
Provide a drink of water to those who are thirsty.
Listen to DLW.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 8/17/2003 2:09 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by JCsites.com
It appears to me like I offended you. I am truly sorry. I really didn't mean to discount you. I feel like you are saying that I put my needs ahead of you and the other members on this board. I am sorry. I really don't intend to put my needs ahead of others. I hate selfishness but am not immune to it either.
One question, what do you think are my needs? By posting this poll, what needs did I say I have? To use technology for technology's sake? To get personal glory for being a spiritual dude because I give tech support?
First, your question: "What's your basis and source for this kind of conclusion?" The answer is your self-identification with this: "Thanks again for assigning me the label of yet another techie who wants to do something because it's technically possible. I love that label! "
Second, it looks to the person of my generation that the person of your generation is too worried about PC issues (offended "feelings") at the expense of missing the concrete. Take DLW's concerns (for example) not as "feelings" but as concrete need of a real person and it will reform the rest of your thinking.
Third, I'm not concerned with your "needs" here. Nor was my post about your being PC-understood. I was saying that you should dampen your enthusiasm at this stage. You successfully developoed the technology. You should and have received the kudos, the congratulations and the thanks that you deserve. That's done. Re-read what I DID say -- rather than me restating it, and leaving you to compare the two.
Fourth, though someone CAN use programs to do all that you say (Which of course I knew -- everyone knows how search engines work.) In real flesh-and-blood life that is different than when a non-techi has a CCEL.org disk and does late night proweling. Not only is the high tech scenerio unstopable, it is also less pot-shotty.
But, fifth, a published version would have hobbiests wacking at it. A published version might also join the legions of other now-yet-in-in-the-works databases that could replace the 1980's shopping mall sign-up-to-win-a-trip cards that resulted in the CVM data being pooled with lots of other data in some corporate Big-Brother venture to produce a bottom line for investors. It would find its way there NOT in the high tech path you remind us is inevitable. It would be swapped and trades in the back of pickup trucks at flea markets. It would receive a 'grade' for scandal potential--maybe be assigned a 'color.' The high percentage of Meph and DLW threads on this board (kidding now!) should make a clean-but-graded version of Vintage CVM go for more than a nice floor lamp!
Instead, let it hide in plain sight. | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 8/17/2003 2:16 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by PotOnWheel
But, fifth, a published version would have hobbiests wacking at it. A published version might also join the legions of other now-yet-in-in-the-works databases that could replace the 1980's shopping mall sign-up-to-win-a-trip cards that resulted in the CVM data being pooled with lots of other data in some corporate Big-Brother venture to produce a bottom line for investors. It would find its way there NOT in the high tech path you remind us is inevitable. It would be swapped and trades in the back of pickup trucks at flea markets. It would receive a 'grade' for scandal potential--maybe be assigned a 'color.' The high percentage of Meph and DLW threads on this board (kidding now!) should make a clean-but-graded version of Vintage CVM go for more than a nice floor lamp!
Instead, let it hide in plain sight.
DLW, the future of "Big Brother" is Mexican flea markets where Orwell's "Rosebud" has its brothers and sisters re-sold for huge markdowns. Talk about the cheepening of ideas! 
(But I hear that a CVM/Desiring God matched set, with jacket covers intact goes for big bucks. ) | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 8/17/2003 2:37 AM (GMT -6) | | | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 8/17/2003 2:44 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by PotOnWheel
Talk about the "market place of ideas!"
| | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 8/17/2003 2:47 AM (GMT -6) | | | DLW's economic and political ideas would truly contribute to the global economy. And the "new world dis-order." | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 8/17/2003 4:47 AM (GMT -6) | | PoW: And based on the disclaimer of this site no one is entitled to a publically published version!
Tom: Nobody is claiming that anybody is "entitled" to a publically published version. But if the owners want to make a CD version available, hey, they're entitled to do so. I'll take one! John and JC are right. Whatever harm can be done through a CD version of the site can be done now through the online version. Such a CD version is not a transgression of the policy of the board that people not publish quotes without the author's permission. You seem downright irrational to me on this issue, PoW. But being that it's me that thinks so, don't worry about it. You know me, . Hey, imagine how badly I would misunderstand you and take you out of context if I was reading you on a CD version instead of online! 
Keep up the good work JC, and if you ever get around to doing the CD version. If I had as many handles as PoW does I'd vote "yes" with each of them.
Tom | | Back to Top | | |
|
JCsites.com
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 169
| Posted 8/17/2003 5:31 AM (GMT -6) | | POW/Al2Si2H4O9,
YOu said:
quote:
First, your question: "What's your basis and source for this kind of conclusion?" The answer is your self-identification with this: "Thanks again for assigning me the label of yet another techie who wants to do something because it's technically possible. I love that label! "
From your response there, I realized I made a mistake. I was being sarcastic in thanking you for labeling me. But in your defense, I should have followed my sarcastic remarke with, (NOT!) so that you'd know I was being sarcastic.
Lets face facts, you don't know me well. You haven't worked closely with me on technology projects. You really don't know if I'm the kind of techie that thinks "because you can you should" on every technology project.
Still you labeled me as such. I did not appreciate that and tried to make a sarcastic remark about it. The irony is that later, you used my sarcastic remark to say that I labeled myself as a techie who follows this trend of using technology for technology's sake. Well I take responsibility for you doing that. I think a case could be made that you did not interpret the sarcasm in my remark. Sometimes those subtleties get lost on a discussion board. I should have put (NOT!) after it so that there'd be no doubts as to my meaning.
Apart from you misunderstanding my sarcasm, I have written nothing that suggests I think technology is the answer to everything. Or that just because we can, with technology, means we should.
Why? because I DO NOT think that technology is the answer to everything. I DO NOT think that because something can be done with technology that it should. SO DON'T LABEL ME BASED ON YOUR ASSUMPTIONS ABOUT ME!
You know it really bothers me that when we began this discussion you were posing as Al2Si2H4O9. Then when I said that we'd should agree to disagree and let others chime in, you continued the conversation posing as POW. If you had not changed handles I would have ignored your post. Because I realized that the two of us are polar opposites on the issue and there's no point in argueing with eachother about it. But you switched handles so I read them and responded.
Again I say to POW/Al2Si2H4O9 that we need to agree to disagree. This is not worth getting so personal about. Neither of us has the right to take action on this issue anyway. I was just interested in member opions. I got your. Thank you. Now I'd like to see others.
Make Posts Not War... | | Back to Top | | |
| 34 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 4:52 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|