[PLUG-TALK] Scot Craighead's mailer

J Henshaw jeff at jhenshaw.com
Thu Jun 20 13:06:52 UTC 2002


----- Original Message -----
From: "Miller, Jeremy" <JMILLER at ci.albany.or.us>
To: <plug-talk at lists.pdxlinux.org>
Sent: Thursday, June 20, 2002 7:42 PM
Subject: RE: [PLUG-TALK] Scot Craighead's mailer


> > >Conversing with Jeff, if indeed you can call it that, on the
> > other hand was
> > >utterly pointless and wasteful.
> >
> > That I disagree with.  Jeff does not come right out and say
> > what he has to
> > say, but waits for you to be led where he wants you to go.
>
> I disagree also, because I am getting *something* out of it, and I
recognize
> that he does that.  I don't object because I am often guilty of doing the
> same myself.  (I do understand that when overdone it can drive people
crazy.
> Perhaps that is what happened to Jeme?)
>
>  - Note to Jeme:  I'm just kidding. :)
>
> I will say he wastes way too much time name calling, and flaring up
> emotions.  (Purposefully?  Maybe, maybe not.)  Maybe that would explain
some
> refusal to listen.  In reality, it draws focus away from whatever his
actual
> point is.  Which hurts his own argument.
>
> Namely, I think his leading tactics needs some refinement, or more
> organization.  That is, if he's truly trying to lead anyone to a
> destination.  We don't need to go over the river and through the woods to
> Grandmother's house and back, if the destination simply at the end of our
> driveway.  Lead to the destination, and skip the wild goose chase.
>
> > You can't hear
> > what you refuse to hear.
>
> And it is hard to separate the point from the chaff when a much of what
you
> heard wasn't related to the point.  Especially when the point hasn't been
> stated yet, and your being asked to follow his path to it.  There's way
more
> dots on his page than the ones he wants connected.  And he's laying his
> stepping stones through a field of rocks.
>
>
> Speaking of rocks, his stepping stone metaphor was changed to a stone
> foundation when I suggested jumping over one to come back to it later.
(Due
> to disagreement, and wanting to see where we're being taken.)
>
> I was going to switch along and mention that a stone foundation will also
> fall if placed on unstable land, subject to liquefaction.  <hint>What
makes
> any particular commodity hold its value over others</hint>.  But since I'd
> asked that a few times already to no avail (and no ground is 100% safe
> anyway), I passed.  Or did I? :)
>
Wow,  I see your point,  about the stability of the commodity.

I also appreciate that you understand my methods;  but I submit that the
rocks amongst the stones are thrown in by others.
> And it is hard to separate the point from the chaff when a much of what
you
> heard wasn't related to the point.

The point was communication being the major problem,  overpopulation the
other

I was going to take it to the next stone when we agree communication
problems can be fatal
There's way more
> dots on his page than the ones he wants connected.  And he's laying his
> stepping stones through a field of rocks.

Yes,  Many participants want to dissect the microbial life under the rocks
first, hindering our use of the rock as a stone.
>Lead to the destination, and skip the wild goose chase.

To do that I must sometimes skip Russ, often Russell,  and Jeme invariably.

The direction I was going to take this is related to license vs. copyright
vs. patent

But you can't do physics without knowing addition and algebra first,  I
submit.

So,  if all they want to do is argue semantics we will be wrestling in mud
with pigs.













More information about the PLUG-talk mailing list