From: David Picon Alvarez (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Thu Dec 08 2005 - 01:20:45 MST
From: "Chris Capel" <email@example.com>
> I think an identification of topics that don't require a lot of
> expertise to comprehend and have a lot of room for people to have
> differing opinions, room to have subjective, noisy, (and largely
> pointless) debate about, would help to provide the raw fodder for
> those (like me) that wish to start a public, amateur-friendly
> discussion. While rehashing basic points of this or that subtopic over
> and over again with slight variations may be distasteful and pointless
> to those with real expertise in the subject, this is what real web
> discussion looks like. It's what we're going to have to foster if we
> want to gain any sort of visibility through the method.
That may be what real web discussion tends to be like, but I see no reason
why it should always be like that, and if it is, then I see no use to it.
Visibility is all good, but resources are limited. Visibility is already
such that quite a lot of technical people are converging on this idea, I
postulate that's enough.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:00:54 MDT