Identity
Filter
Visitors
(0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (16) (0) (0) (61) (0) (0) (0)Subscribers
(0) (0)
Highest posts
Latest posts
Links
Blogs
Democracy
Search
[top-politics] Re: Parlement Version 0.9
-
echarp wrote:
About parlement, right now I’m working on a feature that has been asked by friends of mine: “moderated mails”.
Currently you can filter the web page and you can also receive and respond by mail to all posts, I will add a threshold to only receive the mails that get above it.
“Democratically moderated mailing lists”.
seems like a logical extension of the filters in place for visualisation on leparlement’s page.
On Tue, Nov 21, 2006 at 01:10:53AM -0000, Serge wrote: > Obviously mark’s stance on citizens is questionnable for many here.
Definitely, yes. But what is worse is the online personality he displays.
Yet I think everybody has a personal story, and everybody can change for the best if given the opportunity to.
Around a beer, or online in an irc chat, mark could possibly learn to appreciate democracy. But we have to do with what we have.
(democracy, rule by the demo)
But isn’t this the whole point of the system, that because we do disagree in sometimes important ways, we might be able to come to practical solutions that offer a greater deal of flexibility?
What of the deep disagreements and disagreeable personality traits?
Well, disagreements, especially deep ones, forces us to clarify our own position, and may help find discrepancies in our own ways that we wouldn’t have faced if not pushed by a “disagreeable” person.
So I hope I am not being rude by suggesting this, but would it be possible for you to just collaborate on whatever is possible while keeping disagreements constructive and focused on the practical features and functionnalities of a TOP system?
You are not being rude.
Trouble is that the disagreement is profound, and the arguments he propose amount to nothing but insults (“lemming”).
Yet he also pushes for a technical system with parts which are very much alike lomax’s and even mine’s. Shame shame shame.
What do you think?
as you say, on the technical parts you have points of agreements (and of disagreements), which means that if the conversation can be made constructively and focus on the technical, everyone should benefit. These who disagree with Mark on his view of people as lemmings may still find some technical points that could be raised as worth examining, and Mark (or anyone in such a position of dissent/minority) would as a result get at least some points accross.
Echarp, your answer suggests you would be ready to put aside the differences and concentrate on what can actually be done. So I guess the question is, Mark, would you accept to forget about the points on which there is an obvious deadlock (such as the whole lemming rethoric) in this thread at least, and in the same fashion concentrate on making disagreements productive?
Best regards,
Serge
--—-—----—-—-—---—~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups “top-politics” group. To post to this group, send email to top-politics@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to top-politics-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/top-politics?hl=en--—---------———--~-
+1
