# Proper Use of Subject Lines *The Urth list — 33 messages, 10 voices, 21 May 2010* > Exported from an unofficial mirror of a public mailing list. Copyright > in each message remains with the person who wrote it. > Email addresses are obscured as `user at host`, the form the original > archive published. This file was rebuilt from parsed fields rather than > retained headers, so it is faithful in content but not byte-exact. --- ### David Stockhoff *21 May 2010, 12:19* Yes. Is it too much to ask that the subject line be used as intended to promote efficiency of communication and discussion? It has nothing to do with the value of a particular message or discussion. > ------------------------------ > > Message: 8 > Date: Thu, 20 May 2010 23:59:16 -0400 > From: John Watkins > To: The Urth Mailing List > Subject: Re: (urth) Gene Wolfe > Message-ID: > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > > I have to agree. > > On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 11:49 PM, Craig Brewer wrote: > > > Talk about whatever you want. I don't even care if it ends up in my > mailbox. I just want to know if I can delete it without having to read it > first. I like to think that emails from a Gene Wolfe mailing list with > "Wolfe" in the subject line might actually be about Wolfe rather than > someone's own personal theology and other peoples' arguments about it. --- ### Jeff Wilson *21 May 2010, 14:01 · in reply to David Stockhoff* > On 5/21/2010 7:19 AM, David Stockhoff wrote: > Yes. Is it too much to ask that the subject line be used as intended to > promote efficiency of communication and discussion? In my experience, it is unless you have a moderator with the ability and the will to enforce pertinent subject linces. People don't participate in discussions to compose and recompose subject lines, they do it to speak their piece. ``` Jeff Wilson - jwilson at io.com IEEE Student Chapter Blog at < http://ieeetamut.org > ``` --- ### James Wynn *21 May 2010, 14:59 · in reply to Jeff Wilson* > On 5/21/2010 9:01 AM, Jeff Wilson wrote: > n my experience, it is unless you have a moderator with the ability > and the will to enforce pertinent subject I have, in the past, attempted to change the subject lines of threads as they moved OT. Maybe half or less of the participants followed. If the particular email that prompted them to responded did not have a changed subject, they didn't change it. Probably, because they didn't care about it as much as me or Mr. Brewer. Or, in the respondents opinion, their response *did* have to do with the original subject line. Hopeless cause. On the upside, it is generally easy to tell when a discussion's wagon train has moved on. If I've lost interest, I stop following it entirely. With that method --although it's not neat and orderly, the problem is mostly solved. J. --- ### Jeff Wilson *24 May 2010, 08:56 · in reply to James Wynn* > On 5/21/2010 9:59 AM, James Wynn wrote: > On 5/21/2010 9:01 AM, Jeff Wilson wrote: >> n my experience, it is unless you have a moderator with the ability >> and the will to enforce pertinent subject >> I have, in the past, attempted to change the subject lines of threads as >> they moved OT. Maybe half or less of the participants followed. If the >> particular email that prompted them to responded did not have a changed >> subject, they didn't change it. Probably, because they didn't care about >> it as much as me or Mr. Brewer. Or, in the respondents opinion, their >> response *did* have to do with the original subject line. Hopeless cause. it's not a hopeless cause, it just requires enforcement. I do it on playtest discussion lists all the time: I lay out the rules for subject lines, ask people nicely to follow them, warn them when they go astray, and if they persist in going astray, I send them to the land of postings-held-until-released-by-a-moderator to wander in the wilderness until they see the light. ``` Jeff Wilson - jwilson at io.com IEEE Student Chapter Blog at < http://ieeetamut.org > ``` --- ### brunians at brunians.org *24 May 2010, 09:22 · in reply to Jeff Wilson* Ve must haff DISCIPLINE! . > On 5/21/2010 9:59 AM, James Wynn wrote: >> On 5/21/2010 9:01 AM, Jeff Wilson wrote: >>> n my experience, it is unless you have a moderator with the ability >>> and the will to enforce pertinent subject >>> I have, in the past, attempted to change the subject lines of threads as >>> they moved OT. Maybe half or less of the participants followed. If the >>> particular email that prompted them to responded did not have a changed >>> subject, they didn't change it. Probably, because they didn't care about >>> it as much as me or Mr. Brewer. Or, in the respondents opinion, their >>> response *did* have to do with the original subject line. Hopeless >>> cause. > it's not a hopeless cause, it just requires enforcement. I do it on > playtest discussion lists all the time: I lay out the rules for subject > lines, ask people nicely to follow them, warn them when they go astray, > and if they persist in going astray, I send them to the land of > postings-held-until-released-by-a-moderator to wander in the wilderness > until they see the light. > > -- > Jeff Wilson - jwilson at io.com > IEEE Student Chapter Blog at > < http://ieeetamut.org > > _______________________________________________ --- ### Craig Brewer *24 May 2010, 14:28 · in reply to brunians at brunians.org* Or courtesy. ----- Original Message ---- From: "brunians at brunians.org" To: The Urth Mailing List Sent: Mon, May 24, 2010 4:22:49 AM Subject: Re: (urth) Improper Use of Subject Lines Ve must haff DISCIPLINE! . > On 5/21/2010 9:59 AM, James Wynn wrote: >> On 5/21/2010 9:01 AM, Jeff Wilson wrote: >>> n my experience, it is unless you have a moderator with the ability >>> and the will to enforce pertinent subject >>> I have, in the past, attempted to change the subject lines of threads as >>> they moved OT. Maybe half or less of the participants followed. If the >>> particular email that prompted them to responded did not have a changed >>> subject, they didn't change it. Probably, because they didn't care about >>> it as much as me or Mr. Brewer. Or, in the respondents opinion, their >>> response *did* have to do with the original subject line. Hopeless >>> cause. > it's not a hopeless cause, it just requires enforcement. I do it on > playtest discussion lists all the time: I lay out the rules for subject > lines, ask people nicely to follow them, warn them when they go astray, > and if they persist in going astray, I send them to the land of > postings-held-until-released-by-a-moderator to wander in the wilderness > until they see the light. > > -- > Jeff Wilson - jwilson at io.com > IEEE Student Chapter Blog at > < http://ieeetamut.org > > _______________________________________________ > Urth Mailing List > To post, write urth at urth.net > Subscription/information: http://www.urth.net --- ### brunians at brunians.org *24 May 2010, 14:43 · in reply to Craig Brewer* Or a desire to control things not actually under our control. . > Or courtesy. > > > > ----- Original Message ---- > From: "brunians at brunians.org" > To: The Urth Mailing List > Sent: Mon, May 24, 2010 4:22:49 AM > Subject: Re: (urth) Improper Use of Subject Lines > > Ve must haff DISCIPLINE! > > . >> On 5/21/2010 9:59 AM, James Wynn wrote: >>> On 5/21/2010 9:01 AM, Jeff Wilson wrote: >>>> n my experience, it is unless you have a moderator with the ability >>>> and the will to enforce pertinent subject >>>> I have, in the past, attempted to change the subject lines of threads >>>> as >>>> they moved OT. Maybe half or less of the participants followed. If the >>>> particular email that prompted them to responded did not have a changed >>>> subject, they didn't change it. Probably, because they didn't care >>>> about >>>> it as much as me or Mr. Brewer. Or, in the respondents opinion, their >>>> response *did* have to do with the original subject line. Hopeless >>>> cause. >> it's not a hopeless cause, it just requires enforcement. I do it on >> playtest discussion lists all the time: I lay out the rules for subject >> lines, ask people nicely to follow them, warn them when they go astray, >> and if they persist in going astray, I send them to the land of >> postings-held-until-released-by-a-moderator to wander in the wilderness >> until they see the light. >> >> -- >> Jeff Wilson - jwilson at io.com >> IEEE Student Chapter Blog at >> < http://ieeetamut.org > >> _______________________________________________ --- ### Dan'l Danehy-Oakes *24 May 2010, 15:04 · in reply to brunians at brunians.org* Discipline, voluntarily enforced, is a Good Thing. > On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 2:22 AM, wrote: > Ve must haff DISCIPLINE! > > . >> On 5/21/2010 9:59 AM, James Wynn wrote: >>> On 5/21/2010 9:01 AM, Jeff Wilson wrote: >>>> n my experience, it is unless you have a moderator with the ability >>>> and the will to enforce pertinent subject >>>> I have, in the past, attempted to change the subject lines of threads as >>>> they moved OT. Maybe half or less of the participants followed. If the >>>> particular email that prompted them to responded did not have a changed >>>> subject, they didn't change it. Probably, because they didn't care about >>>> it as much as me or Mr. Brewer. Or, in the respondents opinion, their >>>> response *did* have to do with the original subject line. Hopeless >>>> cause. >> it's not a hopeless cause, it just requires enforcement. I do it on >> playtest discussion lists all the time: I lay out the rules for subject >> lines, ask people nicely to follow them, warn them when they go astray, >> and if they persist in going astray, I send them to the land of >> postings-held-until-released-by-a-moderator to wander in the wilderness >> until they see the light. >> >> -- >> Jeff Wilson - jwilson at io.com >> IEEE Student Chapter Blog at >> < http://ieeetamut.org > >> _______________________________________________ --- ### Rob Thornton *24 May 2010, 15:06 · in reply to Dan'l Danehy-Oakes* Agreed. > On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 11:04 AM, Dan'l Danehy-Oakes wrote: > Discipline, voluntarily enforced, is a Good Thing. > > On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 2:22 AM, ? wrote: >> Ve must haff DISCIPLINE! >> >> . >>> On 5/21/2010 9:59 AM, James Wynn wrote: >>>> On 5/21/2010 9:01 AM, Jeff Wilson wrote: >>>>> n my experience, it is unless you have a moderator with the ability >>>>> and the will to enforce pertinent subject >>>>> I have, in the past, attempted to change the subject lines of threads as >>>>> they moved OT. Maybe half or less of the participants followed. If the >>>>> particular email that prompted them to responded did not have a changed >>>>> subject, they didn't change it. Probably, because they didn't care about >>>>> it as much as me or Mr. Brewer. Or, in the respondents opinion, their >>>>> response *did* have to do with the original subject line. Hopeless >>>>> cause. >>> it's not a hopeless cause, it just requires enforcement. I do it on >>> playtest discussion lists all the time: I lay out the rules for subject >>> lines, ask people nicely to follow them, warn them when they go astray, >>> and if they persist in going astray, I send them to the land of >>> postings-held-until-released-by-a-moderator to wander in the wilderness >>> until they see the light. >>> >>> -- >>> Jeff Wilson - jwilson at io.com >>> IEEE Student Chapter Blog at >>> < http://ieeetamut.org > >>> _______________________________________________ --- ### James Wynn *24 May 2010, 15:15 · in reply to Dan'l Danehy-Oakes* But then we have to endure threads on the rules of good subject lines. I think it is better to keep the list in line by modeling good behavior rather having self-appointed cops. Ever live in a neighborhood with extensive homeowner codes and have to live next to the lady who memorized them? Ever had someone yell at you because your Yorkshire Terrier, walking at your feet, is not on a leash? ("It's the LAW!") > On 5/24/2010 10:04 AM, Dan'l Danehy-Oakes wrote: > Discipline, voluntarily enforced, is a Good Thing. > --- ### Dan'l Danehy-Oakes *24 May 2010, 15:17 · in reply to James Wynn* You misunderstood what I mean by "voluntarily enforced." I do _not_ mean universal citizen policing (which is a Bad Thing). Rather, I mean a situation in which people voluntarily act in a disciplined manner. > On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 8:15 AM, James Wynn wrote: > But then we have to endure threads on the rules of good subject lines. I > think it is better to keep the list in line by modeling good behavior rather > having self-appointed cops. Ever live in a neighborhood with extensive > homeowner codes and have to live next to the lady who memorized them? Ever > had someone yell at you because your Yorkshire Terrier, walking at your > feet, is not on a leash? ("It's the LAW!") > > On 5/24/2010 10:04 AM, Dan'l Danehy-Oakes wrote: >> Discipline, voluntarily enforced, is a Good Thing. > _______________________________________________ --- ### James Wynn *24 May 2010, 15:54 · in reply to Dan'l Danehy-Oakes* Well, it is true that a righteous society is a free society, but I guess I understood the issue to be what happens When Subject Lines Go Bad. > On 5/24/2010 10:17 AM, Dan'l Danehy-Oakes wrote: > You misunderstood what I mean by "voluntarily enforced." I do _not_ > mean universal citizen policing (which is a Bad Thing). Rather, I mean > a situation in which people voluntarily act in a disciplined manner. > > > On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 8:15 AM, James Wynn wrote: > >> But then we have to endure threads on the rules of good subject lines. I >> think it is better to keep the list in line by modeling good behavior rather >> having self-appointed cops. Ever live in a neighborhood with extensive >> homeowner codes and have to live next to the lady who memorized them? Ever >> had someone yell at you because your Yorkshire Terrier, walking at your >> feet, is not on a leash? ("It's the LAW!") >> >> On 5/24/2010 10:04 AM, Dan'l Danehy-Oakes wrote: >> >>> Discipline, voluntarily enforced, is a Good Thing. >>> >>> >> _______________________________________________ --- ### brunians at brunians.org *24 May 2010, 16:13 · in reply to Rob Thornton* Explain to me how you can use the words 'voluntary' and 'enforced' together and make sense. . > Agreed. > > On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 11:04 AM, Dan'l Danehy-Oakes > wrote: >> Discipline, voluntarily enforced, is a Good Thing. >> >> On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 2:22 AM, ? wrote: >>> Ve must haff DISCIPLINE! >>> >>> . >>>> On 5/21/2010 9:59 AM, James Wynn wrote: >>>>> On 5/21/2010 9:01 AM, Jeff Wilson wrote: >>>>>> n my experience, it is unless you have a moderator with the ability >>>>>> and the will to enforce pertinent subject >>>>>> I have, in the past, attempted to change the subject lines of threads >>>>>> as >>>>>> they moved OT. Maybe half or less of the participants followed. If >>>>>> the >>>>>> particular email that prompted them to responded did not have a >>>>>> changed >>>>>> subject, they didn't change it. Probably, because they didn't care >>>>>> about >>>>>> it as much as me or Mr. Brewer. Or, in the respondents opinion, their >>>>>> response *did* have to do with the original subject line. Hopeless >>>>>> cause. >>>> it's not a hopeless cause, it just requires enforcement. I do it on >>>> playtest discussion lists all the time: I lay out the rules for >>>> subject >>>> lines, ask people nicely to follow them, warn them when they go >>>> astray, >>>> and if they persist in going astray, I send them to the land of >>>> postings-held-until-released-by-a-moderator to wander in the >>>> wilderness >>>> until they see the light. >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Jeff Wilson - jwilson at io.com >>>> IEEE Student Chapter Blog at >>>> < http://ieeetamut.org > >>>> _______________________________________________ --- ### brunians at brunians.org *24 May 2010, 16:15 · in reply to Dan'l Danehy-Oakes* L'audace! Encore l'audace! Toujours l'audace! -- Danton . > You misunderstood what I mean by "voluntarily enforced." I do _not_ > mean universal citizen policing (which is a Bad Thing). Rather, I mean > a situation in which people voluntarily act in a disciplined manner. > > > On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 8:15 AM, James Wynn wrote: >> But then we have to endure threads on the rules of good subject lines. I >> think it is better to keep the list in line by modeling good behavior >> rather >> having self-appointed cops. Ever live in a neighborhood with extensive >> homeowner codes and have to live next to the lady who memorized them? >> Ever >> had someone yell at you because your Yorkshire Terrier, walking at your >> feet, is not on a leash? ("It's the LAW!") >> >> On 5/24/2010 10:04 AM, Dan'l Danehy-Oakes wrote: >>> Discipline, voluntarily enforced, is a Good Thing. >> _______________________________________________ --- ### brunians at brunians.org *24 May 2010, 16:17 · in reply to James Wynn* I think we should have regular self-criticism sessions. . > Well, it is true that a righteous society is a free society, but I guess > I understood the issue to be what happens When Subject Lines Go Bad. > > On 5/24/2010 10:17 AM, Dan'l Danehy-Oakes wrote: >> You misunderstood what I mean by "voluntarily enforced." I do _not_ >> mean universal citizen policing (which is a Bad Thing). Rather, I mean >> a situation in which people voluntarily act in a disciplined manner. >> >> >> On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 8:15 AM, James Wynn wrote: >>> But then we have to endure threads on the rules of good subject lines. >>> I >>> think it is better to keep the list in line by modeling good behavior >>> rather >>> having self-appointed cops. Ever live in a neighborhood with extensive >>> homeowner codes and have to live next to the lady who memorized them? >>> Ever >>> had someone yell at you because your Yorkshire Terrier, walking at your >>> feet, is not on a leash? ("It's the LAW!") >>> >>> On 5/24/2010 10:04 AM, Dan'l Danehy-Oakes wrote: >>>> Discipline, voluntarily enforced, is a Good Thing. >>> _______________________________________________ --- ### John Watkins *24 May 2010, 16:20 · in reply to brunians at brunians.org* I think you should stop spamming the list. > On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 12:17 PM, wrote: > I think we should have regular self-criticism sessions. > > . >> Well, it is true that a righteous society is a free society, but I guess >> I understood the issue to be what happens When Subject Lines Go Bad. >> >> On 5/24/2010 10:17 AM, Dan'l Danehy-Oakes wrote: >>> You misunderstood what I mean by "voluntarily enforced." I do _not_ >>> mean universal citizen policing (which is a Bad Thing). Rather, I mean >>> a situation in which people voluntarily act in a disciplined manner. >>> >>> >>> On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 8:15 AM, James Wynn wrote: >>>> But then we have to endure threads on the rules of good subject lines. >>>> I >>>> think it is better to keep the list in line by modeling good behavior >>>> rather >>>> having self-appointed cops. Ever live in a neighborhood with extensive >>>> homeowner codes and have to live next to the lady who memorized them? >>>> Ever >>>> had someone yell at you because your Yorkshire Terrier, walking at your >>>> feet, is not on a leash? ("It's the LAW!") >>>> >>>> On 5/24/2010 10:04 AM, Dan'l Danehy-Oakes wrote: >>>>> Discipline, voluntarily enforced, is a Good Thing. >>>> _______________________________________________ --- ### Dan'l Danehy-Oakes *24 May 2010, 16:21 · in reply to brunians at brunians.org* Perhaps it would help if I explained that "voluntary enforcement" is a fancy way of saying "civilized behavior." Probably not, though. --Dan'l > On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 9:15 AM, wrote: > L'audace! Encore l'audace! > Toujours l'audace! > > -- Danton > > . >> You misunderstood what I mean by "voluntarily enforced." I do _not_ >> mean universal citizen policing (which is a Bad Thing). Rather, I mean >> a situation in which people voluntarily act in a disciplined manner. >> >> >> On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 8:15 AM, James Wynn wrote: >>> But then we have to endure threads on the rules of good subject lines. I >>> think it is better to keep the list in line by modeling good behavior >>> rather >>> having self-appointed cops. Ever live in a neighborhood with extensive >>> homeowner codes and have to live next to the lady who memorized them? >>> Ever >>> had someone yell at you because your Yorkshire Terrier, walking at your >>> feet, is not on a leash? ("It's the LAW!") >>> >>> On 5/24/2010 10:04 AM, Dan'l Danehy-Oakes wrote: >>>> Discipline, voluntarily enforced, is a Good Thing. >>> _______________________________________________ --- ### brunians at brunians.org *24 May 2010, 16:26 · in reply to John Watkins* If you don't want a thread to continue, don't follow it up. It is the only way. . > I think you should stop spamming the list. > > On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 12:17 PM, wrote: >> I think we should have regular self-criticism sessions. >> >> . >>> Well, it is true that a righteous society is a free society, but I >>> guess >>> I understood the issue to be what happens When Subject Lines Go Bad. >>> >>> On 5/24/2010 10:17 AM, Dan'l Danehy-Oakes wrote: >>>> You misunderstood what I mean by "voluntarily enforced." I do _not_ >>>> mean universal citizen policing (which is a Bad Thing). Rather, I >>>> mean >>>> a situation in which people voluntarily act in a disciplined manner. >>>> >>>> >>>> On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 8:15 AM, James Wynn >>>> wrote: >>>>> But then we have to endure threads on the rules of good subject >>>>> lines. >>>>> I >>>>> think it is better to keep the list in line by modeling good >>>>> behavior >>>>> rather >>>>> having self-appointed cops. Ever live in a neighborhood with >>>>> extensive >>>>> homeowner codes and have to live next to the lady who memorized >>>>> them? >>>>> Ever >>>>> had someone yell at you because your Yorkshire Terrier, walking at >>>>> your >>>>> feet, is not on a leash? ("It's the LAW!") >>>>> >>>>> On 5/24/2010 10:04 AM, Dan'l Danehy-Oakes wrote: >>>>>> Discipline, voluntarily enforced, is a Good Thing. >>>>> _______________________________________________ --- ### brunians at brunians.org *24 May 2010, 16:29 · in reply to Dan'l Danehy-Oakes* It's not, though. It is a contradiction in terms. It verges on newspeak. Something that is voluntary is done of one's free will. Something that is enforced is done will ye or nil ye. So what is something that is voluntarily enforced? You either want something to be done voluntarily, or you want it to be enforced. You can't have it both ways. . > Perhaps it would help if I explained that "voluntary enforcement" is a > fancy way of saying "civilized behavior." > > Probably not, though. > > --Dan'l > > On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 9:15 AM, wrote: >> L'audace! Encore l'audace! >> Toujours l'audace! >> >> -- Danton >> >> . >>> You misunderstood what I mean by "voluntarily enforced." I do _not_ >>> mean universal citizen policing (which is a Bad Thing). Rather, I mean >>> a situation in which people voluntarily act in a disciplined manner. >>> >>> >>> On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 8:15 AM, James Wynn wrote: >>>> But then we have to endure threads on the rules of good subject lines. >>>> I >>>> think it is better to keep the list in line by modeling good behavior >>>> rather >>>> having self-appointed cops. Ever live in a neighborhood with extensive >>>> homeowner codes and have to live next to the lady who memorized them? >>>> Ever >>>> had someone yell at you because your Yorkshire Terrier, walking at >>>> your >>>> feet, is not on a leash? ("It's the LAW!") >>>> >>>> On 5/24/2010 10:04 AM, Dan'l Danehy-Oakes wrote: >>>>> Discipline, voluntarily enforced, is a Good Thing. >>>> _______________________________________________ --- ### Dan'l Danehy-Oakes *24 May 2010, 16:30 · in reply to brunians at brunians.org* I'm sorry you're so trapped in semantics. Meditation might help. > On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 9:29 AM, wrote: > It's not, though. > > It is a contradiction in terms. > > It verges on newspeak. > > Something that is voluntary is done of one's free will. > > Something that is enforced is done will ye or nil ye. > > So what is something that is voluntarily enforced? > > You either want something to be done voluntarily, or you want it to be > enforced. > > You can't have it both ways. > > . >> Perhaps it would help if I explained that "voluntary enforcement" is a >> fancy way of saying "civilized behavior." >> >> Probably not, though. >> >> --Dan'l >> >> On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 9:15 AM, ? wrote: >>> L'audace! Encore l'audace! >>> Toujours l'audace! >>> >>> -- Danton >>> >>> . >>>> You misunderstood what I mean by "voluntarily enforced." I do _not_ >>>> mean universal citizen policing (which is a Bad Thing). Rather, I mean >>>> a situation in which people voluntarily act in a disciplined manner. >>>> >>>> >>>> On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 8:15 AM, James Wynn wrote: >>>>> But then we have to endure threads on the rules of good subject lines. >>>>> I >>>>> think it is better to keep the list in line by modeling good behavior >>>>> rather >>>>> having self-appointed cops. Ever live in a neighborhood with extensive >>>>> homeowner codes and have to live next to the lady who memorized them? >>>>> Ever >>>>> had someone yell at you because your Yorkshire Terrier, walking at >>>>> your >>>>> feet, is not on a leash? ("It's the LAW!") >>>>> >>>>> On 5/24/2010 10:04 AM, Dan'l Danehy-Oakes wrote: >>>>>> Discipline, voluntarily enforced, is a Good Thing. >>>>> _______________________________________________ --- ### Lane Haygood *24 May 2010, 16:34 · in reply to brunians at brunians.org* Something is enforced if there is a penalty for failure to comply. You are still free (in terms of will and capacity) to not comply; you must merely suffer the consequences. Let me put it another way: you are free to disobey the law, id est, to commit a crime. You must, however, "do the time" if you have "done the crime," as the cliche goes. You may voluntarily comport yourself with dignity and class. You may of course also fail to do so and be a boor. That is your prerogative, and none shall gainsay you your boorishness, for while it may be against the mores of good taste, one may not enforce good manners. One voluntarily enforces, therefore, a sense of good character in how one comports onesself if one self-legislates a moraltiy consistent with civility, pace Kant. You must act at all times as if the maxim of your actions could be willed as universal law. Therefore, though you may not be subject to compulsion to play nicely, it is eminently rational and proper for you to compel yourself to do so, should some base nature suggest otherwise. yvt, Lane > On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 11:29 AM, wrote: > It's not, though. > > It is a contradiction in terms. > > It verges on newspeak. > > Something that is voluntary is done of one's free will. > > Something that is enforced is done will ye or nil ye. > > So what is something that is voluntarily enforced? > > You either want something to be done voluntarily, or you want it to be > enforced. > > You can't have it both ways. > > . >> Perhaps it would help if I explained that "voluntary enforcement" is a >> fancy way of saying "civilized behavior." >> >> Probably not, though. >> >> --Dan'l >> >> On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 9:15 AM, ? wrote: >>> L'audace! Encore l'audace! >>> Toujours l'audace! >>> >>> -- Danton >>> >>> . >>>> You misunderstood what I mean by "voluntarily enforced." I do _not_ >>>> mean universal citizen policing (which is a Bad Thing). Rather, I mean >>>> a situation in which people voluntarily act in a disciplined manner. >>>> >>>> >>>> On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 8:15 AM, James Wynn wrote: >>>>> But then we have to endure threads on the rules of good subject lines. >>>>> I >>>>> think it is better to keep the list in line by modeling good behavior >>>>> rather >>>>> having self-appointed cops. Ever live in a neighborhood with extensive >>>>> homeowner codes and have to live next to the lady who memorized them? >>>>> Ever >>>>> had someone yell at you because your Yorkshire Terrier, walking at >>>>> your >>>>> feet, is not on a leash? ("It's the LAW!") >>>>> >>>>> On 5/24/2010 10:04 AM, Dan'l Danehy-Oakes wrote: >>>>>> Discipline, voluntarily enforced, is a Good Thing. >>>>> _______________________________________________ --- ### Fred Kiesche *24 May 2010, 16:36 · in reply to Lane Haygood* It's either Monday or there is a full moon out... > On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 12:34 PM, Lane Haygood wrote: > Something is enforced if there is a penalty for failure to comply. > You are still free (in terms of will and capacity) to not comply; you > must merely suffer the consequences. > > Let me put it another way: you are free to disobey the law, id est, > to commit a crime. You must, however, "do the time" if you have "done > the crime," as the cliche goes. > > You may voluntarily comport yourself with dignity and class. You may > of course also fail to do so and be a boor. That is your prerogative, > and none shall gainsay you your boorishness, for while it may be > against the mores of good taste, one may not enforce good manners. > > One voluntarily enforces, therefore, a sense of good character in how > one comports onesself if one self-legislates a moraltiy consistent > with civility, pace Kant. You must act at all times as if the maxim > of your actions could be willed as universal law. Therefore, though > you may not be subject to compulsion to play nicely, it is eminently > rational and proper for you to compel yourself to do so, should some > base nature suggest otherwise. > > yvt, > Lane > > On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 11:29 AM, wrote: >> It's not, though. >> >> It is a contradiction in terms. >> >> It verges on newspeak. >> >> Something that is voluntary is done of one's free will. >> >> Something that is enforced is done will ye or nil ye. >> >> So what is something that is voluntarily enforced? >> >> You either want something to be done voluntarily, or you want it to be >> enforced. >> >> You can't have it both ways. >> >> . > > > Perhaps it would help if I explained that "voluntary enforcement" is a > fancy way of saying "civilized behavior." >>> Probably not, though. >>> >>> --Dan'l >>> >>> On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 9:15 AM, wrote: >>>> L'audace! Encore l'audace! >>>> Toujours l'audace! >>>> >>>> -- Danton >>>> >>>> . >>>>> You misunderstood what I mean by "voluntarily enforced." I do _not_ >>>>> mean universal citizen policing (which is a Bad Thing). Rather, I mean >>>>> a situation in which people voluntarily act in a disciplined manner. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 8:15 AM, James Wynn >>>>> wrote: >>>>>> But then we have to endure threads on the rules of good subject >>>>>> lines. >>>>>> I >>>>>> think it is better to keep the list in line by modeling good behavior >>>>>> rather >>>>>> having self-appointed cops. Ever live in a neighborhood with >>>>>> extensive >>>>>> homeowner codes and have to live next to the lady who memorized them? >>>>>> Ever >>>>>> had someone yell at you because your Yorkshire Terrier, walking at >>>>>> your >>>>>> feet, is not on a leash? ("It's the LAW!") >>>>>> >>>>>> On 5/24/2010 10:04 AM, Dan'l Danehy-Oakes wrote: >>>>>>> Discipline, voluntarily enforced, is a Good Thing. >>>>>> _______________________________________________ --- ### brunians at brunians.org *24 May 2010, 16:36 · in reply to Dan'l Danehy-Oakes* Why do you feel that I am trapped? As far as I know I am just trying to helpful, but I suppose I may be trapped without knowing it. Let us investigate this question further. Your second remark is curious. Who do you feel that meditation may help? And help with what? It is a puzzling comment. Could you expand upon it? . > I'm sorry you're so trapped in semantics. Meditation might help. > > On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 9:29 AM, wrote: >> It's not, though. >> >> It is a contradiction in terms. >> >> It verges on newspeak. >> >> Something that is voluntary is done of one's free will. >> >> Something that is enforced is done will ye or nil ye. >> >> So what is something that is voluntarily enforced? >> >> You either want something to be done voluntarily, or you want it to be >> enforced. >> >> You can't have it both ways. >> >> . >>> Perhaps it would help if I explained that "voluntary enforcement" is a >>> fancy way of saying "civilized behavior." >>> >>> Probably not, though. >>> >>> --Dan'l >>> >>> On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 9:15 AM, ? wrote: >>>> L'audace! Encore l'audace! >>>> Toujours l'audace! >>>> >>>> -- Danton >>>> >>>> . >>>>> You misunderstood what I mean by "voluntarily enforced." I do _not_ >>>>> mean universal citizen policing (which is a Bad Thing). Rather, I >>>>> mean >>>>> a situation in which people voluntarily act in a disciplined manner. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 8:15 AM, James Wynn >>>>> wrote: >>>>>> But then we have to endure threads on the rules of good subject >>>>>> lines. >>>>>> I >>>>>> think it is better to keep the list in line by modeling good >>>>>> behavior >>>>>> rather >>>>>> having self-appointed cops. Ever live in a neighborhood with >>>>>> extensive >>>>>> homeowner codes and have to live next to the lady who memorized >>>>>> them? >>>>>> Ever >>>>>> had someone yell at you because your Yorkshire Terrier, walking at >>>>>> your >>>>>> feet, is not on a leash? ("It's the LAW!") >>>>>> >>>>>> On 5/24/2010 10:04 AM, Dan'l Danehy-Oakes wrote: >>>>>>> Discipline, voluntarily enforced, is a Good Thing. >>>>>> _______________________________________________ --- ### brunians at brunians.org *24 May 2010, 16:37 · in reply to Lane Haygood* Lane, this doesn't make any sense to me. I'm sorry. . > Something is enforced if there is a penalty for failure to comply. > You are still free (in terms of will and capacity) to not comply; you > must merely suffer the consequences. > > Let me put it another way: you are free to disobey the law, id est, > to commit a crime. You must, however, "do the time" if you have "done > the crime," as the cliche goes. > > You may voluntarily comport yourself with dignity and class. You may > of course also fail to do so and be a boor. That is your prerogative, > and none shall gainsay you your boorishness, for while it may be > against the mores of good taste, one may not enforce good manners. > > One voluntarily enforces, therefore, a sense of good character in how > one comports onesself if one self-legislates a moraltiy consistent > with civility, pace Kant. You must act at all times as if the maxim > of your actions could be willed as universal law. Therefore, though > you may not be subject to compulsion to play nicely, it is eminently > rational and proper for you to compel yourself to do so, should some > base nature suggest otherwise. > > yvt, > Lane > > On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 11:29 AM, wrote: >> It's not, though. >> >> It is a contradiction in terms. >> >> It verges on newspeak. >> >> Something that is voluntary is done of one's free will. >> >> Something that is enforced is done will ye or nil ye. >> >> So what is something that is voluntarily enforced? >> >> You either want something to be done voluntarily, or you want it to be >> enforced. >> >> You can't have it both ways. >> >> . >>> Perhaps it would help if I explained that "voluntary enforcement" is a >>> fancy way of saying "civilized behavior." >>> >>> Probably not, though. >>> >>> --Dan'l >>> >>> On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 9:15 AM, ? wrote: >>>> L'audace! Encore l'audace! >>>> Toujours l'audace! >>>> >>>> -- Danton >>>> >>>> . >>>>> You misunderstood what I mean by "voluntarily enforced." I do _not_ >>>>> mean universal citizen policing (which is a Bad Thing). Rather, I >>>>> mean >>>>> a situation in which people voluntarily act in a disciplined manner. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 8:15 AM, James Wynn >>>>> wrote: >>>>>> But then we have to endure threads on the rules of good subject >>>>>> lines. >>>>>> I >>>>>> think it is better to keep the list in line by modeling good >>>>>> behavior >>>>>> rather >>>>>> having self-appointed cops. Ever live in a neighborhood with >>>>>> extensive >>>>>> homeowner codes and have to live next to the lady who memorized >>>>>> them? >>>>>> Ever >>>>>> had someone yell at you because your Yorkshire Terrier, walking at >>>>>> your >>>>>> feet, is not on a leash? ("It's the LAW!") >>>>>> >>>>>> On 5/24/2010 10:04 AM, Dan'l Danehy-Oakes wrote: >>>>>>> Discipline, voluntarily enforced, is a Good Thing. >>>>>> _______________________________________________ --- ### Jeff Wilson *24 May 2010, 16:39 · in reply to James Wynn* > On 5/24/2010 10:15 AM, James Wynn wrote: > But then we have to endure threads on the rules of good subject lines. I > think it is better to keep the list in line by modeling good behavior > rather having self-appointed cops. Ranjit-appointed cops would be ideal, avoiding numerous of the pathologies you mention. ``` Jeff Wilson - jwilson at io.com IEEE Student Chapter Blog at < http://ieeetamut.org > ``` --- ### brunians at brunians.org *24 May 2010, 16:39 · in reply to Jeff Wilson* Oh cool! Now we're going to have cops! . > On 5/24/2010 10:15 AM, James Wynn wrote: >> But then we have to endure threads on the rules of good subject lines. I >> think it is better to keep the list in line by modeling good behavior >> rather having self-appointed cops. > Ranjit-appointed cops would be ideal, avoiding numerous of the > pathologies you mention. > > -- > Jeff Wilson - jwilson at io.com > IEEE Student Chapter Blog at > < http://ieeetamut.org > > _______________________________________________ --- ### Jeff Wilson *24 May 2010, 16:42 · in reply to brunians at brunians.org* > On 5/24/2010 11:26 AM, brunians at brunians.org wrote: > If you don't want a thread to continue, don't follow it up. > > It is the only way. I must agree my experience bears this out; do not feed the energy creature. ``` Jeff Wilson - jwilson at io.com IEEE Student Chapter Blog at < http://ieeetamut.org > ``` --- ### Jeff Wilson *24 May 2010, 16:44 · in reply to brunians at brunians.org* > On 5/24/2010 11:29 AM, brunians at brunians.org wrote: > It is a contradiction in terms. .. > You can't have it both ways. Apparently you think you can, condemning voluntary enforcement while maintaining actual existence of the supernatural. ``` Jeff Wilson - jwilson at io.com IEEE Student Chapter Blog at < http://ieeetamut.org > ``` --- ### James Wynn *24 May 2010, 16:47 · in reply to Jeff Wilson* > On 5/24/2010 11:39 AM, Jeff Wilson wrote: > On 5/24/2010 10:15 AM, James Wynn wrote: >> But then we have to endure threads on the rules of good subject lines. I >> think it is better to keep the list in line by modeling good behavior >> rather having self-appointed cops. > Ranjit-appointed cops would be ideal, avoiding numerous of the > pathologies you mention. I suppose it *might* be ideal. But ideal solutions, by definition, are usually impractical. You have cops, but then you have to have judges when someone says the cop reacted improperly. Unless you have Judge Dread for your cop I don't want to go there. I think Josh had the best solution: If you want a thread to die, ignore it. Eventually, it will. They always do. These feral thread usually crank up when there is not a lot of interesting conversation on the list. So, there's really little harm in ignoring them. In the meantime, I'll continue to use "OT" to designate off-topic conversations. Even though it is only blowing against the wind, at least it's not pissing against the wind. J. --- ### brunians at brunians.org *24 May 2010, 16:49 · in reply to Jeff Wilson* I can't make sense of this remark either. As I have stated, I don't believe in anything supernatural. Everything that is is natural. Some bits of nature are not well known or poorly documented, or people don't believe the documentation anymore. Also, I fail to see how condemning or approving of the mind-crackling concept of voluntary enforcement has anything to do with maintaining actual existence of the supernatural, and wish you would explain exactly what you mean by that. It seems to me that there is something missing from your second sentence. Perhaps 'belief in' after 'maintaining'? If not, I really don't know what to make of it. . > On 5/24/2010 11:29 AM, brunians at brunians.org wrote: >> It is a contradiction in terms. > .. >> You can't have it both ways. > Apparently you think you can, condemning voluntary enforcement while > maintaining actual existence of the supernatural. > > -- > Jeff Wilson - jwilson at io.com > IEEE Student Chapter Blog at > < http://ieeetamut.org > > _______________________________________________ --- ### Jeff Wilson *24 May 2010, 16:50 · in reply to brunians at brunians.org* > On 5/24/2010 11:39 AM, brunians at brunians.org wrote: > Oh cool! > > Now we're going to have cops! Not the state force monopoly kind, more like the proprietory syndicalist kind. ``` Jeff Wilson - jwilson at io.com IEEE Student Chapter Blog at < http://ieeetamut.org > ``` --- ### brunians at brunians.org *24 May 2010, 16:50 · in reply to Jeff Wilson* Are these police going to be secret police or not so secret police? . > On 5/24/2010 11:39 AM, brunians at brunians.org wrote: >> Oh cool! >> >> Now we're going to have cops! > Not the state force monopoly kind, more like the proprietory syndicalist > kind. > > -- > Jeff Wilson - jwilson at io.com > IEEE Student Chapter Blog at > < http://ieeetamut.org > > _______________________________________________ --- ### Jeff Wilson *24 May 2010, 16:54 · in reply to brunians at brunians.org* > On 5/24/2010 11:49 AM, brunians at brunians.org wrote: > I can't make sense of this remark either. > > As I have stated, I don't believe in anything supernatural. Everything > that is is natural. Some bits of nature are not well known or poorly > documented, or people don't believe the documentation anymore. > > Also, I fail to see how condemning or approving of the mind-crackling > concept of voluntary enforcement has anything to do with maintaining > actual existence of the supernatural, and wish you would explain exactly > what you mean by that. > > It seems to me that there is something missing from your second sentence. > Perhaps 'belief in' after 'maintaining'? If not, I really don't know what > to make of it. I was speaking of the usage of the phrases, not the concepts they purport to describe. ``` Jeff Wilson - jwilson at io.com IEEE Student Chapter Blog at < http://ieeetamut.org > ``` ---