[extropy-chat] Crockers Rules and Changing the Bleeping Subject Line
lcorbin at rawbw.com
Sun Dec 3 03:29:32 UTC 2006
Al Brooks responds, in one of the most perplexing emails I've ever read.
I had written
> For those short-sighted individualists who embrace Crocker's Rules,
> human psychology is very subtle, and I'm very happy to remain on
> good personal terms with very nice and fully civilized and courteous
> people like you [Jeff Davis]! :-)
But the main point of this thread " 'a process of non-thinking called faith' 2 (2)"
---how's that for a subject line??---had absolutely nothing to do with my
mini-polemic against the use of Crocker's rules, to which Al declaimed on
"civilization and war" !!
I have also taken the liberty of changing the subject line " 'a process of non-thinking
called faith' 2 (2)".
Again and again, how can people put huge amounts of effort into a post, and
COMPLETELY IGNORE THE SUBJECT LINE. OBVIOUSLY PEOPLE
ARE NOT LAZY; THEY WOULDN'T HAVE THE ENERGY TO RANT
THE WAY THEY DO. But I have a theory:
By responding the way they do, "hit the Reply key and peck away", they're
signaling that they really are very important people who have far better
things to do with their time than attend to niceties like subject lines. It's
an ego thing.
Alas, I've veered off Al's point. See my next email.
P.S. And Al, I wasn't singling you out for the criticism here; your post
was short. I was attacking all the long and substantial posts that had
nothing to do with this putrid subject line.
> Okay, Lee, but civilization still remains a veneer, and women civilize men--
> that is to say they ATTEMPT to civilize men. The convention of a man
> being a Real Man and not a 'girlie man' still exists in large part. Given this,
> war makes sense; peace does not make sense. Did this war surprise you?
> Not me, the intensity of the insurgency in Iraq was (is) a shock, but not the
> continued existence of war. No way.
More information about the extropy-chat