Regarding recent discussion about 'rating' messages...
I'm not a contributor to this group; just a bystander. I prefer to scan
the topics and decide for myself what to read (and when to read it). I'm
also free to decide How to read it (scanning vs. deliberation). When it
comes to entertainment media, I don't mind letting the critics, and
friends, help me decide which movies I'm going to spend my money on. When
it comes to discussions like these, I prefer to decide for myself which
messages I read and in what sequence. "Coding" messages for topical
subject is one thing; "ranking" or "rating" them could be considered a
form of censorship. For all one knows, the lowest 'rated' message might
contain the germ of an idea needed by one of us readers that really leads
to a breakthrough.
Do we rank and rate companions comments during a personal conversation?
What criteria are fair to apply?
Sometimes the value is not in what is said; but in what is heard.
Among the very little literature (I think) I remember from high school
days (a long time ago) is a quote from John Stuart Mill which goes
something like "I may disagree with what you say; but I'll defend to the
death your right to say it."
Regarding threaded discussions, I may or may not agree with what is said;
but I'll defend each individual's right to decide for themselves whether
it is worth reading.
So much for my semi-annual stand on the soapbox.
Dave Kennebeck
--DavidK4162 <DavidK4162@aol.com>
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>