As Patri recently pointed out, things mushroomed during this conversation on editing. I'm doing a sort of phenomenology on how this discussion about editing evolved. For my own education I'm wanting to look at the details of what was said early on. I'm trying to see shifts in tone and the effects these have. I want to understand how it moved from a relatively simple set of questions to something that is cloudy and (i think) involves some personal upset. I"m willing to take responsibility if I introduced drama and unclarity. I'm not asking directly that people respond to this journal entry, but that's great if you want to. I'm doing this for myself. I've felt scrammbled and confused about the content and tone that this discussion has taken on and I wanted to go back and look carefully at how it began. I wanted to see if there are any patterns that may have played into what has taken place. I want to add that I have not subtracted or deleted anybody's words in what follows.
Look at this early structure after Tom makes a first, very clear, post about how the new editing powers function:
Carl said:
Tom, I'm not so sure about this new editing power. I just posted to Caryn's Death Star Canteen, and I appear to have the option to edit or delete anyone else's comments! I just added text to Bryn's Ha ha, ho, ho, wondrous!If that's the way things are set up now, there is an enormous potential to rewrite history and to distort karma here. I don't think that's what you want to do.
Tom responds to Carl's concern:
"Having more people possessing editing ability just expands administration responsibility to more people."
Carl details his concern:
"It does more than that. It makes it possible for anyone to put words in anyone else's mouth. That's a serious potential for distortion."
Tom responds to Carl's concern:
"The only people who have this editing ability are regular participants. When website content is revised the person's name making the revision is recorded in admin records."
Carl asks for more details about how it funcitons:
"How about a Registered user who isn't regular? There are fifteen hundred of these. Can they log in and change what people have said, delete things people have said or hide things that have been said from others?"
Tom responds with information:
"About a dozen people have editor permission. They would be the regular appearing names you see on the site."
Carl responds with further concerns. There is shift here in tone ("flawed", "poor", "meaingless") and I wonder if this had consequences:
"Well, ok, but does this strike anyone else as flawed? I trust the people here, of course, but I think it's a poor policy decision. In principle, it makes everything posted here meaningless. Do people see this?"
Jeff now makes his first statement. Jeff expresses concern and asks specific questions to Tom. I'm looking to see what specifically Jeff says and how it might come across:
"Hi Tom, not sure what is going on with this editing thing, but until I understand your reasoning i need to ask that my posts not be allowed to participate in this function. I'm not saying you don't have a great point that I will come around to, but before I can let people into my documents, i need much more information. Could you say more about why you find this necessary? If I have questions about something you type, should I simply communiate my questions to you so that you can change them? What are the circumstances in which you think people should not talk to each other about the content of posts? Thanks"
Tom responds with further details, however his response does not address two of Jeff's questions: This was most likely not intentional but let's see how Jeff takes the ommision. Tom's respons:
"Administrators on all web sites have the ability to edit or delete comments. We now have about a dozen administrators. The administrators consist of the regulars on this web site. If anyone opposes a particular regular participant from being made an administrator they should contact me"
Jeff repeats his original request by asking for an example of what what criteria Tom has in mind. Jeff acknowledges that he understands this might be a permanant change. He then makes a specific suggestion and requests that Tom address his question: perhaps Jeff could have reworded his request. Did Tom take it as a dig?
"Ok, Could you give a few concrete examples of when you would think it appropriate for Carl to edit one of my posts? I'm trying to get out of abstract land and really see the concrete instances in which changing each other's posts is an advantage of direct communication. I understand that perhaps this will be the way things are on this site. I'll take that into account in my decisions to communicate. At the very least is the website able to immediately notify a writer if somebody other than him or herself has made a change to a post. If that is the case, I'd rest assured. We all leave long trails of posts on this site. It would seem relatively simple that one would be automatically notified if anybody else decides to edit a post...The two things I'd like to hear back from you on are examples in which somebody should edit a post and if there is an automatic notification of changed posts."
Tom's does not respond to Jeff's question. Instead Tom asks Jeff why Jeff is asking Tom questions. How might Jeff have interpreted Tom's response?
"Why do you look to me for answers? You are one of the administrators. You tell me?"
Jeff makes two requests: that his posts are protected from being edited by other participants and that he no longer have the option of editing other's posts. Jeff then suggests that the wider group talk about this issue.
"That's great, Tom! My administrative decision is that my posts will not be editable by other participants and that I will not have the option of editing other people's post. Thanks! Also, my vote is that we have a group discussion about how many people we would like to have this capacity. Thanks for putting my settings back. I didn't realize you were going to make it that easy!"
Tom responds to the first part of Jeff's request but not the second. He does not comment on the second part:
"In a post you said you didn't want admin edit ability so I removed you as an editor. If you want to participate as admin let me know."
Jeff responds by reminding Tom of Jeff's full request and asks if Tom can also do that. Jeff then expresses confusion as to who is suppose to be addressing; this could be due to Tom asking Jeff why Jeff was asking Tom questions. Jeff then includes Lori in his request: this could be due to Jeff knowing that Lori has the next highest role and capacity on the website. Jeff then requests that he be notified when his request is acted on AND he asks if it is possible. Jeff repeats both requests: Has Jeff changed tone from his first post? Has his language begun to suggest that he is angry or blaming Tom?
"I also mentioned wanting to reduce the scope of those who could modify my writing. Can you do that as well? I'm not sure who to be asking these questions to because it seems you really want to step aside. Lori or Tim, could you please reduce the scope of who can edit my posts to just you two and Tom? Let me know if that is possible and, if so, when it has been changed. I'm not wanting to be pushy. It just seems very foggy as to who is making decisions and Tom now seems confused as to why I go to him first; I feel like I missed a big group meeting last week in which we revolutionized the way the site functions. My sense is that he is wanting us to each make individual decisions and just act upon them. I guess I made a decision: please limit the editablilty of my posts to Lori, Tim and Tom. And please always notify me before you go into a post. I will not ignore you if you contact me before changing a post. I'll be nice and curious about what needs to be changed. Thanks."
Tom does not comment on either Jeff's first questions concerning critera or his latest questions. Tom assumes Jeff is asking to be an exception. Tom shares examples of how unstable people. He then ties the post 9/11 and cyber terrorism as reasons he wants more people able to edit texts. He finishes by asking Jeff if Jeff is hiding something from him.
"Why should you be an exception? Why shouldn't all admin people be able to intercept a rogue message you post? You may appear perfectly sane today but what may happen tomorrow? People can crack at any time and begin posting dangerous messages that should be deleted or edited. Loss of job, relationship breakup, or even a gambling debt may cause you to unexpectedly spam the site. In this post 9/11 age we must be ever vigilant to the growing threat of cyber terrorism. The more eyes we can direct toward monitering rogue posts the safer we will be. This morning I heard on the radio someone saying why should we fear the loss of privacy through the Patriot Act if we have nothing to hide? Do you, Jeff, have something to hide?"
Jeff agrees with Tom that there are many reasons to be concerned about what people are visiting the website. And he responds to Tom's direct question by affirming that he does not share everything about himself on the site. Jeff states that he does not believe other people need to share his needs. He repeats his confusion as to what role Tom sees himself playing and reminds Tom that only Tom can make the changes Jeff is suggesting. Jeff then asks Tom who Jeff should be addressing.
"Yes, Tom, I have much to hide. Of course! How could you even ask that? I'm not going to tell you about my first sexual experience on this site. But now if one of those cracked people (thanks for at least seeing that) goes into a very old post of mine and writes about my first sexual act as if he or she was me.....I just have to wait and see if I ever find out who read it. Tom, are you being serious. On the one had you are asking us all to make ourselves exceptions; you say, "do what you need to do, don't ask me to be the boss"...I give a reason as to why I want the scope limited for my posts (I'm NOT suggesting that my reasons should be anybody else's) and you disagree. Fine. But regardless of what you think, it sounds like you are saying I should be able to freely set it up how I want/need it. The only problem is, I don't know how to change the site and limit its scope on me. I know you don't want to be the guy I go to, but could you at least tell me what I should do as my next step to limit the scope. I'm very confused as to what you are communicating. Have you made a decision about all this. Did Lori? Do you want your decision to stick or do you want us to make our own decisions? I asked Lori to help me because it seems to respect your puzzlement as to why I was asking for your help.....help..."
I am stopping at this point because I think that a new type of shift comes very soon. At this point I am seeing patterns in the above communications that I think played a role in what comes next.
Phenomenology opportunity
I thought this "phenomenology on how this discussion about editing evolved" is a great idea and thought it started out very objective but then it turned into a lawyer defense of Jeffery selecting phenomena to support his case.
With a conversation record we have an excellent opportunity to study conversation if it could be done with a scientist's objectivity. But I hate to even bring up the term "objective" on a philosophy site as we could spent a week discussing the possibilities of this term.
Tom, I don't believe my
Tom, I don't believe my observations are objection. I know that they are slanted. I also know that I did not write anything that said why we wrote what we wrote. , what was said and when; I am just looking to see where there are gaps. When you came out with asking me why I am talking to you, that looks like a gap. It doesn't mean you are bad or mean or dumb. But it is real and affects what is said next. If my posts come across as passive-aggressive; as if I am subtely trying to say I should be boss or that you are making stupid decisions, then I could see why perhaps you are not really wishing to talk to me. I need to know if my communication is of such a nature because then I can speak to that. I can't guess if you are reading into my requests for information more than just requests.
I am not claiming that my comments are not baised. It simply is helpful for me to go back and see what was said. My experience of working phenomenologycally is that it takes time to go back, over and over and let the process reveal itself. At first it's full of what Dennis calls the "muk". Goethe would keep reworking the images over and over, letting himself let go of the "muk" each time. This post was my first attempt. Actually I haven't even attempted yet; i've just put down the comments. I agree that there is defensivess in there as well!
Jeff
for the record
I believe that you, Tom, are deeply commited to bringing positive forms into the world. I believe that everything having to do with your intentions and actions related to editing are in line with your deep commitment to supporting individual freedom.
I am flawed. I don't always communicate clearly. When I first shared my concerns with you, they may have offended you. They may have confused you. They may have puzzled you. I easily can take responsibility for this. You would, however, need to communicate this to me for me to know. Otherwise, I assume that my questions were as straighforward as they appeared to me. I don't want to assume you are upset or confused if you haven't said so.
context:
Tom, when I sign documents I read them. It's important for me to know what I put my name on. When I write on the web (I write on many different forums), it is very important for me to know who exactly has control over my words and what criteria and procedures they use in going about making changes. I simply do not assume that everybody needs to share this with me.
If it turns out that I can't find out what criteria and procedure are used on this site, I might stop coming by. But if that is the case, I won't go away thnking you are mistaken or stupid or against the notion of open communication. All I will go away with is a sadness at leaving my favorite place on the web (all thanks to your efferts).
Read what i've written when this all started. Please know that those questions are as innocent as they look on face value. I really was just asking those questions; I'm sorry if they appear to imply blame or judgement; you have not said anything to indicate that you feel I've had alterier motives in making my comments. But you haven't said anything to indicate that you wish to answer my requests for criteria and procedural information. I do feel frustrated, but not because I'm assuming you are mean. My frustration is simply a funciton of not yet getting my need met. And I think my need is one that you at least respect and probably share in many respects.
It feels important to me that I keep coming back to basics. The foundation is that I respect you. I don't just say these things. Its not like I would secretly turn to somebody and say "Tom is against freedom" or "Tom is trying to be mean and unhelpful"...I might mention my confusion in regards to your communication (like when you asked why I am talking to you about this)...but I'm still assuming the same basic things: you are a genuinely good man who has nothing but positive intentions.
I have no clue what you think about me. You keep your cards to your chest. And that's fine. But please know that my request to know about criteria and procedure do not imply anything other than it is important information for me personally. Perhaps someday this site will decide to display such information. But that is a separate issue than my simple need to know who exactly can change a post (I think that today you made it so that only you can, but I'm not sure), what criteria is used (I agree with Lori that this criteria can not be simply a list of words) and what procedure, exactly, is used when a change is made. If these meet my needs, I will shut up and go back to my various conversations about meaning and freedom (I'll happily go back to the cultural sphere here)....I might suggest that we display how the site deals with editing, but I won't need that to stay. My uncertaintly right now comes from not knowing if I'll find out these things. I believe that only you can tell me this (maybe louie can). Is there anything you need from me, specifically, in order to respond to my questions. It's fine if you do. I'm excited to go on to other topics and I assume I will be able to. I don't mind sticky differences of opinion in the cultural sphere, but when it comes to the rules/regulations/polictical sphere I don't like the confusion to be a bit more clear. That isn't aimed at you; it's just that I'm well aware of the time and space that only I am taking up here trying to understand the mechanics of these regulatory decisions. I don't mean to discount others who have shared interest in this topic, but, come on, look at all my blabbing! I also don't mean to minimize the importance of the regulation of rights (clearly it's important to me). I'm just saying that my personal preference is to talk about angles, dead uncles and the evolution of PoF in the last century!
Thanks,
Jeff
Jeff, I'm feeling very
Jeff, I'm feeling very relaxed (not saying you don't!). I think we are back to where we were in all respects except one. Tom did change Carl's post, which is something that I don't think has happened before. Tom might change one of my posts.... it's his site, I know there is that risk, I always have.
Before all this kicked off I guess you felt comfortable that your posts would stand as you posted them.
That's how I felt. That's how I feel again now.
I'm also reassured because I understand that if there are to be changes in the administrator system again then these changes will be discussed on the site.
Tom is owner of this site and if I don't trust him then I have to leave. I do trust him.
I would like to observe that for me this issue is located in the Rights realm and it shows all the hallmarks! The sense of arguing over minute issues. The raised emotional temperature no matter how hard you work to keep it cool. People talking at each other rather than with each other.
For me the Rights realm is structured and its structures penetrate right through the other two realms. The Rights Realm is a bit like our bodies - we don't notice it unless there is something wrong - just like we don't really notice our body unless it hurts.
These Rights Realm structures are agreements, rules and policies. My hunch is that while Tom is the sole administrator the question is simple, do I trust Tom, the owner of this website or not? Once the administrator task is shared more widely then the website shifts so that instead of sitting in Tom it sits between different people. At that point the Rights Realm appears and we find that the website is then sitting in the basket of the Rights realm.
It would be possible to solve the problem by asked whehter I trust the new administrators, but that only solves the problem once! Every time a new administrator is needed a huge process has to be gone through. To make things easier an organisation that is trying to expand and develop can try to create rules, procedures and policies that everyone can share. This allows the organisation to know itself, it allows it to grow in to the future. Determined by the thoughts contained in the rules, procedures and polciies.
I see it as like the DNA in a living organism. If an organisation has worked out its DNA well then it can grow and develop from every part - just like a plant does. If contrtol is handled centrally then the organisation can't grow like an organism, it has to grow like a building.
This is the challenge that faces all organisations that are created as they grow and develop. It's actually very beautiful.
The 3-fold organic group is moving towards this topic - the four-fold living business picture is coming your way soon...
So, for what its worth, that's my analysis. We have been discovering how hard it is to work in the Rights realm!
With love and towards freedom...
Sebastian
I'm relaxed but I'm not in
I'm relaxed but I'm not in the same place. I was shocked by those early decisions. I immediately needed and asked for clarification. Tom has made a few decisions since then, but hasn't yet talked to me about my questions. My first shock was that a group of 12 people were announced to have editing capacity; I was unaware of any discussion around this (not there was suppose to be; but it was a surprise). Then I was shocked to find that somebody's post was edited (again, this shows that there is criteria being used, that there is a procedure being used and that there are people who can do it)...I asked to know what these criteria are and asked if there was an objection the the site openly stateing the criterian that it is already acting upon. The former request being the most urgent for me.
I agree with what you say.. I see much of the "problem" here that the rights realm is being treated as if it is the cultural realm, and vica vera (but that's another story)....
I link Trust with communication, big time! Right now I really need Tom to address the question (three parts: who, how and why on editing). I need him to ask me for clarification if he needs that, but I really need to know what is going on. I don't understand it and working hard not to hallucinate reasons. I know darn well that Tom can address this sort of thing very simply and elegantly. I believe he even put up something about this sites policy related to "Fair Use". Let me check that. I think it even had the tone of a policy!
But I'm not asking about policy at this point. I have had to step back and ask for a direct response to my question about how things work now.
Thanks,
Jeff
So wierd....
So I got home tonight and read a post from Tom which was titled "Just Relax" No....It wasn't exactly that.
In it he clearly told me that he simply could not meet my need. He was referring to my request that he tell me who had editing power, what criteria went into the editing of post and what the procedure was if a post got edited.
He told me that he simply had no policy and at this point did not see the need for one. Even though I made clear that my request for those three things was independent of my suggestion for a formal group policy (although they are obviously related)....
So I read his post. I was not happy about his response, but very relieved that he said clearly he would not answer my questions. And then I wrote the following final comment on the affair. It wouldn't post. It said that the the message I was responding to was gone. I assume that meant Tom took it away. Then I wondered if Carl took it away for fun. Or John, because he would do it as a funny joke. Then I remembered that Tom had taken away editing powers, except from Lori. I bet Tom chose to remove it and rewrite it. But I had a response.
I think my respose stands on its own. It's weird as well. After this post; I'll decide what I need to do now that I know I won't find out what I was hoping for. But this should be the last I have to say about the details of my repeated request. It began like this:
Ok, deeeeeeeeeep breeeeeaaaaaatttttthhhhhhh.....ahhhhhhhhhhhhhh.......
let's forget about fears....just little small questions......
Jeff: Tom, do you like baseball?
Tom: Yes, it's fun to watch and I like following the teams.
Jeff: cool. Hey, thanks for letting me hang out at your house, Tom.
Tom: no problem, my pleasure, Jeff.
Jeff: Hey, Tom, do you mind if I ask you a question?
Tom: No, go right ahead.
Jeff: Where do you keep the toaster?
Tom: oh, I keep in right over there under the yellow drawer.
Jeff: Great, thanks!
Tom: No problem.
........later that day in Tom's office: Jeff is reading in a chair. Tom is managing the Website.......
Tom: Yea, boy....There is this guy on the website from Bolgaria who is writing emails to many people and he's really starting to piss some folks off.
Jeff: shoot...what's he doing?
Tom: Well it started with him getting snippy in his posts. He'd get mad if people didn't answer these strange questions he had about translations of PoF. But then it wierd because he began writing to people privately and getting upset at them....
Jeff: what did you do. Do you have a policy about that sort of behavior.
Tom: no, but I asked him to be more respectful. But then he began to post private email correspondences to various members of the site. A few people asked him to stop doing that and he didn't.
Jeff: Wow, did any of those people ask him to leave the site?
Tom: Yes, one of them asked him to leave but he wanted to stay.
Jeff: Did that person force him to leave?
Tom: No, that person isn't able to do that technically, but I bet he wanted to.
Jeff: How frustrating for all of you. What happened?
Tom: Well I finally decided to just kick him out. It wasn't cool the effect he was having on the community. Things settled down then.
Jeff: Wow, that was intense.
Tom Yep.
......possible ending number 1........
........later that day. Tom and Jeff have just gotten in Tom's car to go see a movie in downtown sacramento........
Tom: Alright, I hope you enjoy a trip in my new car.
Jeff; Great looking Car, Tom. Hmmmmm.....I don't see where the seatbelt is in here.
Tom: I'm excited about the movie.
Jeff: Yea, me too. Hey, this is so wierd, Tom, but I don't see where the seat belt is in your car. Where is it?
Tom: Why are you asking me?
Jeff: ....what......? Oh........It's just that.....I figured you'd know how to....I mean.....ummmm....I wear seat belts.....and I see that you're using one and I thought you'd know wear mine is....?
Tom: Freedom is important; even in a car. Don't you think so Jeff?
Jeff: I guess...yes...but......oh...you just took your seat belt off right when we are driving?
Tom: Yea, I like to improve with my seat belt.
Jeff: Oh wow. I just like to wear mine and was wondering if you would please tell me wear it is in this car.
Boy in back seat: Jeff, are you scared Tom is a bad Driver? Are you so worried we will get in a crash? Has Tom ever given you reason to worry about anything in his car?
Jeff: no....it's just something I do. I'm not even scared when I'm wearing it. I know we probably won't ever get in a crash, but....why are you.....I'm not saying you guys should.....I just really want him to tell me if this car even has one?
Boy: you are being so scared and trying to control everything.
Jeff: Oh man! What is going on. Tom, I don't know why you won't address this, but......
Tom: I don't want to dictate what people do. Tell me what you want and I'll make sure that other people in the car can choose if they want that as well.
Jeff: I want to put on a seat belt!
Boy: You are so scared....Trust in Christ...Jeff you are generating fear where this is none.
Jeff: I'm frustrated because I don't understand what is going on.....Tom: I have three questions: Is there a seat belt? Who is in charge of operating it? and How does it operate? That is all I am asking (Jeff asks this over and over for the next ten minutes)
Tom: take a deep breath and relax. I have no conscious policy about the wearing of seat belts, Jeff. I am unable to meet your need, Jeff. Sorry. I want my car to be used for positive things.
End of first possible ending.....
part II.....in car......
Jeff: Hey, Tom. I can't find the seat belt?
Tom: Oh, it's right over there (#2). Yea, it requires me pressing this button for it to work (#2) and I only press it if somebody says they absolutely need to wear one (#3).
Jeff: Yea, I wear mine as a habit. Thanks.
Tom: You are welcome. Let's go see a movie....
....... OR.......
Jeff: Hey, I don't see your seat belt. Do you even have one and if so who can operate it and how does it work.
Tom: Yea, I have them, but I'd rather you figure it out. Nothing personal. It's just my thing.
Jeff: That's wierd. No offense, but I might need to get out of the car.
Tom: No problem.
Jeff: ok. bye!
Tom: bye.
.........OR............at tom's house in his office.....
Jeff: you seem to have a great website Tom.
Tom: thanks. It's interesting...Lots of cool conversations about many topics....
Jeff: I was thinking about all the things you are responsible for.....I was thinking about what you said about how you decided to kick somebody off the site. Would you edit something out if somebody said the word "crap".
Tom: No I don't edit out the word "crap". But it's not a policy. I just wouldn't do that.
Jeff: yea, me neither. Would you edit out the word "jungle bunny"?
Tom: yes, I would for sure. It's not a policy, but I would for sure; if he was used in a mean way.
Jeff: Is rudeness one criteria you use for deciding to edit out things?
Tom: yes, for sure. But I wouldn't call it a criteria or a policy?
Jeff: oh, what would you call it?
Tom: well, it's just that if I see something that I think is way too rude or disrespecful, I'll take it out. It's not a policy or a criteria. But it is only I who can do this right now. I have a way of doing it; I mostly make the edit and then indicate that I've made an edit so that it doesn't go completely hidden.
Jeff: It sounds like you have a fairly clear sense of the kinds of things you would edit and how you would go about editing them. Does it feel strange sharing these with me?
Tom: No, not at all. These are great questions, Jeff. I don't mind.
Jeff: If a new person came to the site and asked you what the policy and procedure were for editing things on this site what would you tell them.
Tom: I'd tell them that I don't have a policy. But I would encourage the visister to post suggestions for how others might act.
Jeff: yea, but would you also tell him the stuff you just told me if he wanted to know who, why and how things get edited?
Tom: No.
Jeff: But you just comfortable talked to me about your criteria. You were clear that, yes, you do have that power and will exercise it. And you also told me how you would go about doing it.
Tom: But that's different.
Jeff: oh. Hey, you wanna go see that new Sean Penn movie?
Tom: That would be great!
Jeff: Let's go.
Tom: Do you want to drive or should I?
To Lori
(Tom, now that I understand why you originally made this post invisible, I still would like to share these comments. I think it is a good idea if I already change the names and thank you for getting on that.)
here is the post that I posted and then could not see anymore. Now I understand what happened. See my journal called "heads up"
My first instinct is to ask Tom the following question, but I have reason to believe he might not know why I am asking him or that.....Well, let me just share my thoughts.
I was driving home tonight and imaging what my options would be if Tom responded to my request for information by saying he simply couldn't do it. I love being able to talk here and I would hate to feel I had to leave to feel more secure.
I am brainstorming something that you might be able to help me with...Please let me know if any parts of this sound possible. I don't understand all the technical stuff that this site is capable of.
Ok: I know this site can do a search for specific words. Either you grant me temporary editing power or I would ask you if you would be willing to go into every post in which I mention my daughter's name, (edited), (including this one) and change her name to Tommy. Also if you could search for the word "(now edited)" and change it to "Springfield". There would be a few other words, like "now edited" and "now edited" that would also need to be changed, but you get the idea.
I would then ask if the name "(now edited)" could be changed so that it would show up as something else. I kind of doubt that is possible, but Louie's skills have stunned me before. My main concern is getting those names changed (especially Kepler and Nadejda). I don't know how much I need to get into the why of this, but I doubt you need that type of detail in order to know if it is possible to do this.
If you can't change the name "(now edited)" to something else, ok.
I had intended to leave my last name off this site for many reasons (one of which is the nature of my job)...which I think I have done; you might want to search for that and I would email you privately it you don't know it. I had also intended not to mention my daughter's name or her mothers. As time went by I got careless. A friend of mine on the east coast who is also a psychotherapist recently had some very scary events take place that were made possible because of innocent comments she had made online in a wonderful talk forum related to developmental psychology. She is now in touch with the police and things seem like they will be ok very soon, but it has been scary for those of us who know and love her. It's made me think long and hard about my own needs in regards to issues related to internet and privacy and all that jazz. That gives some background.
I would feel better if you could do some of this to help me cover up my mistakes. I have no reason to think that anybody is involved or watching this website who is associated with me or who might wish to associate with me, but I need to have a personal rule that I stick to better in online forums.
Even if Tom had written back to me tonight and told me as much as he could about his criteria for deleting posts and the procedure he would use and the people who could do it....I would have needed to ask him if he would help me out (that's assuming he had told me that he expected to be addressed with such questions)....I am not making this request because Tom told me he could not address those questions. But after reading his response, I felt a kind of relaxation, like I now can let go of asking him (I know this is confusing, but he removed the post in which he told me he could not meet my request, so you'll have to trust me that I read it: the internet really does ask us to enjoy improvization!!!!)
changing a few names would be one step I could take that would help me meet my need for a sense of safty and integrity in regards to my loved ones. It's like the habit of wearing my seat belt. Or, I should say, I'm going to try to get in a better habit around all this stuff.
If those changes can be made, I think I know a way that I can move forward without having to say goodbye to this special site and the amazing (although frustratingly idosyncratic) man who has made this site possible. Let me know if you have any ideas or if you need any clarificaiton in order to respond. Thanks
p.s. if it ends up being that you will be using the search engine to locate the uses of (now edited) and the rest, I know that would take time and I would be more than happy to compensate you for the time. Money is quick, easy and painless for something this important. But I could also score you some wonderful tickets to the ......Wordsworth Festival here in.....Springfield!!!!!!! Ah, such is life! Thanks, Lori.
Social Phenomena Research
Jeff, this is a good example of what I mean by Reproduction. The spirit is right. Thanks for trying.
The execution, however, is not very good. Nobody is going to take it seriously as real science, or as something that could lead to real science. There are too many words, too many cross-currents, and no general clarity about method.
We need to improve our methodology. Are you and others here willing to begin to take Social Phenomena Research seriously? The benefits will be great.
not an attempt
not an attempt at reproduction (in your sense of the term)! You should see that as almost the opposite. I can see why you would think that was what I was doing. I'm not even close to getting at how you use "repo" yet. Hold your horses. I'lll see you in those other topics soon....
Post new comment