Re: Mexico shuts schools, museums to stop flu outbreak
No. You are missing the point which you are being nudged to reexamine here.
You are not running this site, yet I observe that you frequently act as though you are administering it - by (sometimes quite peremptorily) fulfilling the presumedly essential task of weeding what you percieve as the good from the bad incoming "different ideas" out, for everyone else's benefit. This "busyness" of yours, inspecting and "culling" what you deem "redundant content", is exercised presumably on the basis of our unwavering trust in Metalman's infallible instinct for discerning what is valid from what is as you call it, "not built on anything solid but the latest newsletter, half baked ... etc ...".
Eh, that would be "according to Metalman's fine tuned instinct for good content" presumably? No doubt it's a decent editorial instinct on your part, but infallible? That I doubt! And if it is not infallible, among common members (you are one) IMO it should not be exercised.
You are implying your ongoing, personal decisions in this regard to unerringly discern specious vs. valid content, are a palatable method of presumed "weed clearing" to the entire community.
Even if you had been assigned by "popular acclaim" to this content inspecting duty, that was not by my personal vote, and so I am not sure how you have gained this prerogative? You may have drummed up a wide consensus of people here who agree you should be the ombudsman for "content vigilance" on these issues, but such an ombudsman was never formally set up here among the readership, therefore you have invested yourself with a supportive duty that I for one, don't wish to see you exercise.
What could be clearer?
No. You are missing the point which you are being nudged to reexamine here.
You are not running this site, yet I observe that you frequently act as though you are administering it - by (sometimes quite peremptorily) fulfilling the presumedly essential task of weeding what you percieve as the good from the bad incoming "different ideas" out, for everyone else's benefit. This "busyness" of yours, inspecting and "culling" what you deem "redundant content", is exercised presumably on the basis of our unwavering trust in Metalman's infallible instinct for discerning what is valid from what is as you call it, "not built on anything solid but the latest newsletter, half baked ... etc ...".
Eh, that would be "according to Metalman's fine tuned instinct for good content" presumably? No doubt it's a decent editorial instinct on your part, but infallible? That I doubt! And if it is not infallible, among common members (you are one) IMO it should not be exercised.
You are implying your ongoing, personal decisions in this regard to unerringly discern specious vs. valid content, are a palatable method of presumed "weed clearing" to the entire community.
Even if you had been assigned by "popular acclaim" to this content inspecting duty, that was not by my personal vote, and so I am not sure how you have gained this prerogative? You may have drummed up a wide consensus of people here who agree you should be the ombudsman for "content vigilance" on these issues, but such an ombudsman was never formally set up here among the readership, therefore you have invested yourself with a supportive duty that I for one, don't wish to see you exercise.
What could be clearer?
Originally posted by metalman
View Post
Comment