Re: virus: META: a rule for the list

Eva-Lise Carlstrom (
Mon, 20 Oct 1997 14:54:52 -0700 (PDT)

On Wed, 15 Oct 1997, David McFadzean wrote:

> At 09:21 AM 10/15/97 -0700, Tim Rhodes wrote:
> >I am more than willing to submit to #3. The referees should be the rest
> >of the list.
> Maybe we just need to make up a conventional notation to communicate
> the purpose of parts of our messages. How about an opening tag which
> says what types of criticism are welcome like:
> blah, blah, joke, taunt, whatever
> ...
> <argument truth,grammar,consistency,spelling>
> Xtianity is empowering because of blah, blah
> If God does not exist then blah, blah
> </argument>
> --.sig
> Here the author is inviting criticism of the argument based on truth,
> grammar, consistency and spelling, but not, say, eloquence or humor.
> I'm also assuming that the author is only inviting criticisms that
> purport to be true, consistent, etc.
> I have no idea if this would work in practice, but is it at least
> worth a shot? Who would participate?

Well, I wouldn't want to limit the kinds of feedback I'd get in that way.
I may not like certain kinds of responses my posts might inspire in some
readers, I may find them annoying or unuseful, but that doesn't mean I
don't want to see them. It can be very valuable to know that one's post
triggered something in a reader that doesn't strike one as a useful
response. Besides, we are all coming from different angles, and making
blanket refusals of certain kinds of response may rule out kinds of
response you haven't thought of.

If you choose to add such acceptance/refusal notices to your posts, sure,
go ahead, and I expect at least some of us will respect them, but
personally I am leery of limiting my information to the kinds I expect and
am comfortable with.

{Anything you think is important}