ChrisJenkins

Yep. This is our de facto practice when employees leave our company; forward them to an internal administrator. This is no different than using an Exchange email with Office.

> but my perception of what you have been posting most recently seems to my mind to suggest that you have great doubts concerning my motivations. Absolutely accurate, and spelled out in my previous comment.

In my usage of inadvertent (common meaning "not intended or not meaning to") you found a narrow instance of an exception to common meaning to not grasp my intention. Then, in your usage of doctrine (common meaning "beliefs, especially religious or …

Also, given that you brought up eisegesis, I found this intro on Wiki to be amusing in the current context: "Eisegesis is the process of interpreting text in such a way as to introduce one's own presuppositions, agendas or biases. It is commonly …

Reasonable. I'll use a different word next time. That's a remarkably narrow context, however. I wonder how much most of common English stands up to your exegesis versus eisegesis analysis on that front. Given the literalism you're applying to …

> Your original post does not contain wording which would have caused a reader to be able to assert with complete certainty that you were not asserting that I was aligning myself with climate change deniers but rather that I might be perceived as …

> Are we in control of our own experiences on the web? Is the promise of the open and flourishing web of the 90s slipping through our fingers to the influence of massive corporate domains beholden to shareholder expectations of growth? Oh yes. …

Let's review what I wrote again: > Words matter. When you use words like "doctrine" to describe concepts like "scientific theory", you've aligned yourself with folks who seek to sow doubt, however inadvertently. When you use the word "doctrine" …

> I don't recall saying anything about anyone being hyper defensive. I was talking about hyper affiliation. Gotcha. I read that as the same thing in practice, but distinction noted. > I did say that a certain segment of people focus on defending …

> how can you ask meaningful questions on the internet these days without coming across like someone who already has a position? As a high level answer, strive to avoid loaded language. As a more granular answer, I don't think the key is avoiding …

> People now “curate” their own intellectual environment. ...or algorithms do it for them.

> And most of us would be offended to be publicly accused of being brainwashed by PR firms and lobbyists, especially on a forum. I can therefore understand the use of antagonistic words such as doctrine in his reply. Ah, additional context I was …

> It appears that these three people are now even more set in their own opinions than ever. And again, another example of why word choices matter, and how projection is so much a part of the conversation. I haven't offered an adversarial opinion …

> Yet Chris Jenkins and you perceive me as affiliated with people who I think are wrong. That was the point that I was making. I did no such thing. I noted that you used a word which means "beliefs" to replace a word which means "a working model …

> Yet I get the impression that when I ask questions that those who are ardent zealous defenders of the anthropocentric doctrine lump me together with the climate change deniers as the religious fanatics of 1500 years ago treated everyone who …

> Even I gave up on a climate science debate on Cake the other day, thinking the PR firms and lobbyists are succeeding at winning over the minds of smart people. Even though they win over very few legit scientists, they succeed at getting the …

> If the mouse is inquiry, we need to build a better trap. Damn do I love a good turn of phrase.

> What used to be called "the soft sciences" are demanding that they be given equal footing with the hard sciences and in some cases using the legal system to enforce this. I've read several analyses suggesting that post-modernism in general has …

> What I think has degraded is public discourse online so it’s hard to have the deeper conversations people crave because Nazis, trolls, and people with unreasonably extreme views can join the conversation and send reasonable people packing. It's …

In a recent panel with @apm , I talked about how there is a decline in intellectual curiosity in our current social media paradigm. People (and I'm speaking in mass generalizations here, so forgive me) seem far less likely to engage with long form …

> He may not be an expert on the topic, but he’s an incredible researcher This. I don't think there needs to be a massive disparity in knowledge, but there DOES need to be an intense intellectual curiosity, and that's something that I see less and …

Also, you are totally my kind of nerd, @Vilen . I would buy you beers while we passionately waxed philosophical about devops.

One of the things I REALLY love about Slack is how convenient a middleware platform it makes itself. I have an app that lets me monitor multiple workspaces (and I have like 12 at this point), and in each of those environments, all of my supporting …

I think @paulduplantis 's point about clickbait titles aligns with my point about how I can't really find the quality of conversations I want anymore. Or at least, it's challenging. And even when the platform is a fantastic one, like Cake, the …

I really, genuinely, like sinking my teeth into a topic and debating the hell out of it. When the web was young and we were joining listservs, I'd specifically go for either university lists where I'd get my ass handed to me by PhDs, or …