Re: Problems with anonymous escrow 2--response

[Chris Hibbert <hibbert@netcom.com>]

>> > James,
>> > 
>> > Your answers to Hal and Tim have been enlightening.
>> > 
>> > And your attempt to move away from nominalism to improve 
>> > precision of language and to ward off inadverdent undermining 
>> > of fundamentals, is admirable, that is, if I understand your 
>> > objections to Hal's proposals correctly.
>> > 
>> > John
>> 
>> Good Sir, what frightfully polite eloquence have you bathed this
>> august gathering of gentle spirits?  [...]
>> 
>> Errr..., what'd he say?
>> 
>> sdw

Stephen,

I think you understood exactly what he said.  I'll explain why he said
it the way he did.  John thinks that James may have some good ideas,
but he's too excited, and he's not explaining them clearly.  John
asked James to calm down, and suggested some particular points that
James wasn't explaining in his excitement over the error he sees other
people falling into.  John is talking this way so James will
understand that John is trying to be on his side.  If he said
something like "you idiot," or "you raving clod", there would be
little chance of James calming down enough to understand John's point.

The way John spoke shows that he is familiar with many of the problems
people fall into when they hold a heated conversation on the net.
Many people mistake heat and excitement for disagreement and personal
attack.  John is doing a good job of pointing out to James that people
are interested in what he has to say, and that communication will be
clearer of if he takes a deep breath and figures out what people are
really asking him for.

Thanks John,
Chris

BTW, I think John and James are right: reputation is not quantifiable,
it's interpreted by each observer differently.  Credentials on the
other hand, can be transfered, and it makes sense to codify them so
other people can understand what recommendations they represent.