On Wed, 15 Aug 2007 13:52:22 -0700, gleichman <fox1_217@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
wrote:
:
:Besides, we already put this to the test. A fair number of models
:started here in r.g.f.a, the old FAQ covered a good amount of them,
:and I even a had a few myself although they were never judged worthly
:of being included in the FAQ. How many of those were ever talked about
:outside the post they were first put forth in?
That's the nature of the marketplace of ideas.
If no one finds an idea interesting or useful, it falls to the
wayside.
:
:One or two maybe, for an addition couple of threads at best? Anyone
:here remember any of them?
:
:But the threefold is remembered- with hatred by many. Why is that?
Many? Many found it useful, and still do. That's
why it was discussed so much.
:Likely not for the reasons you're giving here. Terms and such you
:claim would apply to all of them- but only the threefold caused raging
:flamewars. But then again, only the Threefold stole terms,
Using applicable terms is more sensible than
calling decision-making techniques glorknost,
fibblegist and skaaarn.
:excluded
:addition,
I see you don't recall that it was originally the
Twofold.
:accused people of being too stupid to understand it, etc.
I don't recall anything in the model about the
Too Stupid To Understand It vertex. But then, you
accuse people who use variant paladins of playing
them wrong. Not the most accepting of others styles,
are you?
--
/buddha@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
W. Harris For actual email address, replace each 'u' with an 'i'
|
