Subject: <none>
From: Ted Heatherington <THeather -at- ALPHA -dot- CA>
Date: Wed, 11 Dec 1996 10:35:41 -0800


I've considered it, but could not decide if it should be in a
chronological duration, or simply a count of how many exchanges. Then
there is the issue of how to resolve digressions which often have a
varied progression (one may be there in 4 messages in a couple hours,
another takes 21 over a week), and then to integrate those who lurk
and then, in a flury of wit, advance/decline the themes in a dozen or
less threads (and their sub-themes)...

Then I considered the notable fact that most of the declines to the
inane are a healthy release of social stress, a protest against
"politically correct" speech and politically incorrect workplaces.
How then do we ascertain the relevance of the decline?

Finally, if the decline is both healthy and a way to avoid getting too
serious about the topic, should we then make it a "task" to determine
how hard we are trying NOT to take it to serious?

Then I got the joke.

Ted Heatherington
Technical Writer,
Alpha Technologies, Canada

>Date: Wed, 20 Nov 1996 09:49:13 -0600
>From: Stephen Victor <svictor -at- HOUSTON -dot- GEOQUEST -dot- SLB -dot- COM>
>Subject: Re: One-ups



>huh huhuhh huhuh

>He said "up"

>uhuhhhh huhuh huhuhh


>Has anyone on this list ever timed how long it takes for
>serious discussion of an issue to degenerate into utter inanity?

>Stephen P. Victor Phone: (713) 513-2552
>Technical Writer, Software Training Fax: (713) 513-2019
>Schlumberger GeoQuest svictor -at- houston -dot- geoquest -dot- slb -dot- com
>5599 San Felipe, Suite 1700
>Houston, Texas 77056 USA

Previous by Author: Re: Jesse's right [was Ebonics]
Next by Author: Re: Defining your role
Previous by Thread: <None>
Next by Thread: Re: Read Me First!

What this post helpful? Share it with friends and colleagues:

Sponsored Ads