I do not believe that people who have not contributed to a topic should have any say in its management.
... // ...
please remember to stay on topic
How about those who contribute to a forum
having say in
forum management?!
To demand of those interested in practical knotting
to participate in, e.g., a misplaced thread in that forum
about decorative knotting in order to be allowed say
about where the misplaced thread lies is hardly
right thinking!
Roo for example made zero posts into the Bowline discussion thread so he should have zero votes, while Dan Lehman made 34 posts so his voice should command 34 votes. The thread creator also has a special say, so his posts should perhaps count as double votes giving Agent_Smith a voice commanding 16 votes should he choose to cast them.
Now THIS is silly --really, the mistaken thread-starter ipso facto
gets double votes?! --and should we take voting, when :
immediately, in which case the OP always wins; or after Roo
devotes sufficient time to rack up a goodly number of posts
to a misplaced/irrelevant-to-him thread so he can "manage" it?
A major issue here, though, is beside all the fine & not-so-fine
points regarding this particular thread, or more general management
and topic categorization : it is about how to conduct oneself in
participating in a group, and in this forum (and forums in general).
Differences of opinion abound. But here we have a sort of
thread
violence conducted by Xarax because of a differing opinion --and that
is beyond the pale unacceptable, as is the continued utterance of
ad hominen invective against those of different opinions/reasonings.
Now, to the OP, I'll again state : what is sought is a question of how
to categorize knots that might be named "bowlines" --looking to various
indicators, such as historical naming, structural aspects, tying methods,
and whatever else moves one to decide yea/nay on such naming.
Is this a question of immediate
practical significance? I say "no,
not really"; but I was not troubled by it at the time and as we saw
the discussion grew on this tricky issue of categorizing knots (but
we are yet to expand our inquiry to other knot *seeds* to see
how we might treat them). And then, yes, with a mature (some
opined done-for-all-it's-worth) thread, the question of whether
it better fit under another forum was raised. A couple/few of us
expressed opinions & rationales, a show of hands was asked,
and of a small interested group it was agreed to move it.
And that move --in what I can now first-hand report is a stark
contrast to "earth-shaking" (5.8 )-- was made; okay, we will click
on a thread in the "Theory & ..." forum. whoopee. No one should
lose their lunch over this.
Does it unequivocally belong
there (with a "T" for "Theory")
and not
here (meaning where the OP started it) ?! No,
the arguments can be made --and have been-- for either way.
Does the choice of placement come with a threat of violence?
Who votes (or otherwise expresses favor) FOR this consequence?!
Exploring how to answer a somewhat long-standing, and in recent
times, manifest in some IGKT activities/repots, question as to
How many *bowlines* are there? is arguably a question
of *theorizing* bases for in-/ex-clusion of candidates (the infamous
"Irish bowline" comes to mind), of seeking methods of analysis
for knots for making such human-imposed judgements, and, in so
doing, seeing how such methods, such conceptions bear up to use
in other cases --do they capture too many/few knots, are they
helpful?
To cite *art* in this analytical debate let's put it poetically.
Specious reasoning, however fair,
is like a missing link in a chain of thought:
when Praxis seeks to pull it taut,
it becomes apparent what isn't there!
And, in general, here is another poetic note about keeping
some sense of balance in reaching opinions:
Prudence thrives on circumspection,
as oft' the patient mind, reflective,
reveals ideals of some perfection
as mere illusions of perspective.
-- Anon., II--dl*
====
