Comments on: Rules of Engagement http://www.radioopensource.org/rules-of-engagement/ Christopher Lydon in conversation on arts, ideas and politics Sun, 12 Feb 2012 15:27:28 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: birdbrain http://www.radioopensource.org/rules-of-engagement/#comment-74504 birdbrain Tue, 13 Jun 2006 19:21:44 +0000 http://www.radioopensource.org/rules-of-engagement/#comment-74504 <b>Vijtable</b>: you might want to try this: http://www.frappr.com/phpBB2/index.php?c=168684 Where you’ll find a smattering of your old penpals beginning to strike up old conversations. And <i>tangents off ROS topics</i>. To join this new Speakeasy, go to the Group Maps link – http://www.frappr.com/phpBB2/index.php?c=168684 – and then give yourself a bit of time to learn how to navigate and operate within the Speakeasy’s ‘walls’. We hope to see you there. This invite applies to others too. Especially <b>nother</b>, whose lengthy reports would be <i>more</i> than welcome. Vijtable: you might want to try this: http://www.frappr.com/phpBB2/index.php?c=168684

Where you’ll find a smattering of your old penpals beginning to strike up old conversations. And tangents off ROS topics.

To join this new Speakeasy, go to the Group Maps link – http://www.frappr.com/phpBB2/index.php?c=168684 – and then give yourself a bit of time to learn how to navigate and operate within the Speakeasy’s ‘walls’.

We hope to see you there.

This invite applies to others too.

Especially nother, whose lengthy reports would be more than welcome.

]]> By: winston_dodson http://www.radioopensource.org/rules-of-engagement/#comment-74503 winston_dodson Tue, 13 Jun 2006 00:33:17 +0000 http://www.radioopensource.org/rules-of-engagement/#comment-74503 Firstly, it content. Take Robbin's up coming show on Kennedy's article regarding the last Pres election and Ohio. No one with any credibility thinks that there was any irregularotiues. Even Kerry, the loser, remember him, conceded wothout contesting it. There is no reason for anyone other than some poor, loser, with out a life, to listen to / repsond to that show. If you want to "bottom feed" on ideas like that, go hang out on the DailyKos or other worthless sites like that. Firstly, it content. Take Robbin’s up coming show on Kennedy’s article regarding the last Pres election and Ohio.

No one with any credibility thinks that there was any irregularotiues. Even Kerry, the loser, remember him, conceded wothout contesting it.

There is no reason for anyone other than some poor, loser, with out a life, to listen to / repsond to that show.

If you want to “bottom feed” on ideas like that, go hang out on the DailyKos or other worthless sites like that.

]]> By: babu http://www.radioopensource.org/rules-of-engagement/#comment-74502 babu Tue, 06 Jun 2006 04:13:48 +0000 http://www.radioopensource.org/rules-of-engagement/#comment-74502 wd: "You've created a monoculture of ideas without much variety." What do you actually mean by this? I ask because I've been thinking about what would contribute to more dialogue on a deeper level among proponents who don't usually get a chance to or bother to talk to each other. Is it not enough warm-up time? Circulation? Format? wd: “You’ve created a monoculture of ideas without much variety.”

What do you actually mean by this? I ask because I’ve been thinking about what would contribute to more dialogue on a deeper level among proponents who don’t usually get a chance to or bother to talk to each other.

Is it not enough warm-up time? Circulation? Format?

]]> By: winston_dodson http://www.radioopensource.org/rules-of-engagement/#comment-74501 winston_dodson Fri, 02 Jun 2006 04:29:23 +0000 http://www.radioopensource.org/rules-of-engagement/#comment-74501 "The comment threads should work toward the same goal as the show: to give voice to the widest possible range of ideas and experience." I don't think that this is actaully true. You've created a "monoculture" of ideas without much variety. The subject matter is generally left leaning, the guest almost as much so and the VAST majority of commentators are refugees from the MoveOn.Org / DailyKos/ Democracy Now sites. I will give just one example - the latest "show" on Gloabal Warming. Just look at the featured material presented at the begginning of the show presented by the producer of that show. From that lack of desenting material there it is obvious that there would not be any serious attempt at discussing this topic. Then, look at the comments psoted on that show and see the results. This was NOT a serious show. There are not mopre comments because there is a small community who like what the hear on the show and mostly just talk to each other. I think that it was HELARIOUS that someone in this discussion was uncomfoartable with the terms "Rules of Engagement". Eventhough that is a term used by the military it means litteally what it means yet because it carries with it the connotation of conflict it makes some people "uncomfortable". Lack of conflict is comfortable - and boring. This small community lives in bubble, good luck making them comfortable while trying to discuss anything of any real value. “The comment threads should work toward the same goal as the show: to give voice to the widest possible range of ideas and experience.”

I don’t think that this is actaully true. You’ve created a “monoculture” of ideas without much variety. The subject matter is generally left leaning, the guest almost as much so and the VAST majority of commentators are refugees from the MoveOn.Org / DailyKos/ Democracy Now sites.

I will give just one example – the latest “show” on Gloabal Warming. Just look at the featured material presented at the begginning of the show presented by the producer of that show. From that lack of desenting material there it is obvious that there would not be any serious attempt at discussing this topic. Then, look at the comments psoted on that show and see the results.

This was NOT a serious show.

There are not mopre comments because there is a small community who like what the hear on the show and mostly just talk to each other.

I think that it was HELARIOUS that someone in this discussion was uncomfoartable with the terms “Rules of Engagement”. Eventhough that is a term used by the military it means litteally what it means yet because it carries with it the connotation of conflict it makes some people “uncomfortable”.

Lack of conflict is comfortable – and boring.

This small community lives in bubble, good luck making them comfortable while trying to discuss anything of any real value.

]]> By: ewayland http://www.radioopensource.org/rules-of-engagement/#comment-74500 ewayland Fri, 26 May 2006 22:39:34 +0000 http://www.radioopensource.org/rules-of-engagement/#comment-74500 I am not sure if this is the right place to leave this comment, but I'm going to because it kind-of relates to this whole idea of getting more people to post. I just got the e-mail announcing this new technology you are using to record audio comments for possible broadcast on the air. A great idea, but I have wondered for a while why you don't use more traditional methods to get more comments from listeners. Why not, like cartalk, take comments on a listener line in advance then line up the callers you think would be the most interesting -- or make the most interesting show? Or why do you have a "blogger-in-chief" summarizing what a bunch of people have said online when you could just pick out a couple of the more interesting posts and get the guests to respond to them? That is what Talk Of The Nation does (or did, it's been a while since I listened). I think most of us out here would prefer to have the chance to get our comments presented on air, in our words, and under our (real or assumed) names. Most never would, of course, but the possibility that they might would be a strong incentive to participate. I am not sure if this is the right place to leave this comment, but I’m going to because it kind-of relates to this whole idea of getting more people to post. I just got the e-mail announcing this new technology you are using to record audio comments for possible broadcast on the air. A great idea, but I have wondered for a while why you don’t use more traditional methods to get more comments from listeners. Why not, like cartalk, take comments on a listener line in advance then line up the callers you think would be the most interesting — or make the most interesting show? Or why do you have a “blogger-in-chief” summarizing what a bunch of people have said online when you could just pick out a couple of the more interesting posts and get the guests to respond to them? That is what Talk Of The Nation does (or did, it’s been a while since I listened). I think most of us out here would prefer to have the chance to get our comments presented on air, in our words, and under our (real or assumed) names. Most never would, of course, but the possibility that they might would be a strong incentive to participate.

]]> By: Vijtable http://www.radioopensource.org/rules-of-engagement/#comment-74499 Vijtable Wed, 24 May 2006 21:31:09 +0000 http://www.radioopensource.org/rules-of-engagement/#comment-74499 I love the Speakeasy idea for those long discussions which move off-topic (Morality and Evolution, Race). I'm new but I certainly have offended the 200-word limit. My apologies to everyone; some self-imposed limit is good. There are times, on occassion, when it is useful to have the longer post that pushes a discussion forward. I think Nikos, jazzman, allison, and Potter (among several others) prove that. So, I don't think we should fret about what we <i>have</i> done and cannot change. My proposal: A couple years ago, I had a site idea which, for two reasons, died: 1) I needed a job and 2) the idea needed serious refinement. ROS's forums actually resemble the idea I had, hence my addiction to it. In any case, the domain I wanted to buy for my now-dead site idea goes on sale this October. I'm thinking of buying it anyway, as its name would be perfect for the speakeasy... I'm not sure how I'd do it (I've wanted my own site, too), but I'm thinking ros.__.com... It's always possible to set up a Blogger site on the domain. Yay! I've got 200 words on the dot. I love the Speakeasy idea for those long discussions which move off-topic (Morality and Evolution, Race). I’m new but I certainly have offended the 200-word limit. My apologies to everyone; some self-imposed limit is good. There are times, on occassion, when it is useful to have the longer post that pushes a discussion forward. I think Nikos, jazzman, allison, and Potter (among several others) prove that. So, I don’t think we should fret about what we have done and cannot change.

My proposal: A couple years ago, I had a site idea which, for two reasons, died: 1) I needed a job and 2) the idea needed serious refinement. ROS’s forums actually resemble the idea I had, hence my addiction to it. In any case, the domain I wanted to buy for my now-dead site idea goes on sale this October. I’m thinking of buying it anyway, as its name would be perfect for the speakeasy… I’m not sure how I’d do it (I’ve wanted my own site, too), but I’m thinking ros.__.com… It’s always possible to set up a Blogger site on the domain. Yay! I’ve got 200 words on the dot.

]]> By: babu http://www.radioopensource.org/rules-of-engagement/#comment-74498 babu Wed, 17 May 2006 20:44:19 +0000 http://www.radioopensource.org/rules-of-engagement/#comment-74498 Allison Agree completely. One or two house-keeping forums alongside the subject threads. And I've suggested elsewhere that guests be strongly encouraged to post, at least once.... Allison

Agree completely. One or two house-keeping forums alongside the subject threads. And I’ve suggested elsewhere that guests be strongly encouraged to post, at least once….

]]> By: allison http://www.radioopensource.org/rules-of-engagement/#comment-74497 allison Tue, 16 May 2006 16:06:34 +0000 http://www.radioopensource.org/rules-of-engagement/#comment-74497 babu, I don't see how having this blog and then a forum for more open conversation would undermine your desire to see more people post here. Of course, first, it would be nice if the guests on the show were encouraged to participate here at all. babu,

I don’t see how having this blog and then a forum for more open conversation would undermine your desire to see more people post here.

Of course, first, it would be nice if the guests on the show were encouraged to participate here at all.

]]> By: babu http://www.radioopensource.org/rules-of-engagement/#comment-74496 babu Tue, 16 May 2006 04:41:20 +0000 http://www.radioopensource.org/rules-of-engagement/#comment-74496 Allison I'm sure someone could build a site with all the right doors and windows. It's just that that's exactly what I prefer not to happen to this one. I'd like to see MORE experts commenting in the open threads, not less. Just my preference. Allison

I’m sure someone could build a site with all the right doors and windows. It’s just that that’s exactly what I prefer not to happen to this one. I’d like to see MORE experts commenting in the open threads, not less. Just my preference.

]]> By: Rochelle Mazar http://www.radioopensource.org/rules-of-engagement/#comment-74495 Rochelle Mazar Mon, 15 May 2006 22:57:51 +0000 http://www.radioopensource.org/rules-of-engagement/#comment-74495 Nice work, Brendan. You already know I'm behind you, the little Canadian cabal waving the supportive flags. Online communities aren't easy. This one is bound to morph and change over time. And unlike others, I fully support you establishing rules from the top down. this is YOUR site, and we are happy participants. Good fences make good neighbours and all that jazz. Nikos said: <i> I don’t know the first thing about setting up a blog.</i> Head over to blogger.com. Really. It's that easy. <i>I don’t know if it’s affordable.</i> It's free. <i>I don’t know if I’ll have the time to do it without lots of co-conspirators.</i> It will take you no more time than it takes you to write out a comment here. <i>I don’t know if my archaic computer can handle the software.</i> Blogging software resides on servers, not on your computer. If your computer allows you to post comments here, you can keep a blog. <i>Hell, I don’t know if anyone will be interested.</i> Who cares? Don't blog for other people. Blog for yourself. The best blogs are kept for people who say what they want to say, not what other people want to hear. Nice work, Brendan. You already know I’m behind you, the little Canadian cabal waving the supportive flags. Online communities aren’t easy. This one is bound to morph and change over time. And unlike others, I fully support you establishing rules from the top down. this is YOUR site, and we are happy participants. Good fences make good neighbours and all that jazz.

Nikos said:

I don’t know the first thing about setting up a blog.

Head over to blogger.com. Really. It’s that easy.

I don’t know if it’s affordable.

It’s free.

I don’t know if I’ll have the time to do it without lots of co-conspirators.

It will take you no more time than it takes you to write out a comment here.

I don’t know if my archaic computer can handle the software.

Blogging software resides on servers, not on your computer. If your computer allows you to post comments here, you can keep a blog.

Hell, I don’t know if anyone will be interested.

Who cares? Don’t blog for other people. Blog for yourself. The best blogs are kept for people who say what they want to say, not what other people want to hear.

]]>