Great idea!
On Apr 21, 2015, at 7:45 PM, Don Norman <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
I object to Terry's departure. Terry: Stay. (That is an order.)
I can understand:
1. Terry's contributions
2. People's objections to his contributions
3. Terry's attempts to respond to the objections.
4. Terry's frustrations
I have corresponded with him off-list about items I disagreed with and
about times i agreed with him. Off-list is far more productive, I find.
In one such off-list correspondence (with Terry and Ken where I was
explaining to Ken why I agreed with Terry), Ken said I hadn't read his
latest post. I agreed, explaining that when I see these escalating
battles, after the 3rd or 4th such diatribe, i delete them all as soon as
they come in, without reading any of them.
Which may be my loss, but time is finite, and my time even more finite.
I have at times agreed with Terry and at times disagreed. Or more often,
agreed with the spirit but not all of the statements.
Disagreements are good. I always learn a lot more from people I disagree
with than from people I agree with. Agreements are nice, but disagreements
cause me to think, learn, and at times, change my mind.
BUT:
We some ground rules.
A wise journal editor once allowed an indefinite number of responses to
papers and responses to responses to be published in his journal, but he
had a simple rule.
No response could be longer than 1/2 the length of the piece it was
responding to. So the 5th response was 1/32 the size of the original.
Alternatively, we could have a cutoff: Each person gets two chances to
respond. Period.
--
When the debate gets heated, i suspect most people tune off. All the points
have been made, so repetition does no good.
--
Terry: don't leave. But to Terry and those who keep coming back to the
same topic over and over again: *stop*.
I usually can resist responding. Why can't the rest of you? One response?
Yes, welcome. Two responses? Less welcome. More than that? Stop it already,
I am engaging automatic delete mode.
Don
On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 6:45 AM, Terence Love <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
It's become clear the perspectives and assumptions that are the foundation
of what I write no longer fit well with the perspectives and assumptions
held by the majority on phd-design.
This makes debate difficult on both sides, to the point I have decided to
unsubscribe.
Thank you all again for many interesting conversations and debates.
Don Norman
Director, DesignLab, UC San Diego
[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> designlab.ucsd.edu/<http://designlab.ucsd.edu/> www.jnd.org<http://www.jnd.org> <http://www.jnd.org/>
-----------------------------------------------------------------
PhD-Design mailing list <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
Discussion of PhD studies and related research in Design
Subscribe or Unsubscribe at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/phd-design
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
PhD-Design mailing list <[log in to unmask]>
Discussion of PhD studies and related research in Design
Subscribe or Unsubscribe at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/phd-design
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|