> I think this whole thread misses a much more important and vital
> point:
> 
> 	Is the substance of the discussion such that many thousands of
> 	people would also like to read it, or is it really nothing more
> 	than a couple of people sounding off in front of an audience,
> 	in dire need of a clue as to when it's time to shut up and get
> 	off the stage?


Why is it that your "rule" requires that any useful discussion, the
outcome of which might affect the status quo, and which becomes minorly
derailed by a "spoiler" (one who is unclued or is intentionally
derailing the discussion), be summarily discontined?

It seems to me that people who want to maintain the status quo
can easily abuse this "rule" to derail any dicussion which might
lead to change, regardless of whether the change is good or bad.

It seems to me that this is a stupid "rule", since it gives "spoilers"
a huge amount of power over those of us who are trying to advance the
art and science... and That Is Not The Way Things Should Be, given
your stated research goals.

It seems to me that "clued people" are far enough between that you
would not want to actively discourage their participation, without
some (unstated) motivation.


How do you handle occasions where "spoilers" attempt to enforce the
status quo by trying the issue in the court of public opinion?

Do you univerally apply you rule, and drop any subject which generates
"too much traffic"?

Or do you publically defuse the "spoliers" statements, in defense,
knowing that to not do so would be considered a signal of assent?


					Regards,
					Terry Lambert
					terry@lambert.org
---
Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present
or previous employers.