Since this is your fork seth
, you should be able to move the relevant comments here. That is how it works.
You wouldn’t be able to move them to a thought Mark owns … which would not be your business, but only his.
well that worked well
from my point of view … i even moved your comment here. but then that moved it away from mark’s context. you probably won’t mind … but maybe mark would … of course he wouldnt but for other reasons
The thumb rule is … make it your business then you can do many more things than you can if it is someone else’s business. Stay in your own business … then it is clear that it is you doing the doings and not you making it look like someone else did something they did not do.
Yes. The system is not perfect in every possible way. But by making people move things within their own business … it at least keeps clarity about who is doing what to whom and where. That is important when others not involved happen upon it.
this is a sticky example: … i moved your comment away from yours&marks context there … in a way i destroyed part of that context … or it could be felt to be destroyed just according to how you and mark felt about what you were talking about.
That is why i had thought that only the author of a comment could move it to another context. I was surprised that i could move your comment here away from that other context. That actually does not bother me … it gives me more freedom to compose my contexts without difficulty … but i can see how sombody else might get pissed off.
The only hole in this I can see so far is that it would technically be okay for you to move one of your own isolated comments to someone else’s thought. The system could figure that out someday, but not yet. But not if what you were trying to move contained any content by anyone else … because then no one would know who moved those others to that place and why. The way it is, you are the only one who could move comments by others here … hence the trail of evidence is maintained … even if you could piss off a few by doing it sometimes if they didn’t want to be moved … at least, they will know who to blame.
i think part of the problems could be fixed by making it a copy (in some cases) rather than a move … and/or leaving a reference behind.
Yes, as above, it is about maintaining a trail of evidence, and as much as possible, context. Not about who’s content it is. If we allow others to move things, even their own once it is part of others stuff, we must be able to tell who did that and who is claiming the new context. That is what keeps it fair, and nice. It is designed to prevent people from making it look like someone else said or did something they didn’t do.
i guess i don’t see how #SeriTD can know who’s business is who’s. except that it is your business if you authored the comment … and if you can write something then you can past something there too.
the presumption that she can know beyond that without undue restriant placed on the ability to compose is frought with difficulty. as i have found out … hence my now infamous “sucks” expression.
Well, a fork is a move leaving a reference behind.
But anyway, as I am saying for perhaps the 6th time in the last 24 hrs, you are welcome to point to clear cases that can be added. I know that all cases are not covered yet … just enough to make the system fairly workable and prevent atrocious meddling.
Exactly. She knows the same way you, an observer, knows. It’s the business of the person named at the top of the thought or comment. That’s why you moving things to a thought of Marks is not allowed … it would make it look like it was Mark’s business even though you did it.
well the assumption is that if i write on mark’s comment, then i am making that dialogue that happens there my business. that is in fact what is happining … and should happen … whether you think it should or not.
If Mark has allowed you to, then you can contribute. Contribute, not manage. Only Mark can manage, that is his business on his thought.
i should be able to manage my contribution.
You can edit what you contribute. Then it is clear who did the managing. You can’t move things around, it’s not your thought to decide that about. You can add, edit, and delete your content. That is all you should be able to manage.
Well i have pointed out the logic that i believe is best … here it is again for about the 5th time …
(1) a person can pick up their own authored comments, and any others comment on their authored thoughts
(2) a person can paste the clipboard any place that they can write.
The only complexicity, as you have pointed out, might be where a person could pick up a thread of mixed comments.
tag #PickupPaste #MoveComments
Okay. I agree. A person could be allowed to move content to someone else’s thought if they soley owned 100% of the content only. All of those conditions can only be known at paste time, and is not particularly easy. So it is not something I am excited to do today in a few minutes. It’s on the list … when it pops, it pops.
Many of the things you have put on various lists did pop in the last couple of weeks. Including the rather difficult one of in-place editing … so one would think you would focus on how many of your desires are actually happening, due in a large part to your rampages and grids, so that you will build on that energy to even more happenings … instead of tearing the palace you are building back down a floor or two by noticing “what sucks”.
… er, woops i did not read your second paragraph befor that reaction.
well at this stage of our development … it is critical that we notice what does not work and just how much it affects the look and feel of the domains … that does not mean that i am putting a lot of energy into the emotion … i mean come on now, i did not even make a thought for it … all i did was note that it “sucks” so that it would inform future development and fixes.
Maybe it is you who are a bit hyper-sensitive to sombody seeing somthing that can be imporved. eh?
i do not see how confusing authorship is possible as long as the authorthip of each comment is explicitidly stated just exactly as it is.
now as to sequence … yes sequence can be altered … perhaps in a way that the original author of the thought itself did not intent. but more than likely he will love the new order … especially if he is in sync vibrationally with the people he is having dialogue with. But if he does not, then he can change it back. He should be able to exclude hostile actors. I do not see #SeriTD as needing to enforce anything beyond the simple authorship rules i stated above. If somehtin happens that rubbs a person wrong, it shoud be dealt with by the social relationships that are alredy binding the collabrators.
”all i did was note that it “sucks” so that it would inform future development and fixes”
It never ever works that way. Even modern software development at Google and Microsoft recognize it doesn’t work like this and have been pushing new and better models that only focus on what is desired. I have been in the up-to-date workshops. Believe it or not, business statistics fully support #LOA theory. It is only old convention that says you have to know what does not work to make something work well. In fact, all you have to know is what you want to get it, where you want to go, that is it. Knowing what doesn’t work just makes it harder, tears down a floor that has to be rebuilt, that’s all it does.
As #LOA theory states, often, by the time you run into something that doesn’t work, in your experience, your verse has already found the solution for that and put the solution in your vortex, and you only have to allow it to have it appear in your experience.
well that hangs together well. but i think that is an entirely different aspect of attention than applies to my notice here. it might be a bit hard to tease those apart. its like learning how to ride a bike … originally your attention should be on the positive balance that keeps your going … later when you are a marithon rider, you might want to notice that your breathing is out of rhythm.
Yep. I used to think that too. In fact, early on I said almost exactly what you said there to someone else. Then I eventually learned, things are not that way.
Even learning to ride a bike is not that way, or does not have to be. That’s the old idea of how someone learns to ride a bike. In fact, everyone already knows how to ride a bike because it is well established in universal consciousness. All one has to do to learn to ride a bike is channel that abilitiy into their own experience. Burt Goldman’s stuff is all about doing this and that’s how he has learned a whole bunch of new skills, including art and photography and cooking and others, instantly. Even NLP teaches that all you have to do to learn a new skill is copy the submodalities, not go through all the steps. Only the first person to do something for all time has to go through all the steps.
I taught both Frankie and Darcy to learn to ride bikes this way … they simply go on and rode without having ridden before. It works.
Why are you mucking with these comments? I don’t like it. They had a clear context and flow before, and now a lot of the important information is missing. I like using this content I write here, in my book … you are changing it all!
i wanted to see a nice clear dialogue about moving comments. and then the other about #LOA … which for me starts with watching the movie which i am about half through with … i need to it WATCH it again.
Would you please put all the comments back over there, or all over here, for that whole thread? They are one complete whole and don’t make sense anymore split up. I don’t care if you do put them all here because the fork will maintain continuity … but one shouldn’t have to try and go back and forth just to read them properly in the order they were created in this way. I can’t even do the research I came to do.
And please make sure to get the thread levels back the way their were originally. Thanks.
no problem. Thing is i wanted to maintain a coherant dialogue about moving comments … that was important to me to have a our thinking on that available and connected.
I also want to study the mastermind group … hence the necessity of having two independant thoughts.
But the one is kind of an example of the other. I’ll put the whole dialogue on the “moving comments - pickup and paste
” … and keep this thought here to be just about #loa. so this is on my list of things to do.
i guess i’ll need to delete this redundant copy when i get me