in reply to Re^3: Can I please have multiple downvotes per (certain monk's) posts.
in thread Can I please have multiple downvotes per (certain monk's) posts.
Proving (to me, anyway), once again, that it is The Conversation which is important,
Agreed.
How we got there, I suppose, is largely a secondary consideration.
Necessity is mother of invention.
There's a nice cosy world in which necessities are predicted aforehand; discussed calmly and rationally; and addressed before they become imperative.
In my experience; that cosy world doesn't exist. Every single organisation I've ever had any knowledge of has always had to react to the now; no matter how hard they tried to cover off every eventuality.
And far more frequently than the 'nice world - nice people' advocates would want you to believe, it took someone to get angry before change occurred.
We have spam filters and ad-blockers and ex-directories and no cold-call lists because people got pissed off.
History is rife with (mostly far less trivial) examples of the need for 'righteous anger' in order to instigate change. Mostly because 'the authorities' at every level, rarely take a blind bit of notice of polite RFCs; they are easier to ignore than effect.
|
|---|
| Replies are listed 'Best First'. | |
|---|---|
|
Re^5: Can I please have multiple downvotes per (certain monk's) posts.
by planetscape (Chancellor) on Jun 22, 2015 at 17:26 UTC |