The disappearance of QRS
- David Quinn
- Posts: 5708
- Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
- Location: Australia
- Contact:
The disappearance of QRS
I've decided to ban the anacronym "QRS" from being used on this forum, as I don't like it. It misleadingly implies a collective mindset which isn't really there. It will be replaced by "wisdom".
Similar anacronyms, should they arise, will also get the treatment.
-
Similar anacronyms, should they arise, will also get the treatment.
-
- David Quinn
- Posts: 5708
- Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
- Location: Australia
- Contact:
Re: The disappearance of Q.R.S
Unfortunately, it means that every post in the past containing the anacronym will be affected. I guess that some of you will be unhappy with this, which is understandable. I'll wait to get some reactions before deciding what to do.
-
-
- Elizabeth Isabelle
- Posts: 3771
- Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2006 11:35 am
Re: The disappearance of Q.R.S
If you replace "QRS" or "QSR" with "wisdom" in each post from the past, it will change the meaning of the posts - often to something that will sound silly in that particular context.
I understand your desire to clarify that your philosophies are different, and I agree that delineating your differences will lead to greater understanding than focusing on similarities (which can lead to false lumping of "if one admin says it that all 3 believe it exactly that way"). I strongly oppose anyone changing my words and leaving the authorship as if I wrote it that way. I propose instead that if you feel that you must do something to the past posts containing the anacronym, that you merely lock the threads and insert in each post containing the anacronym a little blurb to the effect of
I understand your desire to clarify that your philosophies are different, and I agree that delineating your differences will lead to greater understanding than focusing on similarities (which can lead to false lumping of "if one admin says it that all 3 believe it exactly that way"). I strongly oppose anyone changing my words and leaving the authorship as if I wrote it that way. I propose instead that if you feel that you must do something to the past posts containing the anacronym, that you merely lock the threads and insert in each post containing the anacronym a little blurb to the effect of
Also, to be fair, please add that (as well as the regulation about deleting your own posts) to the Board Conduct and Usage thread (not that many people actually read that thread anyway, I still think it's a nice touch to state it clearly there).The anacronym QRS has been banned as of Sept. 2007 because the anacronym misleadingly implies a collective mindset which isn't really there. Further use of this anacronym after this date will incur warnings or banning, as deemed appropriate by the administration.
- Genius Forum Administration (or David Quinn - whichever you feel is more appropriate)
- Elizabeth Isabelle
- Posts: 3771
- Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2006 11:35 am
Re: The disappearance of Q.R.S
You didn't wait very long. My strong opposition still stands, and if this sweeping edit is not undone by tomorrow, I will be going through my old posts to rephrase them so they make more sense - unless, of course, you ban me first.David Quinn wrote: I'll wait to get some reactions before deciding what to do.
Re: The disappearance of Q.R.S
.
Quite Righteous Saints
Tomas
.
Oceaxer wrote:What did it stand for?
Quite Righteous Saints
Tomas
.
Re: The disappearance of Q.R.S
Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:You didn't wait very long. My strong opposition still stands, and if this sweeping edit is not undone by tomorrow, I will be going through my old posts to rephrase them so they make more sense - unless, of course, you ban me first.David Quinn wrote: I'll wait to get some reactions before deciding what to do.
......
Kick her off!
Tomas
7
.
- David Quinn
- Posts: 5708
- Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
- Location: Australia
- Contact:
Re: The disappearance of Q.R.S
Elizabeth,
It is a pity there isn't scope to switch off the back-dating and start the ban from today onwards.
Not to worry. I'll have to live with it.
-
You're right. It seems unworkable. I've changed it back.If you replace "QRS" or "QSR" with "wisdom" in each post from the past, it will change the meaning of the posts - often to something that will sound silly in that particular context.
It is a pity there isn't scope to switch off the back-dating and start the ban from today onwards.
Not to worry. I'll have to live with it.
-
- Dan Rowden
- Posts: 5739
- Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm
- Contact:
Re: The disappearance of QRS
I'm opposed to the banning of it. I don't like it - I think it's inaccurate and conveys an often false message. However, while its use ought be strongly discouraged, I can't quite come to the place where I think censorship is warranted, especially if the reason isn't any more concrete then "we don't like it". There'd be bugger all posts at all here if I banned stuff based on that criterion! ;)
So, unless you have a solid reason for employing it, don't.
So, unless you have a solid reason for employing it, don't.
- David Quinn
- Posts: 5708
- Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
- Location: Australia
- Contact:
Re: The disappearance of QRS
I thought it would be interesting to force people to come up with other ways of addressing us. It was an impulsive idea, ill-conceived as it turned out.
-
-
- Dan Rowden
- Posts: 5739
- Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm
- Contact:
Re: The disappearance of QRS
Well, I think they'll still be forced too based on what's been expressed. I'm sure they get the idea!
Re: The disappearance of QRS
David wrote;
What's wrong with David Dan and Kevin?
May be people use it out of habit, since someone did coin it up, but at the core, those that are incapable of individuality (individual thinking) are incapable of recognizing one.
I thought it would be interesting to force people to come up with other ways of addressing us.
What's wrong with David Dan and Kevin?
Not necessarily. It does seem like an emotional one, but is actually a logical point. I don’t recall ever using the term (and know quite a few that don't) referentially as in addressing some unified philosophy of three individually definable minds. Each and every mind is vast enough and unique due to its own causal conditions, so it is illogical to address their philosophy collectively. In fact, the term addresses the people, not their philosophy as such, and should best be ignored, for there isn’t any real point made or questioned.It was an impulsive idea, ill-conceived as it turned out.
May be people use it out of habit, since someone did coin it up, but at the core, those that are incapable of individuality (individual thinking) are incapable of recognizing one.
---------
- Diebert van Rhijn
- Posts: 6469
- Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm
Re: The disappearance of QRS
The problem with addressing people or ideas with 'QRS' doesn't seem to me any implication of a collective mindset. It's just a sloppy, ugly style of writing and often imprecise, especially for people not familiar to its intended meaning.
The implication of a collective mindset is created when with clicking on 'administrators' or ''global moderators' three names show up. These same names show up when going to the "reasoning show' where they are presented as the hosts.
The idea of these three people being joined by the hip is enforced by the description on Quinn's site of Solway's main work as "one of the clearest expositions of wisdom ever written". Rowden on his site has three links to other people and links to "The Thinking Man's Minefield " as the world's greatest philosophical website and to David Quinn's Site as "The thoughts and literature of a self-professed sage". The third one is Celia Green's "excellent work".
So from this one can deduce quite easily that we have three people who are on a fundamental level agreeing with each other and also participate like a triumvirate in undertakings like this forum and the podcast.
From this point of view it's quite reasonable for visitors to create some kind of 'shortcut' to refer to the shared philosophy of these three people. Since there's no label given by these people themselves, one gets created. I've seen others on this forum trying to describe the thinking as "what goes on here on this forum" or worse: "what you all believe here".
I understand the desire to remain formless and escape labeling. But when at the same time presenting names, biographies and cooperate with the same people on a certain level, one has already created form and people just name the forms.
It's that simple.
The best way to counter 'QRS' is to create another name that describes good enough what makes the shared philosophy of Dan, Kevin and David different from the other stuff out there. The name can be used to create some contrast or can stand out in some meaningful way. That's the purpose of names and definitions, isn't it?
The implication of a collective mindset is created when with clicking on 'administrators' or ''global moderators' three names show up. These same names show up when going to the "reasoning show' where they are presented as the hosts.
The idea of these three people being joined by the hip is enforced by the description on Quinn's site of Solway's main work as "one of the clearest expositions of wisdom ever written". Rowden on his site has three links to other people and links to "The Thinking Man's Minefield " as the world's greatest philosophical website and to David Quinn's Site as "The thoughts and literature of a self-professed sage". The third one is Celia Green's "excellent work".
So from this one can deduce quite easily that we have three people who are on a fundamental level agreeing with each other and also participate like a triumvirate in undertakings like this forum and the podcast.
From this point of view it's quite reasonable for visitors to create some kind of 'shortcut' to refer to the shared philosophy of these three people. Since there's no label given by these people themselves, one gets created. I've seen others on this forum trying to describe the thinking as "what goes on here on this forum" or worse: "what you all believe here".
I understand the desire to remain formless and escape labeling. But when at the same time presenting names, biographies and cooperate with the same people on a certain level, one has already created form and people just name the forms.
It's that simple.
The best way to counter 'QRS' is to create another name that describes good enough what makes the shared philosophy of Dan, Kevin and David different from the other stuff out there. The name can be used to create some contrast or can stand out in some meaningful way. That's the purpose of names and definitions, isn't it?
- David Quinn
- Posts: 5708
- Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
- Location: Australia
- Contact:
Re: The disappearance of QRS
We are collaborators and colleagues. Our relationship is essentially the same as that which exists between scientists. There are shared values and a shared recognition of how philosophy should be conducted.
Ideally, "wisdom" should be the term used to describe what we do. It's a term that not only covers what the three of us do, but also others on this forum and thinkers in the past. One of the main problems with the "QRS" label is that it creates the artificial impression that what the three of us are doing is somehow original and new, whereas in reality we are merely participating in a timeless wisdom that many others have participated in. The QRS label only serves to create a barrier which doesn't need to be there.
-
Ideally, "wisdom" should be the term used to describe what we do. It's a term that not only covers what the three of us do, but also others on this forum and thinkers in the past. One of the main problems with the "QRS" label is that it creates the artificial impression that what the three of us are doing is somehow original and new, whereas in reality we are merely participating in a timeless wisdom that many others have participated in. The QRS label only serves to create a barrier which doesn't need to be there.
-
- Elizabeth Isabelle
- Posts: 3771
- Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2006 11:35 am
Re: The disappearance of QRS
The same thing happens with scientists when a general statement meant to cover all of them is employed. Most would not say that the following statement is false, misleading, or irrational:David Quinn wrote:We are collaborators and colleagues. Our relationship is essentially the same as that which exists between scientists. There are shared values and a shared recognition of how philosophy should be conducted.
"NASA" doesn't actually think, as it is a term that describes a collection. It is possible that there are some who work at NASA who actually believe that it is the technological achievement rather than the exploration of space itself that is important. As a collective, the above quote is the portrayed image of NASA.NASA thinks that space exploration is very important.
I do occasionally use the term QRS even though I went to great lengths to differentiate what each of you think, in order to address the very real perception of unity amongst the 3 of you. Out of respect for you I will drop it unless referring to it as the specific term (such as in this paragraph).
Something that I believe would be handy and interesting is if the 3 of you published a chart delineating the differences between what each of you believe. There is plenty of co-back-patting on your individual websites that give the nauseating impression that you have a mutual admiration society, so a differentiation chart would help bring balance to the perception. It also might be a mentally expansive exercise for the 3 of you to really take a hard look at what you disagree on.
Re: The disappearance of QRS
The average intelligence of posters here is so low that I would think that sort of semantic issue would be the least of your concerns.
Good Citizen Carl
Re: The disappearance of QRS
Diebert,
What “they†say is not essentially different or alien to me for example, and it does not become “their†philosophy simply because they agree to certain core values and issues, or collaborate for a core reason. I am of a like mind as far as those core values are concerned, and I know many that are not even aware of this site who don’t differ much in essence, living and the long dead, but yet are individual thinking entities however.
How much do we really know of them as far as their personal interactivity is concerned? There has to necessarily be disagreements between thinkers simply because they are highly individualistic to begin with.
You mean like a three-headed serpent? :D But it is the individual heads that we should be concerned with, not the hip or tail.The idea of these three people being joined by the hip…
I know and I do understand and agree, however, it is illogical to impose a sense of trinity when they explicitly say and are clearly otherwise.It's that simple.
You mean define a herd of three? That I think is exactly the problem.The best way to counter 'QRS' is to create another name that describes good enough what makes the shared philosophy of Dan, Kevin and David different from the other stuff out there. The name can be used to create some contrast or can stand out in some meaningful way. That's the purpose of names and definitions, isn't it?
What “they†say is not essentially different or alien to me for example, and it does not become “their†philosophy simply because they agree to certain core values and issues, or collaborate for a core reason. I am of a like mind as far as those core values are concerned, and I know many that are not even aware of this site who don’t differ much in essence, living and the long dead, but yet are individual thinking entities however.
How much do we really know of them as far as their personal interactivity is concerned? There has to necessarily be disagreements between thinkers simply because they are highly individualistic to begin with.
---------
- Elizabeth Isabelle
- Posts: 3771
- Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2006 11:35 am
Re: The disappearance of QRS
It is not only NASA that believes that the exploration of space is important.Sapius wrote:What “they†say is not essentially different or alien to me for example, and it does not become “their†philosophy simply because they agree to certain core values and issues, or collaborate for a core reason.
- Dave Toast
- Posts: 509
- Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2003 6:22 pm
Re: The disappearance of QRS
I don't want to sound like Jonny Obvious but aren't all three of them admins here? Indeed the only admins on this board?
So how could they be addressed or refered to collectively without the usual inference?
*scratches head*
So how could they be addressed or refered to collectively without the usual inference?
*scratches head*
Re: The disappearance of QRS
Well that's a good idea; forum admins.Dave Toast wrote:I don't want to sound like Jonny Obvious but aren't all three of them admins here? Indeed the only admins on this board?
So how could they be addressed or refered to collectively without the usual inference?
*scratches head*
Stop scratching before you loose all your hair. That is, if you have not lost them all already ;)
---------
Re: The disappearance of QRS
I too consider it a non-delusional aspect of life and existence, hence important.Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:It is not only NASA that believes that the exploration of space is important.Sapius wrote:What “they†say is not essentially different or alien to me for example, and it does not become “their†philosophy simply because they agree to certain core values and issues, or collaborate for a core reason.
---------
- Kevin Solway
- Posts: 2766
- Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2001 8:43 am
- Location: Australia
- Contact:
Re: The disappearance of QRS
I don't think there's anything particularly wrong with the "QRS" label. All it would take to smash it would be to add an extra administrator, or suchlike.
In the same manner, people call me "Kevin" even though I am in reality a collective of many different cells, and many different and conflicting thoughts. Yet the label "Kevin" is useful, so long as it is used intelligently.
In the same manner, people call me "Kevin" even though I am in reality a collective of many different cells, and many different and conflicting thoughts. Yet the label "Kevin" is useful, so long as it is used intelligently.
Re: The disappearance of QRS
I don't think it is the label or even its use, but the definition that should be clearly intelligible, to make coherent sense in the first place.Kevin Solway wrote:I don't think there's anything particularly wrong with the "QRS" label. All it would take to smash it would be to add an extra administrator, or suchlike.
In the same manner, people call me "Kevin" even though I am in reality a collective of many different cells, and many different and conflicting thoughts. Yet the label "Kevin" is useful, so long as it is used intelligently.
As they say... what's in a name...
---------
Re: The disappearance of QRS
I was using it simply because others have and it's quicker than saying all your names.
Also you appear to share the same fundamental beliefs so I didn't see any problem with using it.
However if you don't want it used then I won't.
Also you appear to share the same fundamental beliefs so I didn't see any problem with using it.
However if you don't want it used then I won't.
Re: The disappearance of QRS
I'm in favor of it. I'm pretty sure the sweeping overwrite would make the message here at genius much more "true" in the deepest sense of the word. I can't speak for everyone, but I think the idea is sound and entrenched in logic to its essence.
Pen15
Pen15


