[Avoiding_Sulla]

We differ on the reasoning behind the forum, not on 'nuance'..

That readily depends upon what level, what undercurrent, you can legitimately see and are willing to confront. Ability to confront often includes employing tools. A troll button may filter out what needs to be removed at the right time and place.
For simple examples,
• without the right filter a 3-D presentation is outside your comprehension.
• With the right noise filters, you can hear a pin drop in a crowded stadium.
  The use of a filter does not mean you retreat into a cacoon and never reemerge. In the right hand, it is simply a tool.
• Would deny the skilled access to a tool unusable by the unskilled in the pursuit of, say, egality?
• Or Would deny the skilled access merely in pursuit of some other goal yet to be specified?
• Or would deny the skilled access because you fear they might not be skilled enough, IYHO?
• Or would deny the skilled access because you fear that the tool might fall into the unskilleds' hands?

Here's the trump card on that issue: [really?]
"Free Republic is a place for people to discuss our common goals regarding the restoration of our constitutionally limited republican form of government. If people have other agendas for FR, I really wish they would take them elsewhere."

But what of those who so imbalance and spam a thread so heavily -- so mob rule it -- that buried at number 743 and 1098 are the most relevant two posts that nobody ever saw?

Are those too posts left to the province only of those who have the time to wade through 2000 posts of a hijacked thread? What if the people who have the time are not the skilled who see the connection between 743 & 1098? Just too bad for the republic?

I don't know tpaine. Sounds more democratic than republican in approach -- but that's just this particular iconoclast's humble opinion.

Nope -- no nuance here.

[Avoiding_Sulla]

Darn it all.

Those should all read "would you" and not just "would" alone.

[tpaine]

We differ on the reasoning behind the forum, not on 'nuance'..

That readily depends upon what level, what undercurrent, you can legitimately see and are willing to confront. Ability to confront often includes employing tools.

Meaningless rhetoric.

A troll button may filter out what needs to be removed at the right time and place.

It might.. But the idiot that filtered out my words of wisdom would suffer the consequences of his/her stupidity.

For simple examples, without the right filter a 3-D presentation is outside your comprehension. With the right noise filters, you can hear a pin drop in a crowded stadium. The use of a filter does not mean you retreat into a cacoon and never reemerge. In the right hand, it is simply a tool. Would deny the skilled access to a tool unusable by the unskilled in the pursuit of, say, egality? Or Would deny the skilled access merely in pursuit of some other goal yet to be specified? Or would deny the skilled access because you fear they might not be skilled enough, IYHO? Or would deny the skilled access because you fear that the tool might fall into the unskilleds' hands?

Rave on..

Here's the trump card on that issue:

"Free Republic is a place for people to discuss our common goals regarding the restoration of our constitutionally limited republican form of government. If people have other agendas for FR, I really wish they would take them elsewhere."
-JR-

But what of those who so imbalance and spam a thread so heavily -- so mob rule it -- that buried at number 743 and 1098 are the most relevant two posts that nobody ever saw? Are those too posts left to the province only of those who have the time to wade through 2000 posts of a hijacked thread? What if the people who have the time are not the skilled who see the connection between 743 & 1098? Just too bad for the republic?

Yep, too bad for the one who used the filter, and can't, or won't, follow the debate..

I don't know tpaine. Sounds more democratic than republican in approach -- but that's just this particular iconoclast's humble opinion. Nope -- no nuance here.

That you "don't know" sums it up nicely. -- Thanks.

[bvw]

In the first place, I have to notice an erroneous assertion of more than one writer, namely, that I have stated the active Molecules to be animated. This mistake has probably arisen from my having communicated the facts in the same order in which they occurred, accompanied by the views which presented themselves in the different stages of the investigation; and in one case, from my having adopted the language, in referring to the opinion, of another inquirer into the first branch of the subject.

Although I endeavored strictly to confine myself to the statement of the facts observed, yet in speaking of the active Molecules I have not been able, in all cases, to avoid the introduction of hypothesis; for such is the supposition, that the equally active particles of greater size, and frequently of very different form, are primary compounds of these Molecules,-- a supposition which, though professedly conjectural, I regret having so much insisted on, especially as it may seem connected with the opinion of the absolute identity of the Molecules, from whatever source derived.

On this latter subject the only two points that I endeavored to ascertain, were their size and figure: and although I was, upon the whole, inclined to think that in these respects the Molecules were similar from whatever substances obtained, yet the evidence then adduced in support of the supposition was far from satisfactory; and I may add, that I am still less satisfied now that such is the fact. But even had the uniformity of the Molecules in those two points been absolutely established, it did not necessarily follow, nor have I any where stated, as has been imputed to me, that they also agreed in all their other properties and functions.