[Peter Wieck]

On Wednesday, February 15, 2017 at 11:53:58 AM UTC-5, Ed Presson wrote:

Yes, I am a participant in one of those active groups. However, many others
are moribund or
stuffed with spam advertisements that have killed participation. I had
hoped that this
group could survive and thrive.

Ed Presson

It can not if +/- 1/3 of the participants are considered a-priori 'tin eared'.

As with the American Revolution at its beginning:

1/3 were 'for' it. As it happens, that 1/3 tended to be amongst the educated, and many, but not most, were land-owners and fairly well off.

1/3 were 'agin' it. As it happens, that 1/3 tended to be amongst the less educated, poorer and not so well off.

1/3 held no brief for either side, and, in fact, found both sides equally annoying as it disrupted trade and commerce. These tended to be amongst those who engaged in trade, commerce, sales and transportation. No surprise there.

As with subjective/objective (ists): They are both more concerned with their own received wisdom, per the tenets of their own revealed religion. Neither is amenable to free and fair discussion, and both would much rather win than be right. Nor would either admit to any sort of testing at any level, as there are far too many oxen on the line.

The other 1/3 or so would like to get on with the business of enjoying the hobby - but dodging the flack is just too many for them.

As an open suggestion on how understand the typical perception of logic, and how all too many of us look at the world - Read Lewis Carroll's Hunting of the Snark. As a send-up of common logic as practiced, it is unsurpassed. If one starts out with a fixed idea - and that idea is not amenable to any level of discussion, then no discussion is possible. Only agreement or disagreement, and only by the 'other' as defined by the 'first' party.

May as well be on Facebook.

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA