User talk:142.177.77.57: Difference between revisions
m (read the discussion. your description and the target don't match.) |
(why be locusts when we can be apes?) |
||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
::Well I read the discussion again and really doesn't belong in the [[features]] page. Context and content is not what the description you wrote described. Get a user page and put it there. It's got some interesting "between the lines" points though | ::Well I read the discussion again and really doesn't belong in the [[features]] page. Context and content is not what the description you wrote described. Get a user page and put it there. It's got some interesting "between the lines" points though | ||
:::Did it not explain exactly how such a consumer agent would work and how someone would act on this information? Those are features. Or better, "benefits". It seemed even more dead on than the abstract wikipedia articles which did not have the 'punch'. | |||
:Because apes are just like us, emotionally, but not rivals to us, if we won't save them, we sure won't save each other, and we better get on with being extinct. So a project that doesn't do this first, probably isn't worth doing. | :Because apes are just like us, emotionally, but not rivals to us, if we won't save them, we sure won't save each other, and we better get on with being extinct. So a project that doesn't do this first, probably isn't worth doing. | ||
:And, I didn't change my mind about this. Projects to redirect purchasing dollars either start with these high-empathy just-like-us [[w:hominid]]s, or they start somewhere less efficient. You must focus this project better I think, even to get the XML right. Otherwise there are no priorities to guide development, recruiting, etc.. And, if humans won't do what is efficient, they are doing only their own agenda, and that is just like being a locust. Or a troll. ;-) | |||
Revision as of 22:25, 14 April 2003
Helo 142.177.77.57, perhaps you might like to get an account here. Thanks for your great input to wikipedia, I just diffed through your work and it's very good.
- Thanks. There is actually very good background on wikipedia about this issue. But also there is good background on Greenpeace, including a link you removed from 'features' that describes *exactly* how to use a system just like this one (consumerium), very effectively. Also cross-participation with NGO boards is important. So you could put it as a reference, but I don't agree that link is unnecessary, and I also think that coordination with w:bushmeat campaigns to prevent w:ape genocide is probably the single greatest place this project could have impact:
- Well I read the discussion again and really doesn't belong in the features page. Context and content is not what the description you wrote described. Get a user page and put it there. It's got some interesting "between the lines" points though
- Did it not explain exactly how such a consumer agent would work and how someone would act on this information? Those are features. Or better, "benefits". It seemed even more dead on than the abstract wikipedia articles which did not have the 'punch'.
- Because apes are just like us, emotionally, but not rivals to us, if we won't save them, we sure won't save each other, and we better get on with being extinct. So a project that doesn't do this first, probably isn't worth doing.
- And, I didn't change my mind about this. Projects to redirect purchasing dollars either start with these high-empathy just-like-us w:hominids, or they start somewhere less efficient. You must focus this project better I think, even to get the XML right. Otherwise there are no priorities to guide development, recruiting, etc.. And, if humans won't do what is efficient, they are doing only their own agenda, and that is just like being a locust. Or a troll. ;-)