JasonCorley

MeatballWiki | RecentChanges | Random Page | Indices | Categories

A lawyer in Tucson, Arizona. My particular realm of practice is child abuse and neglect. I have undergraduate degrees in mathematics and philosophy. Nothing I post should be considered legal advice or the opinion of my employer or client.

Jason, welcome at MeatballWiki. Constitutional and legal issues are a big topic in online communities, as you have already seen. We are grateful for any help you give, any perspective you provide. Feel at home. -- HelmutLeitner

Thanks, Helmut, happy to be here.

Welcome back. I noticed your comment regarding plans for the future of ConvenientRationale and was pleased that you may have returned to participate more actively. -- HansWobbe.

Thanks...actually I've been here all along but most of what I've done is CopyEdit stuff, some pruning, some organization, refactoring, occasionally throwing my own thoughts in anonymously.

Great, given that I quite enjoyed some of your statements and found them enlightening.

I was a bit worried that you might have backed away from the unfortunate controversy that flared up.
Since I am not capable of contributing much in your stated areas of interest, I feel I should ask about others that I might be able to make a helpful contribution to. Since this is too open ended an invitation to be effective given that you may well have trouble deciding what I might be able to add, I should state a couple of active interests.
- Trust and its broadly related facets; Privacy, Voting, Representation, Financial Services, ...
- Technological Trends and their probable impacts on short term Goals within 3-5 years (anything shorter being an Annual Objective in my view).

-- HansWobbe

I did WalkAway from the controversy I was involved in. (I am still away from it.) I did actually contribute to the postmortem regarding another controversy that happened shortly thereafter, chiefly in puzzlement that things happened so fast. I don't shy away from controversy, in fact I suspect I am one of those people who thinks that as many good things come out of head-on collisions and bloody, passionate battles as come out of collaboration and consensus. But in order to have a battle come to something you have to have both sides willing to engage.

I love talking about trust, it's a really interesting subject. I find that there are two complementary (opposing?) views of group interaction that I've dealt with "in the real world": relationships based on an exchange of trust and relationships based on an exchange of interest. The reason I say these are complementary is because if a problem seems intractable from one viewpoint, often shifting to another can help. That's something that might be worked into several pages here and I've been considering doing it.

I am a head-in-the-clouds dunce when it comes to technology, I look forward to seeing your stuff, though. -- Jason

Trust it is, then.

In fact, I'm already intrigued by your perspective of two views.

One thing that does spring to mind immediately is that all trust is conditonal and probably context sensitive. (e.g. There are many conditions and contexts within which trust is possible, and some within which it is ill-advised. I have spoken about Risk / Reward ratios many times during the past decade and still feel that there is a lot more in that Topic alone that should be explored in order to understand it better, prior to trying to implement some helpful automated procedures.)

I'll give this some thought during the next week while I am travelling and will not have reliable 'net access.

Regards, for now.

-- Hans

CategoryHomePage

JasonCorley

Discussion