Hi,

I am new to this forum and was hoping to get some advice about outliners and related information managers. Instead I read a really long---I mean unbelievably long and rambling---post about Proust. Was he some sort of famous outline expert? Even if he was----and I could not tell from the post which I could not figure out-----does he warrant an essay? I mean I thought essays were reserved for personal blogs, rather than a special interest forum in which you should make your points about the topics, without droning on and on with irrelevant commentary, and then stop.

Like I said, I am new here and perhaps "Outliner Software.com" does not have much to do about outlining software. That would be a pity since I rely on that software to do business---to make money.

Popcorn, please. That will be interesting to see.

I don't know Proust myself but the rambling wasn't focusing on Proust as Proust but on the french style of capturing order from outlines.

Notable statement in the topic - "I’m speaking of getting “law and order” into your previous associative thinking, and I say, look upon these endless French essays in order to have fine examples how reading is hampered when authors do NOT bother to sectionalize their thoughts after thinking, for the recipients’ sake."

The Python Joke: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uwAOc4g3K-g

The Google of Proust: http://www.proustguide.com/ProustSITE/Pages/Summarizeproust.htm

The idea does worth warranting an essay IMO as it pertains to "outliner theory" as it may. In fact, it cannot be said that the rambling was close to a French essay I assume though I have no knowledge of it.

Mind you, this is my own guess on the subject either and you'll have to wait for the actual recipients to respond.

If it's still confusing, you can think of it from the idea of outlining a grand fictional novel on par with the Bible only without the time skips and the allowances of modern novel writing.

If you were trying to make such a lengthy summary of such a novel using a particular outliner software, how would you "design" your outline to that particular outliner software in such a way that in actuality what you have is a file whose sections make sense not only to you but to other people hence the point being that the outliner design does help you with your outline on a falsifiable basis rather than on a subjective desire towards a particular outliner software: two-pane, one-pane, etc.

The dissertation on Proust had nothing at all to do with book-organization theory, much less book-organization software; remember this forum supposedly has to do with s-o-f-t-w-a-r-e. If someone wants to discuss the principles underlying Scrivener or StoryBook, that discussion would be relevant to this forum. If someone else wanted to share tips about the use of book-writing software, I would welcome such posts here. If someone else wanted to compare and contrast the merits of book-writing software or outliners that can be put to that use that also would be salient and helpful. For example, Steve Z has written a series of articles which he has posted on his B-L-O-G that rate outliners. He could have easily posted those articles here, but since Steve gets it, since he is courteous, and since he is thoughtful, he posts links on this forum to his B-L-O-G when he has completed a new rating.

It's called manners. (Thoughtfulness goes hand in hand with comprehensibility which is why I never ever have to scratch my head about what Steve writes.)

If someone has the compulsion, owing perhaps to a prolonged manic episode of a bi-polar disorder, to pick up the stratocaster and indulge in a really long 60's heavy-metal guitar riff, I would implore them to record that performance on their own blog. It would save me from scrolling past the twaddle to arrive at the relevant.

Yes, it had nothing to do with book-organization theory but it partially had something to do with outlining of which all outliners must conform towards to before it can lay claim to being a software for an outline.

In that aspect then, and I'm not a mod/admin so I'm not saying this is gospel, it fits into the topic about software. Saying it isn't would be akin to saying the file that your software created cannot belong in a forum about an outliner software. That would be silly. How can one debate outliners well if they are kept from debating the output of that software?

Which is the case here.

You are mistaking the mention of Proust as if it's the header. It's not. Proust is the sub-branch of a sub-branch if the discussion thread was shaped like an outline.

Think of it like:

-Workflowy
--Outliner
---Associative Thinking
----Proust

Book organization theory on the other hand is a subject you yourself brought up.

True the branch could be "associated" with that but it isn't about that except to serve as the weakest of weak metaphors to link the conversation back towards the more general branch of the conversation trail.

While we're on the topic of blogs, in most forums I know, linking to blogs are not a sign of courtesy but a sign of blogspam.

True a long time forum member could be given the benefit of the doubt but in almost all cases, especially a blog article of which posters cannot empathize with, a blog link is seen as an insult.

In fact in most forums, even if you were to post a link with a proper title, many members would demand that you post a quoted summary of the blog article because many of them do not desire to click a link even on links that may interest them.

Plus, please remember the basis for your complaint. You are complaining about ONE forum topic. ONE. The Proust subject didn't invade several topics in this forum. The appearance of the Proust statement when it finally appeared was made in such a a way that you are able to glimpse replies on Workflowy before you even read the Proust posts.

Foolness, are you Fredy with a different name? Seems like it.

No good will come of such a question aside from saying, No.

It won't lend me to my credibility and if I were not traumatized by another forum also accusing me of being someone else and a mod believing them then I would try to defend myself but as my pleas fell on deaf ears then, I know my defense would most likely fail here so my answer here is simply No.

My little observation is that whenever someone tried to chastise another member for being too verbose or off-topic, it ended up stopping discussion altogether and with members leaving. I think it is easy enough to just ignore topics and posts that one is not interested in and as long as there isn't too many of them, they don't do much harm (which doesn't mean I don't find them annoying sometimes but I prefer to have new discussions, rather than not having them at all).

Personally I like hyperlinks in the posts to external blog posts or software sites or other forum sites, as they have always been enlightening and save me the trouble of having to Google them. Steve in particular has been very conscientious in posting links to only relevant blog posts of his.

And the problem about outliers packing their bags and going elsewhere is ...what? You minimize the inconvenience they cause with their unselfconscious blather, for their posts are inserted in the midst of threads that are on topic, resulting in my endlessly scrolling down past their long posts to get to a forum member who has written something worth reading. I am also not complaining about length qua word count.On the contrary, I fondly recall an attorney on this forum writing an extensive and erudite post about using QRS software to work up a case for trial. The depth of the article caused me to think hard about features and limitations of QRS for my professional applications. To be sure, I read the posts on this forum to get a dose for my addiction to outliner software, but at the same time, I obtain essential information that enables me to work better.This attorney had lots to say; ergo the length of his post was appropriate.

Although I should think that I ought not have to expand on what I mean about "off-topic," your post causes me to do so. On this forum, we have had extensive discussions about mind-mapping software, note-taking software, task-recording software, book-writing software, citation software, idea-generating software, bibliography software, spelling & grammar checking software, word processors, PIMs and other software related to thinking and writing. We have also had extensive discussions about the theories and principles underlying these products. We have also had some short tutorials about using this software. For example, I am awaiting your tutorial on using CT to code pdf files. Accordingly, a poster really has to move far afield to be off-topic on this forum.

Darlings, let's not, after all, forget that all of us who post on these forums do so because we want to. The motivation for our little moments of self-publicity is correspondingly varied...

There are those who like to muse at length on the philosophical premises of outlining - indeed, of information management in its broadest form.

There are those seeking very specific advice on very specific, application-related issues.

There are those who've just discovered something amazing - or amusing, or annoying - about one of their favourite outliners and wish to share.

We are all free to ignore, or chastise, or reply to, or support, or otherwise interact with any and all posts. Or, as it may be, none of them.

So if you don't like a particular topic, just start up another one of your own. If people like it, they'll join in. If they don't, they won't. This is by far the most efficient way of getting useful feedback on specific applications you may be evaluating or interested in. Don't read about Proust if you don't want to. Just start up a new topic entitled something like "Whatever happened to InfoSelect?" (or UltraRecall, or MyInfo, or Ecco Pro, etc. etc. etc. etc.).

You'd be amazed at the swift, cogent and thoughtful responses you'll get from the many very experienced outliner users on this forum!

So peace, love, concord and tranquillity to everybody.

Cheers,
Bill

reverendmartian wrote:

We have
also had some short tutorials about using this software. For example, I am awaiting
your tutorial on using CT to code pdf files.

Thanks for the reminder. In fact I've already set up a separate blog where I'll be posting my CT tutorials, so that I don't annoy people here who are not that interested in CT. Watch this space :)

Reverendmartian (cool login by the way) I welcome your 'call to order' because it gives voice to at least some of the people who visit this forum mostly to read and less to contribute.

In this respect we should consider that each complaint may represent 5-15 others who feel the same way but don't speak about it. I for one am interested in this 'silent majority (?)'. Given the prominence of this forum in Google search results, I expect that the unique visits and pageviews are indeed considerable. For me this implies responsibility: for example, I'm sure that we all make the effort to provide advice to the best of our knowledge, because we assume that others may be influenced by our experience and do not want to mislead them.

In the same way, I believe that taking the effort to write clearly and to stay within the topic of each thread is equally important --though I am sure that I have myself diverged several times from this.

That said, I overall share the position expressed by Bill (madaboutdana) and Dr Andus, i.e. "live and let live" sort to speak. Of course, if we see that long posts considerably impact a significant number of independent threads, we should do something about it; at the end of the day discussion should be multi-way else it is something else.

Among educated people, arguments are exchanged in order to get to sort of an intermediate result on which to convene, and I'm thankful to people who question my intermediate findings, in order to rethink them.

Unfortunately, that is not the case here. Steven, whose so-called "reviews" to which there are links here, are very basic, didn't really refute what I had said (within UR forum, especially), but just said his opinion was different, and notwithstanding this, due to respect to Steven, I questioned my stance myself, and had an intermediate surrender to the opposite stance: yes, deepest level of tree vs. one sub-title level within text body, indeed, it would be better to make this interchangeable, like I did 15 years ago myself, then lost out of sight.

Which is to say, Steven did NOTHING in order to trigger further thinking by myself, I just did it all by myself, then just pretended my thinking being triggered by Steven, in order to make friends among those few here who did at least SOME contributing here, in direct comparison with people like the martian and others.

Now I must see that not only martians - who simply don't get it, even most basic things - openly treat me as an idiot here, but also the majority of people doing some contribs, incl. Steven - not speaking of some little agitators who ONLY "contribute" here when it comes to Fred-bashing, and on top of this, the few people who defend me here, are suspected of being other impersonisations of myself.

I fact, I'm in a position here where I'd have to "defend" myself against the stones = agressions devoid of arguments of people sufficiently dumb to NOT get my point with Proust's "information presentation technology", and that, when getting explained it by third parties, treat them as my other self, instead of trying to get their explanation, in the absence of mine - which proves it's not my particular style that people incapable of some thinking are incapable of following me just a bit.

I had mentioned Proust in the absence of any other known example of such a style at the opposite of anything we've ever tried to realize, and because I wanted to mention the presumed origin of that particular style - for both reasons, why should I have mentioned some of minor French social sciences authors instead to which you wouldn't have easy access, and who perhaps don't do but ape his style - why discussing some minor, obscure replicas, instead of the readily available (presumed) original?

But no, in SEVERAL threads here, there is "discussion" now of my not even having the authorization, to start with, to discuss Proust's (double) "information presentation", but his "action", incredibly interspersed, as his "general reflections", heavily intertwined and not accessible except for external tools' deploy - this almost general censorship asking for meaning that the three quarters or more of people "contributing" here are NOT willing to discuss the TASKS outliners or other electronic tools are meant for, i.e. IM in the sense of

"where and which way to cut up the bits and how to (re)arrange them then in order for them to make the best possible sense"

, and, even more to it, react by pure, undisguised HATE when you dare developing such questions here, even when it's proven that yes, you claim some expertise within these matters, but are also willing to renounce any firm belief on any argument (but not simple stone-throwing), came it from a substantiate reasoning, or be it just a differing opinion (like the one I quickly succombed to here the last days, not from "losing" within a discussion, but from my own introspection, triggered by just "adverse" opinionating).

Thus, I'm here within a forum where real dumb people rule, and where my defenders are harmed in their turn, again without arguments - we could riposte - but by stone-throwing, i.e. accusations that we hadn't the "right" to say what we say.

The most amusing part in all this has been the insinuation here that my English was so sub-standard that even for other non-native speakers, it was an imposition of mine - yes, even the dumbest and most primitive native speaker has got a big advantage in the lingua france he undeservedly was born in over the rest of us.

Eduaro is wrong in thinking this is fun. In fact, he's one of the very few other real expert in these mattters world-wide, and I respect him a lot, since his efforts to find viable ways of procuring alternative views onto your material are unique, even when I can't get accustomed to his ways of subdividing your material. But then, he makes his living out of his particular answer to the "IM for individuals" problem, whilst I sold 5 "light" versions of mine, 15 years ago, which means it's in his interest to punch away any alternative solution to his one, and even any alternative thinking that wouldn't be in synch with what HE thinks is good IM for individuals - he never (or at least, rarely) had his say here, except when subject was his own offering, the same interactional behavior as was shown by the developer of IQ here. So his posting here is no accident, but interested stone-throwing, there again.

So, what we've got here, is 2, 3 or 4 contributors realizing the worth of my contributions to what is fundamentally a pigstall, i.e. a gathering of those aforementioned, together with a little dozen or so regular "contributors" just utttering crassness for the great majority of them, and perhaps 2 or 3 people in-between, i.e. having some valid info here and then, but also wishing I'd go to hell, presumably since that stance of "live and let live" isn't regular to them but when not overshadowed but jealousy.

Of course this refers, among some others, to Steven who falsely poses as an outliner expert here and elsewhere but whose writings, nowhere, have ever taught me anything new, whilst those of the childishly-behaving guy why just came here to tout his solution, a year ago, then left, with sales not having realized, left right away, have: not his writings here, but his developments on his site have.

In his thread, Steven advised me to leave if this forum didn't met my standards; in fact he expressed, please leave so that I can regain my position as the so-called "expert" here; my try to "make peace", by pretending he delivered some argument to which I succumbed, was fruitless then.

My chose name in UR forum was schferk, Schweine und Ferkel, pigs and piggies, an acronym for "pearls before swine" - I told you so one year ago. This time, I took the time to explain myself with a little bit differenciation, and I certainly do not pretend ancient forum fellows here are "sch" or "ferk", neither "swine" nor piglets, but as we all currently see, my contributions here were "pearls before swine" indeed, i.e. high-brow offerings to people who 1) didn't appreciate them for their great majority, and 2) who openly despised them for a considerable minority, perhaps again for their majority.

In a forum where pearls are treated like just rubbish, I don't have any place, of course, and had I had got the intellect of the Kant professor, I would have realized this years ago.

And no, Steven, there is no such available forum for interacting among developers, as there isn't any such forum for writers or others: People having got real good ideas tend to withheld, not share them; I tried to break up this eternal rule, in vain, lack of iq I fear - the Kant professor, him, doesn't try, but has assembled quantity of other people's ideas good and bad, he's not exposing his own thinking, or only to a degree.

Seems I can learn from people having a better understanding of the human nature, but I'm willing to learn. So, you're again with your clappers, Steve, and with some people who try some bits in order to be helpful to people, but without stepping on your toes which would cost them their adherence to this beautiful, Google-pushed forum.

Phonies and their clappers rule, so be it here as everywhere.