Recently the issue of who is an outlining expert came up. Since my request for length worthy erudite posts is going nowhere, I've decided to switch courses and challenge any outliner expert to test their competency on this issue.

The objectives are simple: In any area of expertise, the experts are able to know extensive answers that even well informed novices would fail to accomplish/think of. For example, the subject the "origin of species" discussed/displayed by two experts would vastly differ from the common internet discussion on Evolution vs. ID where Evolution is pumped up as the 100% definitive infallible theory because scientists say so plus ad nauseam of facts dressed up as a race between who's trivia can channel the most mob to shout against their opposition. Surely an outliner expert would be able to expand on the research done on already mentioned items as well as add to their own items and the far superior expert should be the one able to expand upon the subject the most, leaving other experts behind without succumbing to appealing to their own authority as a way of winning the race.

The agenda is equally simple: I did a basic DuckDuckGo search of outliner expert and got nowhere trying to look for a list of well accepted "outliner experts". Outliner theory too, as I've used it, was always more of a slang than an official study for I know of no such thing. The other agenda is to figure out whether readability is truly the issue at hand here. I am a person whom was always accused of having unreadable posts and yet I have rarely if ever channeled such obfuscation as say Proust for Proust or my manners over your manners. My failure to explain have always been related to length and towards posters feeling the natural way I presented my exposition to be unnecessary despite the lengths I would go to edit my lengthy posts (none of which are here if my memory serves me correctly).

Also, due to the lack of edit options after a post has been posted, I may not try to edit this post after I have written it unless it is a major grammatical issue. Based on my experiences with post-edit posts, they serve more to satisfy the insecurity of the writer rather than lead to posters welcoming conversation if a thread of thought comes off as problematic to them.

The final agenda is to see how the community responds. I too have been plagued by the dilemma between the blog and the forum...but not because I have something to offer or was looking to publish anything but simply because I like discussions and have had to balance between the two whenever my opponents used the length of my posts as an ad hominem against my point (of which is often open ended and bears no bias towards me or the repliers). It is because of this that I can empathize with the idea that a blog is not best for discussions but a forum is not best for length. If readability and not length or any other factor is the issue plaguing the modern day community, then I think we will not spot the common tell tale signs of disguised disgust/calls for misunderstanding and panders that we often see in other forums when length appears. However if it does appear, then I believe the issue is not readability here at all but that the forum like most forums have posters who are unwelcoming to any post that have exceeded a certain amount of length.

This is not in any way to absolve or defend any particular poster. Nor is this a topic simply for the sake of a study or a list for the sake of procuring the evidence for the titular results dictated upon the reader in the headline of an article.

It is actually a topic I hold dear to my heart but which I know I never will be able to blog about or post in a forum because of the very nature of my lack of charisma and my lack of knowledge on how to beg such data from people whose mind are different than my own.

I, however, will make this topic now as an attempted credibility test towards those who claim to be experts.

For the non-experts who do not understand why this topic is necessary: It is because you are too good, too smart or maybe even too well skilled and well honed in basic software to understand the plight of those who suck at outliners but may need or slightly improve their lives from them. Of which, I am one. And much as intelligent people can train dumb people, if such sole phenomenon were far spread, there would be no use in attempting to separate and categorize different learning styles such as the basic Big 3 category of visual, kinesthetic and auditory learners.

This isn't about those learning styles but it could be said as an attempt to try to catalog the different learning styles a user who have finished inputting the data in their outliner software are now partaking in and the difficulties/ease they may now be experiencing from having assembled a screen that presents such words/items in a certain structure.

Disclaimer: If at any point in the above, the sentiment you got was that I never wrote long posts before and this is my first time. I apologize. What I meant to express above is that this particular "specific" topic, I would have never written or posted given most normal circumstances. It's just an issue I know would not get me the information I needed if I make it, be it a blog or a forum, but it is also a broad issue. An issue that a poster from DonationCoder would call a "salt doll" thread in reference to a long post I made in that forum with a similar scale to this thread.

To get the ball rolling, I will provide my own findings below but know that many of these are not complicated and may sound obviously mundane for those who are not addicted to outliner theory.

Sadly, this is because I'm no expert. These are simply my own word conjurations. Nothing is official. Nothing has been explored in-depth.

#1 The Time Honored Paper to Software Outliner Mindset (The Boss)

This is arguably the most common form of boost when one is using an outliner. Either that or it is simply the most pandered to.

In fact, it may even be said, that the boost here is not really by design but by the coders appealing to the idea that such simple model would be enough so that when they set on their path to creating an outliner software - they don't have to think about the fundamental aesthetic of the software.

Most people probably benefit from this because to them an outliner is an output of an outline and an outline is this shape they either have been experiencing from time memorial on paper or they have been experiencing in the charting form afforded by bullets, summations and other things they excel in on the real world.

The core importance to people of this mindset is information scaling and information input. That is to say: software to these people are merely databases and if the database can slim down more data then the only other issue is what data that software can absorb.

A good example of this are popular Tablet outlining apps and MS OneNote. What people using this most like is the ability to also drop and semi-outline images/special files like music and basically it's just a bag with a bullet point and at times, something more advanced, like a self contained spreadsheet looking file.

Because of this nature, while people with this mindset would not push away prettier presentations, at the heart of it these people are simply using outliners as a WYGIWYS booster. They don't really need their outlines to fix their lives. They don't really need their outlines to reform their minds. They just need an outliner like they need e-mail. If they ever choose between outliners, it is simply for convenient options such as tagging and not whether they are actually getting more work done thanks to such software. (Collaborative features being the exception)

#2 The Pullers (The Secretary)

The Pullers can be said as the savvy subset of the previous mindset. Not because they are unanimously savvy but because pullers are those most often having learned a new fancy feature afforded by the boom in cloud services.

This doesn't mean they are all web users but they have found concepts like search engines and they now work on the mental process of search, that being one example.

A researcher might instead be boosted by the pull of a page. That doesn't need online. You can have a PIM with a basic tree feature but when clicked would give the pullers a web page looking entry filled with headlines, titles, pictures and just actual things they want even if the actual thing is still squished by other unnecessary entries.

The most common software pullers want are rtf style outliners (for freeware), unlimited tissue papers (like Evernote) or even a software built on badge notifications for to-do lists.

This is not to say other learners don't "pull" something from an outline. We, after all, are all reading from the same finished screen if we all use the same software. Most times only the data inserted are different.

Pullers are just that special kind of WYSIWYG user that happen to not care so much about broken boundaries.

Take RSS readers. A puller wouldn't really care so much that they are seeing two duplicate headlines together. They don't care that maybe an entry is disorganized or a set of bullets are in the wrong order. Their goal is to simply get that info that they normally would be hard pressed to get when their outlining software data scales up.

If they can have that, they are made more productive by the software.

The easiest way to stimulate the mindset is to lose an urgent item and frantically search for it and be notified that it is in one of these boxes full of similar items. Pullers work on that emotional setting on a regular basis even if the output is not that convenient for the rest of the people. Like Google spends so many time working on helping suggest mistyped words or easier ways to cut down and filter search results but pullers don't really have that as a need. It's a convenience factor but all a puller really wants is an outliner that eats. They don't care how easy or seamless the net for capturing an item is. They don't care how tacky the pre-insertion of data is so long as it's still basic. They don't even care how cutting edge or old school a software design is at getting them that item. They are smart enough to ignore tag hell, they are smart enough to retype a word if nothing pops out, just give them the info they put in the software. That is all the feature they need:

Presentation = Find + Present
Breakfast = Cook + Food
Outliner = Storage w/ Attempted Imperfect Filtering Feature + WYGIWYM search result

#3 The Square Jigsaw Mindset (The Consultant)

This mindset completes the big 3. If pullers learned the innovation of pulling, jigsaws learned you can play solitaire with your outline so long as they can tile the data into the software "their style".

These users are most often coders and writers but more than that they are often professionals that have creative tasks.

Jigsaws are people who learned that sometimes in life, software can help improve your life...so long as you know how to play the game.

We often hear that the key to creativity is thinking out of the box. Well Jigsaws found out that if you just jiggle the box, sometimes it's not what's inside the box that pops out but what's outside the box that edges in.

It is for this reason that they are the best with diagrams and flowcharts. Sometimes to the point where it's best when the diagrams and flowcharts are in their head and the actual outliner output is merely a motivational mirror to their superiority.

A good example of these are mindmapping software and novel writing software such as ywriter and Scrivener. You'll find that the best users of these programs rarely value the data they insert in those programs with the exception of things they might forget such as the metadata of what they jotted down.

In fact, the biggest contradiction between these people and other outliner users' mind are that they inherently understand that everything is a draft and a jot and only the finished or the focused product is important which is weird because are often the ones also most celebrating how these software have changed the way they work.

Especially when it comes to outliners and PIMs, they are the least emotionally attached to a particular pane or a particular sorting feature that would make outliners closer to mindmaps; and a diagram to them could as easily be two separates outlines connected by a single folder, tree, dual view and yet they are the most clinging (and effective) to "the presence" of such corkboards, side note pane or any sub-organizational visual outlining tool working besides their product.

It is almost as if it's not the data or the formation of the data that's helping them become productive, it is simply: THE PROCESS of it all.

If "THE PROCESS" exists within their work flow then it doesn't matter how unproductive or unwieldy the rest of the set up is. If a table solely has chopsticks, so long as they could use the chopsticks to start a bonfire and be able to cook on the table and eat on the table afterwards, they could love any food that are cooked in it and they would cook even in the most cruel of environments.

Outliners might as well be a programming language to them. It doesn't matter what's written. It doesn't matter how the outlined data looks. In fact, the outliner doesn't matter at all. It's their work that matters above all regardless of how the outliner functions and so long as the software functions enough that the things they want to insert are being inserted, it helps their work. The system-wide consistency in the outliner software is irrelevant, the mechanics similarity between two diff. outliners is irrelevant, even the empirical differences are irrelevant. There is "THE PROCESS" that their preferred software design can give to them that simply can't be duplicated or cloned.

Note that this is different from users who simply like how an outliner looks or feels or runs. The difference is similar to a gym rat preferring a specific machine to that of a person improving their gym performance thanks to beginning a particular exercise set and never getting tired of that habit regardless of how their schedule/workout needs change.

#4 The Peekers (aka the Drivers)

The discussion of panes are what I find to be the most common software element discussed here but the reason I don't consider it to be a common phenomenon are due to the fact that many discussions on panes that I have read do not really deal with panes at all and are often highly deceptive.

Take the quadrant themed 4 pane software which you might think is dealing with panes but in actuality most praises of it are dealing in windows, multi-screen convenience and sticky notes.

In fact, limiting only to outliners, there are more sticky notes and multi-pane outliners than 4 pane outliners for this reason: most of them are dealing in a different mindset but the technical aesthetic sounds and looks the same to a software designer.

But even more elusive is that what you think peeking is all about, really isn't.

Take the 2 pane outliner or the one pane + sidebar outliners. Aesthetically they are the most similar in mechanics to what a driver may experience: wing mirrors and the big window in front.

It would be easy to mistake most users then as peekers...but they are not.

Now take the newer but not so recent Autofocus software and other pomodoro style task managers. Do most of them have panes or not? Yet their functionality is very peek-ish.

The only real mindset difference here is that these users are peeking at different things.

One other thing worth emphasizing before expanding on such behaviours is that there's a difference between peeks and peeping.

A peeper can just as much be a jigsaw but a peeker functions on a scale where they have to regularly peek at another object for some reason or another. Much like driving.

The peekers most unique attribute is that, depending on their software, the thing boosting their workflow is very case sensitive.

A person who simply uses a traditional to-do list as an outline for example would be peeking not so much at the incoming names but at the shape of what have been crossed out. These people could easily thrive on a software that shows them a bunch of random items crossed out while they are viewing or editing their outline.

The only real requirement is that what they are peeking must be real to them. The list of tasks must still have some real tasks crossed out in order to trick them towards the relevance of peeking.

On the flip side, the quantity or quality of both the outline and the peek view is not relevant so long as the idea is that the peek view is getting more and the un-inputted/un-edited items are getting less thanks to the outline in the main screen.

Despite this, peekers work best in outlines that are not task related.

If they don't suck, the peeker can get tasks done applying such tricks to their to-do lists but they are most boosted when they are dealing with larger and more interspersed data because in a way: they are the true beneficiaries of the S.M.A.R.T. acronym of thinking.

To these people, a working outliner is built on the process of: Peeking as Specific Activity. Editing multiple panes as Measuring. Being able to manipulate all these dual conflicting presented entries as injecting Attainment to the Data, Relevant = Data Input/Data CRIMPing, finally, Time Bound equals the amount of time they spend working with the outliner. Whether it is peeking at an already organize-completed data and simulating auto-evaluation or whether it is inputting new data and auto-applying the SMART criteria whether they are aware of it or not.

This ends the most orthodox mindsets I'm aware of when people claim they benefit from an outliner. The Big 3 are the most common and the peekers are a mindset I would associate with most of the newer/lesser known concepts of information/list outlining such as pomodoro, time estimated tasks, task life sims, timeboxing, kloking... pretty much every new concept I've heard except...

#5 The Pacer (The Foot Soldier)

I don't know if I'm separating this mindset because I'm biased towards the Kanban but while it is a subset of the other 4 especially if one were to simply view it as a process or an aesthetic column based type of outlined corkboard...I think it's notable enough in it's distinction that it's even possible to use it as a stereotype for nationalities.

Before I go on, it is important to emphasize that I'm not an expert and I'm not a Kanban user.

I only know of the unique attributes of Kanban in theory due to the similarity of it's concepts to the stereotypical Asian treatment of their children when it comes to schools.

In group settings where Kanban is most well known, the distinction is much subtler but personal Kanban reveals all the hidden layers of Kanban as it should be applied.

If general work theory can be said to be bossed around by time, goals, accessibility and if these elements were said to be the reason why such simple things as sub-tasking or such things as calendars or even such things as which data shows which info should be on which window then the idea of the Pacer could be said to be bossed around by the individual person's cultural loyalty to his culture.

It could even be said that this is the reason why many personal Kanbans are rarely used and most sites that allow for them tend to not have them and when they do try to show examples of having them...it fails as if the billboard signs are wrong.

I think it is because the Kanban is the most radical departure of structure when it moves from group to individual.

Where the traditional bulleted points or numbered list can act like checker chips all lining up waiting to be pods for text or images or anything that it can accept within it, the billboard of the Kanban is so married to the signs on top of it that it can't just be things like Date/Doing/Done or else it ends up becoming a spreadsheet.

Going back to the Asian parent analogy, education as it is stereotyped for Asians, deals with the child constantly needing to prove more to their parents because of the constant return feedback that A is not the same as A+ or job is not the same as culturally proud of job or even the proverbial "you're not worthy of being human unless you reach a certain job that puts you at a certain class of people you can mingle with".

The Pacer must deal with this even if they are not utilizing a Kanban.

For example, the basic (or primitive for those unsatisfied with it's simplicity) concept of Behance Action Method of Action Steps - References then Backburners utilizes a Pacing concept much closer to a camping or a mountain climbing project and it is this philosophy that allows it to be a different task outliner than a task outliner with similar if not superior features. It's not as universal as a Kanban though.

It's almost like the upper billboard signs must have a story but one where the principle of the concept must allow for any type of personality rather than one concepts' name. A story that is closer to having a strict tutor as your companion outliner than it is to have the software itself. The resulting mindset resulting into a more war torn impermanence of the mind when it comes to outlining, releasing and absorbing outlines.

That is to say, if the orthodox outliner user must work towards his own personal enlightenment, the Pacing outliner user must work towards his cultural identity.

It's such a nuanced mindset though. You'd get farther realizing the subtlety by having an atheist use a Kanban style column as a to-do list with the words "What would Jesus do?" on one column, "What would Satan do?" on the other column and "What would you do?" in the third column and understand the dynamic of the Pacer's mindset more than any specific outlining software can really achieve. Of course this assumes the atheist would agree to such an experiment and would be honest in the data they are inputting.

Note also that just because the words "What would x do" is on the signboard, does not mean it is meant to be a to-do list as opposed to an outline. It is still as much the concept of outlining albeit splicing information much closer to an Agile approach with the exception that it is Lean but not Agile and it is it's leanness that allows it to be an outlining mindset rather than a list-executing mindset. Bucket dumping also works but it lacks the complexity of the mindset and it is too similar to the principle of drag and dropping.

#6 The Hamburger Crab Mindset (aka The Editor)

The Hamburger Crab Mindset is not really a mindset at all as much as it is a consequence of dealing with the web too often.

It is in it's most technical sense: the desire to have a Boss mindset mixed with the desire to have a Headline on top of the outline and for the bulk of the data to be on top and on the bottom: almost like a formatting principle than an outlining theory.

This set up allows the middle to be regularly tweaked without destroying the structure of the meta-outline.

The tough thing about this model is that it is rare to be a part of software. It is much more easily experienced using software utilizing typewriting scrolling like WriteMonkey than it is on an outliner but even the data must be structured like an outline.

I personally use a half-variant of this principle which I call retrospective outcurve.

The idea is that instead of a header as a category, the category is part of a branch. In that way, it's much closer to a dictionary entry with synonyms found underneath it.

Example:

Windows XP
-Operating System
-Mint Linux
--Linux Distro
--Gentoo
--Puppy
--Ubuntu
-OSX
--Apple
--IOS
-Android
--Tablet PC
--Google

Note that this structure is best with collapsible lists.

#7 The Deletionist (The Marketer)

Although everyone can delete their data and almost any CRIMPer must get used to it by now, a Deletionist works on the principle that their outliner software is constantly "off". Only turning "on" on a case by case basis.

While this may seem semantic to anyone who uses any software, the deletionist mindset takes this process beyond the normal closing and opening of the software.

That is to say, because the deletionist believes in the regularity of such occurences, the deletionist outlining pattern switches in it's methodology much as a marketer would take the same case files and apply it in a different project in a different way but guided with whatever principal method they adhere to.

It may actually be closer to compare this to software data distillation than deletion due to the much clearer image of items swirling around randomly every time it is being edited. Unfortunately, as any regular outliner user can attest, are we not all constantly editing the data inside our preferred software?

I primarily call this a deletionist mindset because the sub-items are in fact not important. Nor is the default process in which to create an outline.

In fact a deletionist may be more boosted by utilizing more than 1 software if only so that they don't have to prioritize and worry on one specific outlining software and the data inserted within it.

Still, the way a deletionist best solves the dilemma is to abuse the outliner itself.

Take for example the humble bullet point. Most people don't leave a bullet point unfilled but a deleter might structure an outline like this:

-ABC
--A
--B
--C
-
-123
--1
--2
--3

This itself may seem like a simple outlinemarking hack. In fact technical users may simply see this as a way to simulate a separator.

A deleter however would see this differently. Take for example a situation in which they forget someone's birthday once.

A deleter would open this file, see the same thing and instead of "reading" the outline, the deleter would do this:

-Forgot
-B
--1
-A
-C
-
-2
-3

It's sort of close to playing around with an outline but what is actually happening is that the deleter must move the information around to actually utilize the outline. It is kinda a read by feel mindset only technically the deleter is moving and reading the items. They just need an "on" switch as a way of warming up their minds toward the outline.

#8 The Rowers (The Sales People)

Rowers are either the most common or the most uncommon mindset. I'm not really sure.

Empirically, they are merely absorbing the same outline most people absorb the outline do: line-by-line, maybe word-by-word, maybe skipping some.

Rowers' most unique difference are that their minds are already working ahead of the outline.

This is their most important skill: any person trying to get something from their outline, even skimmers, are most certainly keeping up in pace with the outline even if it's just so they can brainstorm something else.

Rowers are doing math around the outliner as if the outliner was an unsolved formula only not all rowers need to be intelligent. (It would be hard for a mathematically dumb person like I to describe them then.)

I'd like to think the secret to being a Rower is simply to be have a well developed critical thinking mind...but I really don't know.

Another guess I have is that Rowers see outlines like people who are great at Body language or Item observation see people.

Either way it's a very hard concept to narrow down. It could just be that rowers are skilled people who have managed to utilize their outliners or it could be something that experts have already deciphered but I haven't.

In terms of specific example, I would look at how the creators of Goalscape managed to utilize the original concept of Goal Scape.

If you look at the boat handling map here and compare it to any other example goalscape map across the web, you'll see how different it is: http://www.goalscape.com/blog/why-visual-overview-vital-success-sport-business-and-life-marcus-baur

They are not the only one. If you look at how many classic genius' outline are often touted, you'll read statements about how free flowing their outlines can be. Many even give up on such outlines having a structure. Statemets like these are common across the web:

"Although valuable as a tool for presenting ideas and a formal, orderly fashion, outlining is useful only after the real thinking has been done. If you try to generate your ideas by outlining, you’ll find that it slows you down and stifles your freedom of thought. It is just plain illogical to try to organize your ideas before you generate them.

Moreover, outlining and other linear notetaking systems exclude your brain’s capacity for color, dimension, synthesis, rhythm and image. By imposing one color and one form, outlining guarantees monotony. Outlining uses only half your mind, and a half a mind is a terrible thing to waste."

http://mindmappingsoftwareblog.com/mind-mapping-outlining-and-leonardo-da-vinci/

Yet compare the average mindmap produced by either software or drawings and you'll spot a clear difference between the outlines/notes of the greats vs. the outlines of the average person. Even smart people to smart people, it is very rare to hear people say these outlines are cold, calculating and incomprehensible. They are almost always described as organic or free flowing as if the elements themselves are working towards the production of the outline such as the outlining of the windy state of the boat as a goal. It would be like asking someone to outline the components of meditation and the outline having words such as moderately perspiring and cheery anxiety naturally extending out of the item.

Years ago, I made a similar search for information on the theory of outliners/PIMS and for the advantages/disadvantages of different types.

You can get good advice here from the long-time regulars, if you tell us what your specific needs are.

For example do you wish to collect information, compose a document, or both?
What kind of information: Plain text, formatted text, images, Web pages?
Etc., etc.

One criteria that should not be overlooked is the ability to export your content from an outliner/PIM that has become moribund to another outliner/PIM.

I think if one were to simply have a singular goal, it would always be the cliche: Get Things Done. After all, what use is an outliner if it can only be good for a single task point less it truly excels at achieving that single task point?

But I digress, the point of cataloging each mindset is not simply to achieve a goal but as with learning styles in actual education, it's to filter from the least helpful mindset so as to be able to push away certain software for final experimentation while focusing on software that better supplement the dominant mindset.

It is for this reason that your attempted offer is flawed.

It is based on the presumption that a certain piece of software can "help" a person and by users sharing such software, it would be considered "help" provided upon by good people.

I believe it is a quicksand type of thinking every CRIMPer has experienced but above that, it is a common pitfall of forum-modeled help. It's not that it doesn't work at all but it is often advise laced with preferential bias towards the skilled over the dumb or the unskilled or the less technically learned user.

If I come off rude, I apologize. Let me demonstrate specifically:

>>Do you wish to collect information?

Yes. I'm a newbie who knows nothing about programming at all and have a slow impatient mind but I want to learn XML as quickly as possible and I want to design the most optimum XML tutorial for me using a software.

>>Good people reply: Have you tried software? Have you tried philosophy?

No. How do I go about working well on this? I know how to create a file but I just can't wrap my mind around how doing this will help me learn faster.

>>Possible good people reply:

-Have you read this tutorial?
-Just stick with it, it'll get easier.
-Some things can't be quick-fixed, you're best actually starting to program something.
-Set a goal. That always help!

Intention: Good. Outcome: Person pushed towards having to learn two things instead of one with barely any guiding principles or philosophies specifically dealing with their behavioral and intelligence-related limitations.

This isn't to say that good forum people must stop being good forum people. It is merely to highlight the first fallacy; the general fallacy that a regular forum is not equipped for but a cognitive bias by most forum members to realize the limitations of the common good person. Yes, even long time veterans.

The 2nd fallacy would be to assume that outliner software.com is a general forum. No, this is about outliners but what if outliners can't help in composition? What if they can only collect bits and pieces in order to "present" an outline?

Take this webpage (which isn't mine): http://webstoryengine.org/beginners_guide

It's a beginner's guide but I certainly don't feel very beginner-like about it because I don't know XML at all.

Now I want to be provided an outliner/PIM that can capture and re-compose all that beginner guide, rephrase it in such a way that while reading it I would also be nearly unconsciously learning HTML/XML at a rapid pace and be able to produce a superior output of that beginner's guide not just to me but to everyone else in such a way that it is truly informative to those who are less informative of something as basic as say... the best text editor for the job and how to maximize the best text editor for this specific purpose instead of merely providing a download link.

Would it be possible to compose that with merely an outliner/PIM? Not if I were not more skilled than the original writer or much more inherently talented than a common lay person whose talent happen to be quickly absorbing coding knowledge through the use of an outliner/PIM.

...and yet that is the flaw being presented here. A flaw that exists not because you are being rude or have other more malevolent intentions but a flaw that exists because it is easy to get wrapped around this idea that the outliner form is in a way some magical "pure" form of data gathering. Now I am not saying that is what you are currently thinking nor am I saying you weren't allowing for the chance that maybe, just maybe, even long time forum members couldn't help. I am simply presenting this phenomenon where, while writing that reply, it had not occurred to you to presume that outlines and outliners are limited in their capacity to help. That outlines are in the end simply just another layer of learning strategy and not a highly effective document composing information gathering tool that doesn't require the wielder to excel upon wielding them, especially a wielder who sucks.

Edit:

This is not to say that good forum people must stop being good forum people. It is merely to highlight the first fallacy: the general fallacy that a regular forum is equipped for good people to carry the load of people of poor intelligence. It is a common cognitive dissonance by most forum members to realize the limitations of the common good forum person as is commonly defined by forum culture. Yes, even good long time veterans can succumb to this.

People of "poor intelligence," or more accurately, of limited knowledge want EXAMPLES first. If they become interested, then they may (or may not) want theory. I learned this from teaching for many years.

Having been around for 71+ years, I cannot recall anyone expressing an interest in, say, the theory of a hammer. One might be interested in how one might design a hammer for a specific task or use a hammer for a specific task, but not in the general theory of a hammer. People buy tools to use as tools. They have only a limited amount of time to cogitate on the theory/essence of the tool, although they may be willing to tell another of the features and inadequacies of a tool they have used.

No outliner/PIM will accomplish everything, just like a hammer is unlikely to take the place of a screwdriver. Further, should a universally applicable outliner/PIM be created, it is doubtful that many would want it because of its complexity and cost. Indeed, many here have indicated a preference for plain text products for certain activities.

I hold this belief despite the fact that I was trained as a pure (Ph.D.) mathematician and loved working with pure theory. I will admit that having a grounding in pure theory has enabled me to create new, applied mathematical and statistical methods. So perhaps some University may, some day, create a Ph.D. program in the pure theory of outliners and PIMs.

For that idea to hold true to majority of potential lessons, there would have been a vast learning curve difference between those who try out demo versions of software to those who simply read the tutorial.

In fact, any person can easily see that when it comes to a more complicated task like say...learning a Linux distro... neither the example (a Live CD) nor the tutorial helps the learner nor does the learner who want to try a Linux immediately care for a Live CD.

In terms of pure mob demand, it is even possible to say that the words "Ubuntu" have more power in making Linux users want to try Linux first than the availability of examples.

The theory of a hammer is an interesting statement. Not just because what you say is true but of how it relates to outliners.

Have you considered that the reason for the lack of interest might be due to the mass availability of such an item and the equally as vast application of the hammer?

You say people buy tools to use as tools but that is a natural cognitive dissonance that occurs in an abundance mindset. No different than to have the view that people buy rice to eat without the historical context of say frankenfoods. Especially among poor people. The ones who have to acquire any food at the cheapest and most abundant amount possible in order to survive.

In fact in many areas, the idea of rice is still not an economic item but a way for parents to guilt children into eating them because they are "wasting the hard work of their fellow human farmers".

...but wait a minute, there's a thought. Rice in all it's abundance is not bought as a tool for survival at all. In fact most foods aren't. Why, I thought people buy tools to use as tools? Surely food is merely a tool for sustenance. Or isn't it?

Outliners as tools are neither rice nor hammer. Construction wise, the philosophy is still very unstable if not a vastly ignored subject at all. Ease of production wise, only those who can code can create outliners and among those coders, it takes an even higher level of talent and dedication to even continue caring about the output of the software beyond simple outlines. Finally, among those only a few are brave enough to drop a flawed software they have already developed.

Users' limited time are irrelevant compared to such general technological adoption barriers. These are the stuff usability guides, coding designs and mass marketing are constantly theory crash testing.

A person who have a limited time may stop to help an old lady cross the street or may drop their jobs altogether to open up more time for something more worthwhile. Even in reverse wherein we witness a person not wasting their limited time on someone, there are situations where culture forces them to do so in a certain manner.

The same can be said for forums, blogs, social networks...each have a certain behavioural effect on how a user would determine their contribution. It's not a case of limited time nor is it a case of whether an outliner/PIM can achieve everything.

In fact this is another attitude exacerbated by online forums: if a situation where one extreme may not apply, the opposite extreme is most likely assumed to be the logical defense. It is so easy to miss the possible role of community collaborative teaching or mentor-newbie co-discovery learning. In forums, even someone with a PHD, would more likely yield to the process of "if the problem cannot be solved, the problem shouldn't be solved at all". The only exceptions are on where a certain stake is on the table be it a forum instructor who would teach a newbie but insist to do their steps only and then completely leave the slow pokes behind or be it a software designer/fan of software design proposing the usage of such software without even doing the simple process of differentiating which problematic aspect needs a screwdriver and which problematic aspect needs a hammer. The mere existence of the sentence is enough.

It seems to me that outliner and overall information management software development has been as much influenced by ICT capabilities as by theoretical models and approaches. E.g. the fact that Microsoft and others at some point released a hierarchical tree control is probably the reason that so many two pane outliners are out there, with trees with identical capabilities and limitations (e.g. no styling and metadata).

Another example, in respect to #5 The Pacer (The Foot Soldier), is Trello http://trello.com/ You could say that it is rooted in Kanban, but it is so much powerful than any Kanban board implementation than I've seen, precisely because it has departed from the original paradigm. Was this done on purpose or along the way? No idea.

Do users suggest features based on some mind set and mental model, or simply because they miss something in everyday practice (and which they might not even be able to describe)? Do ideas stem from a broader background or are they disconnected from any common underlying concept? Again, no idea.

Sideline: it would interest me to know who are the outliner 'experts' that you expect to take up this challenge. As far as I remember, only one person in this forum has called himself an expert, and that was in a recent thread. I believe that the majority of contributors here refer to themselves as 'power users', which is something completely different.

Yes, there have been web services that have been simulating Kanban but I'd be careful in claiming they are superior.

Trello and Flow.IO are the most popular as far as I know but I didn't mention them by name because they aren't that superior in concept except in technical features. At the same time, I wanted to avoid an argument on this because, as I said, I'm no Kanban user.

My hinted evidence as to why they are flawed can be found in this image:

http://www.infoq.com/resource/articles/agile-kanban-boards/en/resources/Fig1_task-board.jpg

This will not scale in either services and yet we aren't even in depth Kanban theory conversation here. Merely a basic sticky notes corkboard based around a non-personal information intended usage.

This is the tricky thing about Kanban. It's not about the board alone. In fact, the board is limited by design in order to promote Agile movement.

For further evidence as to why such powerful services are unable to simulate the true Kanban experience in anything but name and web collaborative features, check out both Pigeonhole Organizer and TreeSheets and compare their power to both services.

Even if the argument is that web services are supposed to be inferior to desktop software, I'd bet my money that if an experienced Kanban group would be forced to use these web services alone using the Kanban process, they'd get more practical work done signing up for a single user account of Teux Deux than they'd get from something like Trello. This doesn't mean Trello does not provide an important and special one of a kind web service. Far from it. It's very good. Good is different from comparative though. It would be on the level of putting a turtle shell of features on an agile method and calling it a superior agile method because it goes away from the agile paradigm.

In fact as far as web services go, Google Calendar is much better at recreating and unconsciously motivating it's users to experience the Kanban style of thinking without them needing to know or realize it because it mimics a work style much closer to the paradigm rather than going away from it.

As for who I consider outliner experts, it would have to be those that consider themselves an outliner expert. Redundant, I know, but let us not forget that the user who claimed to be an expert in that recent thread did not cite only him but threw the claim out that one blog poster is trying to protect his stake as the resident expert in this forum and also cited a Kant professor whom he obviously considered an expert. I too thought that there were only power users here but if people are willing to consider themselves as experts then it's high time to make a thread that helps them establish their credibility as experts. It would be better for them in the future and it would be better for the community as a whole to understand why they may be infatuated with the more mundane and lengthy subjects of theory.

So, you are referring to people who themselves have not purported to be outline experts, but someone else called them so derogatively speaking, and now you want to challenge the title they themselves have not claimed? And of course this will be done in your own preferred field of opus-long multi-topic posts, rather than the field of (to the best of intentions) focused threads that have been taking place over the course of 8+ years (the bits I've followed)?

As long as you have the time to spend in it (I don't) it doesn't sound like a very difficult job.

If you want to read some well-written, thoughtful articles about outliners, then I suggest searching up Ted Goranson's series called "About This Particular Outliner," which was published in the now defunct e-magazine called "About This Particular Mac."

Here's a link to one of the articles: http://www.atpm.com/10.02/atpo.shtml

Steve Z.

Foolness wrote:

Trello and Flow.IO are the most popular as far as I know but I didn’t mention them by name because
they aren’t that superior in concept except in technical features.

Speed boats are no superior to row boats in concept except in technical features but there's things you can do with one that you can't with the other.

For further evidence as to why such powerful services are unable to simulate the true Kanban experience
in anything but name and web collaborative features, check out both Pigeonhole Organizer and TreeSheets
and compare their power to both services.

I use TreeSheets regularly and it is indeed exceptional. That said, as I've written elsewhere, in recent years I've been mostly searching for collaborative tools, because my work is more and more related to others'. So it's not a matter of choice.

I don't disagree that, as yet, most web services are limited in scope and functionality to the equivalent desktop software, but the former are catching up quickly. And when you look at something like Wikipedia, or even much less ambitious projects, you realise that simple tools that harness the power of the community are much more powerful than complex tools in the hands of a limited number of individuals.

Apart for the collaborative aspect, the issue of updating is quite important. I can't fathom updating specifications and task percentages on paper, even though I may have used it at the initial planning phase. Fredy mentioned Nassi/Shneiderman diagrams; I have not used them, but I could easily have nightmares of myself endlessly redrawing them. Some things could work on software but fail in the physical world.

Foolness, you wrote the following:

"In fact as far as web services go, Google Calendar is much better at recreating and unconsciously motivating it’s users to experience the Kanban style of thinking without them needing to know or realize it because it mimics a work style much closer to the paradigm rather than going away from it."

I may be obtuse, but I do not understand how "Google Calendar is much better" etc.in terms of Kanban than Flow.IO or Trello. I'd appreciate it if you could explain. Please let me know what I'm missing.

Thanks.

Daly

Daly de Gagne wrote:

Foolness, you wrote the following:

"In fact as far as web services go, Google
Calendar is much better at recreating and unconsciously motivating it’s
users to experience the Kanban style of thinking without them needing to know or
realize it because it mimics a work style much closer to the paradigm rather than going
away from it."

I may be obtuse, but I do not understand how "Google Calendar is much
better" etc.in terms of Kanban than Flow.IO or Trello. I'd appreciate it if you could
explain. Please let me know what I'm missing.

Thanks.

Daly

"Much better" wouldn't be the term I would use. Truer to the model would be more accurate which is why I stated: much better at recreating and unconsciously motivating...

I don't really find the conversation of much better here that useful because it leads to arguments that one mindset is superior to another mindset for everyone which is the direct opposite of what this topic is supposed to be about. Even the last mindset, the rower, has a huge flaw to it when viewed by someone who isn't as attuned to the rower design of a particular file. Not even if they can attune to most rower attuned screens.

I think it would be much clearer to see the comparison from a teaching tool perspective than a pre-existing tool to be used because in the end Google Calendar software is still a calendar. It just happens to have a (in my view) "truer to the model" at training a user's habits to experiencing the intangible effects of a Kanban.

But this goes to the heart of why the Kanban is very tricky.

At the heart of many of it's effectiveness is not "what" the model is but at "how" the model affects the people.

Since it's primarily used as a collaboration model, even the how is not as important as what the work group is.

If this reply is too long, please use your browser find in page and type in "(mediummediummedium)" for medium length and "(shortshortshort)" for a direct but sorely lacking in details reply. If you want to go to the extreme, (extremeextremeextreme) leads to the one paragraph section but it's not the last part of the post which is why you need this.

That is to say: in any collaborative setting, it is rare that the superiority of the model trumps the preferential habit of the group. If a group wants or have to abide by a particular work flow assigned by the leader/manager or director...they have to; but when talking about models, the model structure should inherently move ahead of the people to separate effective groups utilizing a software to a stand alone effective model.

At the same time most of this is moot as my post deals with the particular behaviour of one individual and even a group has to work as individuals being slaves toward their eyes and their mindset per each viewing of not just a Kanban but any outliner output in general.

I only bring this up because Trello/Flow.IO is primarily a collaborative tool (though individuals can use it) and also it helps me follow up on my metaphor below:

Unlike a straight software or a technical model that relies on...say branches...like most outliners do:

A kanban is very much like that open window in a restaurant that separates the cooks from the servers.

If you think about it from an aesthetic or a mechanical view of the concept, the window is really no different than an order station or a telephone call. Maybe even inferior because of the lack of range. The insistence on expected cues like the server needing to write clear orders and the cook needing to stop what they are doing unlike the order station. In fact, from an aesthetic view, the window is even less efficient than the designs found in a drive through window that serves up cues on what the special is for the buyers in the form of posters, clarifying questions, directions on where to receive the order.

Yet from a simulation of the model, the open window scales better than the other models, for that particular tasking of cooking. At least, most of the time.

Why is that? That's because the design has a dis-associative effect on the two groups that the other designs don't.

If you hang a piece of order for the cooks, the effect is minimal.

But as you hang several orders and as problems arise, the behavioral impact is much more clearer. The cook inside does not dilly dally. He doesn't wait to make chit chat with the server or try to waste time interpreting and carrying the load and quickly heads toward the conversation of why the writing isn't clear. The server too doesn't wait to make friends with the cook regardless of whether they are friends or not.

Comparatively, the Kanban model (for groups) is very similar to this effect only it's beyond a two group dynamic.

That's why despite looking the same, especially for random groups, there's a vast difference between sticky notes and a kanban. One is designed as a plate for notifications, reminders, anything notes do. If refrigerator magnets can scan and transfer data to the next recipient, it would be a more powerful sticky notes but not a powerful kanban.

On the other hand, most notes on a kanban (from the Google images I've seen) are very small. Not that notes are often lengthy but we're talking about one or two words most of the time. Yet the column titles are often very large and very specific. Most importantly they are very close together. If you are standing in front of one column and you just extend your arm, you could probably take up one or two columns without doing much movement.

As a singular concept it's not that very different from how Trello/Flow.io designs the space but if you go beyond the board and also look at most of the characters in those sticky notes...they are very potato chippy.

Almost all if not all entries on the doing list can be moved towards the done list or the to do list column. Most kanban with a month model don't have fat columns where you can put many sticky notes on it. In fact, the more asian it is, the more the kanban seems to be squished together and I'm not just talking due to the character letter changes.

That's the dis-associative factor right there. On a group it's not very noticeable but it works because most groups have a constantly rolling and busy workflow but as a personal kanban, the effect is very noticeable. Almost as noticeable as say putting an empty personal suggestion box and having that suggestion box be any different or more efficient than any random box. Sometimes it could even be counter-intuitive. A plain box with a slap dashed post saying Items that you just randomly wrote down can have a much faster filling and item removal effect than an official personal suggestion box.

...except with most of the software Kanban designs.

Most of the software Kanban designs work on two major principles. The entry can be dragged around or maybe moved towards one column or the other upon a particular context of work and they work towards fitting those columns into place.

That means that the more work and entry you put into those services, the more you have to think and invest upon the entries.

In order for you to start dis-associating with those entries, you have to manually move those column boxes into a different dashboard. Maybe archive them. Maybe set them on a different list. Maybe make it so that you'll be notified instead.

These doesn't mean a group of collaborators can't make it work. But they are artificially making it work. That is to say, the model isn't making them work or think or input things in a certain pattern. If they don't know kanban, they're not going to feel the functionality of a kanban. If they are not feeling it, then whatever that is that they are feeling IS different. And whatever that is that they are currently experiencing and thinking as kanban, will fall apart as the group falls apart or as the entries change in scope, scale and objectives. A good group won't succumb to that but a good group won't succumb to most things. It would be like a band who's great at jazz giving up on being a jazz band because they don't have saxophones. They'll adapt.

It's not they that models are studied for. Especially behaviour related. It's all about the unconscious or the subconscious long term effect and I'm using these terms loosely.

Even if you are conscious, if you're tired/if you're putting in the wrong words/if you're of a different mindset...whatever the model is, falls back to being the model. An economic model that works differently, that is being made to work against the model, would eventually fall even if you have people making it work. Even if those people are top notch, the model would be working on a sub-efficient level for it's duration of existence.

The opposite is not true which is where I'm going to get at with Google Calendar.

Much in the same way as a person can get rich without knowing (or at least optimally knowing) economics so long as they have the attuned model to the current trend of money making...say timing a business during the Industrial Age-like boom of a particular country, they can potentially be made more efficient than someone who knows what's really happening economically.

Especially if the data is not set in stone. Like the thing happening with which economists gets to be the talking head in most mainstream television. The battle is neither cash nor skill nor knowledge but charisma, information deliverance and notoriety.

With Google Calendar, it's kinda like that only I'm not talking about cycles or timing but on how the eyes and the mind are interpreting and being subtly modified by the output especially if the output is something that the eyes are constantly seeing.

(mediummediummedium)

If you use GCal as a calendar instead of a kanban, you won't notice it but the disassociating effect is still there if only because it's a calendar. Whatever you put in there will move on unless you constantly duplicate the entries or find a way to auto-make entries. This factor isn't important except to keep in mind that this alone would make the GCal differ from Trello/Flow.io just in terms of how a user might input and expect things in it to "move on".

Now if you use GCal with the vague idea of a kanban and compare it to Trello/Flow.io...here's what I think would happen.

Trello/Flow.io would be better at capturing lists. Capturing posts with multimedia. Notifications. Finally storing the entries. Basically the pace would be very relaxed "within the model". An urgent task would always be an urgent task but a neutral item would slowly drift away inside the service until the fingers/keyboard shortcut moves it.

GCal would be poorer in terms of all those general functionality because it's a different service with a different functionality. Even in things task related that rely on deadlines, it's simply not the place you want to say...put something that could be put in Google Docs first or e-mailed as an attachment first before being supplemented by the calendar. However GCal based on it's model would always have something that makes the items inside of it have a natural more urgent priority than either Trello/Flow.io and because of that, the pace is much higher. Nothing urgent when urgency isn't required but on a general level, it's going to be of a higher pace even if the person was a slow worker. Their mind simply would be interpreting the entries at a much urgent level even if they were not doing anything with the entries inside.

Most of the above though is only necessary to know in order to get back to the heart of the kanban's intangibles such as disassociation, micro entries that can apply to each column and prolonged effect on the human behavior.

The below is really where this all wraps up. Especially this being a software outliner thread, the priority should be to get at the heart of not just the difference between two software but at how outlines are used to segregate different bits of data. (Assuming the outliner can support other bits of data aside from text.)

(shortshortshort)

At the essence of it all, the core difference as to why Google calendar can train a person to a much truer mode of kanban over Flow.IO and Trello is because Google calendar, as with most calendars, are designed to have smaller bits of data inserted into it even if the difference is a word vs. a phrase.

A calendar forces the user to put the pepperoni on top of a pizza or to roll the dough on the crust. In cases where there is miscommunication, the Google Calendar is training the person inputting the task to put the entry to contact the person where as Flow.io/Trello is telling the inputting user to call/e-mail/show the opposite collaborator what is it that they need to show them. Albeit using the particular service that is being mentioned instead of say an instant messenger.

Especially for personal outlining use, the difference between the two services is day and night for someone who's pacing.

An individual loses most of the collaborative features of a kanban. (The model not either Flow/Trello's design of the model.)

Assuming despite this they would still try to utilize a kanban or a different pacer dominant outliner, they are particularly vulnerable to the storage mindset by Trello and Flow.io. Even if they have a good personal time management skills, what inherent feature inside these services would cut off their data for them? Especially the non-task related ones.

It's easy to morph a task from doing to done but the general data? Dragging dress to a list called sewing isn't going to auto-morph the entry into materials and machine. No, you'd have to do all that by yourself. While you're doing all that, you're not able to function at a foot soldier mindset that consistently. Eventually the data is going to be tuned out by the user and all they would care is the dragging.

For a general outliner model example of such a phenomenon, imagine every time you create a sub-branch, the software asks you what shape or name of the branch you will create. Eventually it will wear down the pacer's mind. They'd end up functioning much closer to a pulling mindset and silence the form of the tasks inside and prioritize the list name on top of the objects below it.

Google calendar or any calendar software won't morph the task either. In fact, the service won't even allow for quick attachments but you know what that does to the users' brain?

It disassociates the entries.

For example take the Google default example of breakfast at Tiffany's. The more breakfast at Tiffany's you do the more you're going to be sick of typing in Breakfast at Tiffany's. You're going to start typing in things like "Where to go today for breakfast" or "What to eat today". With Trello/Flow.IO you're going to start trying to put entries relating to breakfast at Tiffany's and then eventually you're going to stop and you're going to set that list aside. Maybe pulling it open when you need to access that information but the average person is not going to be constantly pacing through that list unless there's a notification on it.

(extremeextremeextreme)

In essence, Google Calendar, like inherent mindset of a pacer/my interpretation of the kanban model, is mixing coffee with a stick. Trello/Flow.io are knives. You can mix coffee using a knife but when people's mind are groggy and there are no spoons around, they are more apt to pick up a stick instead of a knife in their head first.

This doesn't mean Google Calendar is the pre-existing superior kanban tool.

In fact even the interface, especially for personal use, there are Trello/Flow.io variants that can simulate the pacing mindset better than Google Calendar. Teux Deux is one example I mentioned before but really there is no one true kanban example that is superior over another out there especially as kanban is used more as a collaborative concept than a personal web service.

It just so happens that the concept of a kanban matches very well with a pacer's mind especially if we're talking about software outlining. At least on the bare surface as I said I'm not an expert.

Epecially for personal outlines, the kanban columns are extremely good at turning even unrelated concepts into recipe style lists and then cutting off the fat.

It's no agile method when used as an outlining mindset but just on the general scale, it's still a lean method of outlining.

In fact I'll try outlining this reply using both methods. Once again I'm not a kanban user and I'm not sure I have a pacer's mind and the actual principle in my opinion should be done through a prolonged period of time but hopefully it would be of supplemental help to my explanation. I'll be using Trello first as it's easier to share that then I'll be using Google Calendar. Note that this is not a a general outline but an outline trying to channel a Pacer's mindset as I've described it and is outlined with the objective of looking at it daily or even like a sections for a bible study if the organization reads too radical from the traditional elements you find in a general outline. For this reason, it's not going to look anything like things you normally see on GCal and Trello. In particular importance is to not see GCal's dates as appointments or specific numbers.

Shared Trello Board url: (This is tested with Private Tab with no login but I'm not sure if Trello has a deadline/limit for shared links.)

https://trello.com/b/lh4OHXU7

Google Calendar Screenshot (This is in Agenda view but it was made in Week View; also note that because GCal is a straight calendar, some #6 mindset was mixed with #5 but only with regards towards how the entries were outlined not as texts are to be read after they have been written.)

http://img6.imagebanana.com/img/9kr0vp2d/Selection_001.png

Alexander Deliyannis wrote:

So, you are referring to people who themselves have not purported to be outline
experts, but someone else called them so derogatively speaking, and now you want to
challenge the title they themselves have not claimed? And of course this will be done
in your own preferred field of opus-long multi-topic posts, rather than the field of
(to the best of intentions) focused threads that have been taking place over the
course of 8+ years (the bits I've followed)?

As long as you have the time to spend in it
(I don't) it doesn't sound like a very difficult job.

No, but I could see how one who has derogative intentions could see it that way.

This is why I say experts would think differently.

Both a false expert and a non-expert (and maybe lower hierarchy of experts) would often be more concerned about the paradigm of their ego and often easily expose their intentions that way. Not even if they are trying to be polite.

This is because their initial assumptions and defensiveness are wired differently that their interpretations of a challenge are wired differently. It would be like a person working in a lab being exasperated that there are more lab tests to be done versus someone excited at the fact that a new form of experiment has been introduced to challenge the years of knowledge they have worked upon.

Both people inside the lab are obviously knowledgeable but only those experts who are emotionally wired to invest in a breakthrough would be immune to the emotional baggage placed upon by the idea of extra work.

It doesn't only apply to hard sciences either. Many in the teaching profession, even long time teachers, end up creating the anti-educational reform culture of teachers union because it is very hard to look beyond ones navel even when one has plenty of experience once a person has gone through a certain length of torture/cultural mindset regardless of expertise. It goes hand in hand with abundance. Those people who have worked hard to be rich can easily forget what got them there. Those people who have their problems solved could easily be apathetic yet intrusive in interpreting why other people haven't solved their problems yet.

Take this statement:

"Speed boats are no superior to row boats in concept except in technical features but there’s things you can do with one that you can’t with the other."

This is not incorrect nor rude taken as a sentence but say someone were to be concerned about engineering a boat and understanding the pros and cons of boat design, would such a sentence help? No. It's a common unproductive roadblock set up to separate the elitist from the curious amateur so as to kill most enthusiasm on the subject or even as a form of deflection towards the real issue being discussed.

Even more so here because the analogy to the speed boat does not quite fit with the context of the conversation.

It is a talking point direction that can only be conjured up by an egomaniac. (I am using this term as a categorization as opposed to an insult) Indeed, you very strongly allude to this behaviour in a later sentence:

"That said, as I’ve written elsewhere, in recent years I’ve been mostly searching for collaborative tools, because my work is more and more related to others’. So it’s not a matter of choice."

It is a matter of a choice. A matter of choice between making this topic about you or making it about a topic on outliners.

As you said, this is a forum with several threads. One of this thread that you happen to be posting in isn't currently dealing with collaboration (in fact you were the one who suddenly turned this into a huge issue with your reply) and yet you not only felt inserting this issue but you totally abandoned the previous subject altogether which is either about Kanban/the mindset relating to Kanban.

The issue of:

"I don’t disagree that, as yet, most web services are limited in scope and functionality to the equivalent desktop software, but the former are catching up quickly."

...wasn't even brought up.

If you weren't in a rush to get narcissistic about your own needs, you would have spotted my reply also containing web example vs. web example for I wasn't talking about power alone, I was also talking about how the different design affected the model and why because of such effect, it cannot be a pure speed boat vs. row boat assumption. It cannot be a linear "this is a superior model to a Kanban" statement especially thrown loosely as you did.

In fact, have you only stopped for a moment, you would have realized that the reply wasn't even that complex. One should not call for simplicity if one cannot even interpret simplicity IMO.

Set aside what you are feeling now and think of it from the simple model of basic math. If 1 person claimed they are an expert then that's still 1 expert yes?

Now think how many poster it takes to do a challenge?

Answer: 1 could work so long as they still have posting priviledges.

It's basic math.

Btw this isn't even opus. Once again the failure of the forum model strikes again. Length = opus-long.

Really it couldn't be just long?

if this were an experiment, it would be on par with a basic request for several different experts to label the subjects.

It is a huge failure for you to not notice it considering the prime topic of the thread is about models.

Take the aforementioned link provided, this is only talking about "one" form of interface with most focus on the shape of the bullet point "on a subject even novice outliner users would have figured out from seeing a slideshow with some small paragraphs beneath it/besides it". How long did this turn out? http://www.atpm.com/10.02/atpo.shtml

Now take my so called opus-long post which deals with "8" examples dealing with issues beyond the aesthetic. How long is it? If I wanted to make an opus long subject on it, you could guarantee that not only would it be more than twice as long but also on a blog. But you know why it's not? BECAUSE I ONLY PROVIDED NON-EXPERT EXAMPLES TO GET THE BUCK ROLLING!!! Non-expert, non-authoritative examples that are in need of feedback/criticisms/expert analysis. I wasn't even examining nor claiming the examples provided to be well explored. If I were, I would not need to make it a forum topic CHALLENGING an expert to INSERT THEIR EXPERTISE ON IT. I have said as much in the beginning of this opus-long accused topic. No the opus is on this reply where I have to repeat what I have already expressed from the beginning.

In fact, if you aren't too busy navel gazing, reread your own replies and then tell me you aren't the one throwing multiple topics out. You were the one who chose to focus on Kanban as a specific subject when you could have easily explored all the examples and find a common singular topic which is located in the subject title. You were the one who then decided to ignore this Kanban upon replying and focus on the issue of desktop vs. web in my reply on Kanban to you. You were then the one who then chose to introduce a separate topic on Wikipedia. This is all in paragraph.

This not including how you jumped through several conclusions including chapters where I am now calling for those who didn't claim themselves to be experts to step forward as experts. Sir! Get a grip and stop making this thread a multi-topic subject ABOUT YOU. Please utilize your knowledge of a forum and make a new thread if you are indeed in desperate need of collaboration and software vs. paper advise. This is strictly on "The Different Ways the Mind Associates Itself with the Outliner Presented Screen". Outliner. Presented. Screen. This is strictly software related even if you haven't read the first item and realized that.

Okay. I for one have had enough. Foolness, you have a style that is consistently aggressive and confrontational. You immediately leap to hugely defensive positions using unacceptable language as soon as anybody questions your opinions, regardless of how unacceptably you may have expressed those opinions in the first place. To accuse Alexander - one of the most constructive, helpful contributors to this forum - of "narcissism" is simply to show up your own desperate anxiety to create some kind of impression (it appears more or less any kind of impression will do) on your peers.

Yes, I said peers, not elite outliner experts who are looking down their noses at your spectacular erudition. We're all on the same page here, except yourself. You maintain you like well-expressed, pithy arguments that engage others in constructive debate. But your own reaction to more or less anything - even when you're trying to put forward some lengthy, "erudite" argument covering everything from information theory to psychology, often in response to a perfectly simple question - is to attack anybody who replies to your rambling exegeses by accusing them of stupidity, or narcissism, or some other kind of self-centred, self-seeking behaviour. Amazing!

Here's a discipline for you. Try confining your posts to no more than three paragraphs. Make your cool, erudite points in three (tightly argued) paragraphs. Avoid deliberately aggressive, confrontational language (that should help you cut down your posts, too). Then whatever is actually valuable in your arguments will shine forth like the sun at noon, rather than lying buried like diamonds in pig swill. And for God's sake get a grip on basic social interaction. Provocative is one thing. Sneering and unpleasant is entirely another.

Cheers,
Bill

Let us test this accusations of yours shall we?

"Okay. I for one have had enough. Foolness, you have a style that is consistently aggressive and confrontational."

First part of my post in this thread: (Evidence A we shall call it)

"Recently the issue of who is an outlining expert came up. Since my request for length worthy erudite posts is going nowhere, I’ve decided to switch courses and challenge any outliner expert to test their competency on this issue."

First paragraph of your reply: (Evidence B)

"You immediately leap to hugely defensive positions using unacceptable language as soon as anybody questions your opinions, regardless of how unacceptably you may have expressed those opinions in the first place."

Please compare which words are more...how do you put it? "Consistently aggressive"

"I've had enough" vs. "Recently the issue of...Since my"

Let us also apply the statement leap to hugely defensive positions using unacceptable language on this part alone.

"Since my request for length worthy erudite posts is going nowhere, I’ve decided to switch courses" - clearly this is a huge defensive position in which I am confronting someone by...what? Switching directions. Oh, how cruel of me!

Where as let us demonstrate your non-huge non-confrontational position shall we?

"You "immeditately"" - Yes, I immediately accused dear ole Alexander of narcissism. It didn't take a reply from him accusing me first. No, I attack that poor sap who was only trying to be most constructive by telling me: "now you want to challenge the title they themselves have not claimed?" - clearly these are words that came from my mouth and not something he invented out of thin air. How vicious of me to immediately, without even reading his reply, IMMEDIATELY leap to the conclusion that the helpful post is full of bs.

Clearly he was being helpful here too by writing and I quote: "And of course this will be done in your own preferred field of opus-long multi-topic posts, rather than the field of (to the best of intentions) focused threads that have been taking place over the course of 8+ years (the bits I’ve followed)?

Yes clearly the sentence "As long as you have the time to spend in it (I don’t) it doesn’t sound like a very difficult job." is more acceptable than my oh so unproven accusation that he is a narcissist. In fact, hear ye, hear ye: On this day thanks to your post, we shall declare that the words "I don't" is now acceptable interpretation for I have helped and there I am helpful.

In fact, why yes, I simply wanted to "show up my own desperate anxiety to create some kind of impression" which as you say "it appears more or less any kind of impression will do" on my peers...the... who???

Oh wait, since you were the only who replied, you meant you right?

Yes, I am indeed truly amazed at how amazing I am to makes someone who sees my post as:

"rambling exegeses" - There's that acceptable language for you folks!

...and yet: Lo and Behold! This person not only deciphered MY IMPRESSION but they have also deciphered MY PEERS. The ones I want to leave an impression behind on. An impression of self-centred, self-seeking behaviour. Clearly this what all people who want peers would want their peers to have an impression of them on.

To my lone peer, I leave you with one last "erudite" lesson:

"Here’s a discipline for you. Avoid deliberately aggressive, confrontational language such as "I've had enough" (that should help you cut down your posts, too). Then whatever is actually valuable in your arguments will shine forth like the sun at noon bearing heat down on your exegeses. And for God’s sake get a grip on basic social jumping to conclusions. Provocative is one thing. Sneering and unpleasant bias is entirely another."

MadaboutDana wrote:

Okay. I for one have had enough. Foolness, you have a style that is consistently
aggressive and confrontational. You immediately leap to hugely defensive
positions using unacceptable language as soon as anybody questions your opinions,
regardless of how unacceptably you may have expressed those opinions in the first
place. To accuse Alexander - one of the most constructive, helpful contributors to
this forum - of "narcissism" is simply to show up your own desperate anxiety to create
some kind of impression (it appears more or less any kind of impression will do) on your
peers.

Yes, I said peers, not elite outliner experts who are looking down their
noses at your spectacular erudition. We're all on the same page here, except
yourself. You maintain you like well-expressed, pithy arguments that engage others
in constructive debate. But your own reaction to more or less anything - even when
you're trying to put forward some lengthy, "erudite" argument covering everything
from information theory to psychology, often in response to a perfectly simple
question - is to attack anybody who replies to your rambling exegeses by accusing them
of stupidity, or narcissism, or some other kind of self-centred, self-seeking
behaviour. Amazing!

Here's a discipline for you. Try confining your posts to no
more than three paragraphs. Make your cool, erudite points in three (tightly argued)
paragraphs. Avoid deliberately aggressive, confrontational language (that
should help you cut down your posts, too). Then whatever is actually valuable in your
arguments will shine forth like the sun at noon, rather than lying buried like
diamonds in pig swill. And for God's sake get a grip on basic social interaction.
Provocative is one thing. Sneering and unpleasant is entirely
another.

Cheers,
Bill

Bill, thank you for your intervention, I completely agree.

Foolness,

I think your own blog (it's free to set up) would be a much more appropriate medium for your style of contributions (partly even for technical reasons, as the format of this forum is better suited for short and focused posts and exchanges). You could post your URL here, so people who are interested in your style and content can subscribe to it and can have extended and unlimited discussions with you there instead.

I don't have a problem with provocative posts that stimulate discussion and thinking but yours are starting to border on trolling.

Sorry, Foolness, I stopped reading after the third paragraph. But you hadn't even got started...

It could not function as a blog (as stated before) because a blog is an authority figure with comments as supplementary figures. Even with the use of linkbacks, it does not work.

The same was also said for a forum. Which is also being demonstrated here (see the most recent madaboutdana's reply for example)

No, sorry Dr Andus. Much like Alexander who spouse simplicity yet does not even know simplicity, what you are doing here is that you are not able to interpret clear trolling from non-trolling so your credibility as far as this sequence of posts show is suspect:

"Sorry, Foolness, I stopped reading after the third paragraph. But you hadn’t even got started…" - yes this was written after your post but this is an extension of the "bordering on trolling"-level reply of which whose attitude you wholeheartedly supported.

Btw just to educate everyone. In most forums, an intervention is very doable in a new thread and leads to less...as they say...flame wars.

It is rarely done simply because a forum is not inherently a model for decorum.

I only say this (for the benefit of those who don't know) because there are many claiming to understand what a forum is about but do not even know what basic topic hijacking is and yet dare claim that x and x is better like x and x. A common effect a forum has on most posters.

Normally I wouldn't even bother with this statement but as this was/and still is a decent to good forum with posters who are normally helpful (even those who have posted in unhelpful ways) it's only fitting that the few of you who can be objective deserves to at least read this post while the mud slingers still pretend to be pacifiers.

Foolness, I have to interject now as moderator. I don't like doing so, as I generally hope these sorts of things would die down naturally and not become an ongoing problem.

I'm sorry, but your reasoning is flawed and your tone is rude.

Someone mentioning that they need collaborative tools is not the mark of an egomaniac or an elitist. Users describing how and why they use software and the factors that shape that usage (e.g., the need for collaboration) is what this forum is about. Theory is fine, but there is no objective truth about outlining, so useful posts are going to be very much about the poster's subjective experience.

This is meant to be a friendly community of people who are interested in outlining software and related topics - nothing more and nothing less.

You may have some interesting ideas about outliners. Please present them without making any personal attacks.

Foolness wrote:

It is a matter of a choice. A matter of choice between making this topic
about you or making it about a topic on outliners.

You are a mod so you do have a right to hijack topics whenever you like but once again, I say if a person says someone has this or that, then they should back it up with accurate evidence regardless of whether they are mods or not.

[separator]

Doubly so as they are mods and it's very easy for mods to get caught by two primary things:

a) subservient to veterans for fear of mob backlash

b) subservient to ones own power as a mod

Doing so is not only flawed reasoning on their part but is worse rudeness than a rude post. A rude poster has a 1 to 1 ratio of influence of which the ratio appears only when a rude replier fans the flames with even less constructive replies. A mod has a 1 to mob ratio of influence and in this situation you are clearly showing corruption by letting this slide:

"Sorry, Foolness, I stopped reading after the third paragraph. But you hadn’t even got started…"

and honing on me, which contrary to what you may think leads to more mud slinging such as the so called clear reaction to Foolness post in another topic.

You really think in the future promoting such public statements would prevent less ongoing arguments than more? Those people made it more ongoing than I did by bringing it to another topic just because my last reply on general topic hijacking scared them to quarantine their issues here.

I have shown no signs of ongoing anything yet here I am the one you are throwing under the bus by warning me. That is the promotion of corruption sir regardless of intention.

Not that in most cases corrupt mods listen to evidence but call me naive but you don't come off as a bad mod. At the same time, I don't consider bad mods to be the only ones capable of being corrupt.

The real question here is whether you would consider an observation with facts (as seen below) as an insult towards you or you will see this as an opportunity to review your case. To review your case not in such a way that you will side or believe my story but to review so that you present a better case of intervention. You know most posters won't do that. Most mods won't do that either. But will you?

But I won't focus on that, I wrote that not for my defense but for your own personality to muse upon long term.

[separator]

My main evidence against your corrupt accusation lies in your lack of investigation and audacity to then judge me as being rude while being 100% wrong in all aspects of your premise.

You have one core point which you think is valid for honing your bias on me. This: "Someone mentioning that they need collaborative tools is not the mark of an egomaniac or an elitist." - Of course, it's not!

This is worse than falsehood, you mimicked the same foundation of bs making as Alexander did albeit on a different subject.

In fact the evidence for it is so unanimous that it's easy to forgive posters who are emotionally attached to their fellow posters and do not even read the details in full but a mod....a mod must not be so blind in light of so many obvious evidences against the claim they threw out. One would think that the fact that your interpretation is so much of a duh statement would lead you to review further but even without this, one could make a long blog post on the evidences against your statement on me.

Evidence A:

My reply to Daly de Gagne also dealt with the collaboration factor. If the mere mention of collaborative tools was what makes a person an elitist or an egomaniac why would I spend many paragraphs dealing with the same issues? Contrary to what the mud slingers throw at me, even those collaborative aspects of my post were in fact points necessary to compare what is the difference between a collaborative workspace vs. a non-collaborative workspace.

Evidence B:

Alexander Deliyannis wrote:

>So, you are referring to people who themselves have not purported to be outline

>experts, but someone else called them so derogatively speaking, and now you want to
>challenge the title they themselves have not claimed? And of course this will be done
>in your own preferred field of opus-long multi-topic posts, rather than the field of
>(to the best of intentions) focused threads that have been taking place over the
>course of 8+ years (the bits I’ve followed)?
> >As long as you have the time to spend in it
>(I don’t) it doesn’t sound like a very difficult job.

Go ahead, I dare anyone to see any collaborative aspect in this post.

Evidence C:

You quote this as a sign of a personal attack:

"It is a matter of a choice. A matter of choice between making this topic about you or making it about a topic on outliners."

Yet you omit the next paragraph:

"As you said, this is a forum with several threads. One of this thread that you happen to be posting in isn’t currently dealing with collaboration (in fact you were the one who suddenly turned this into a huge issue with your reply) and yet you not only felt inserting this issue but you totally abandoned the previous subject altogether which is either about Kanban/the mindset relating to Kanban."

Yes, the evidence here is so rude that I told this person to make a new forum topic instead of insulting him.

Evidence D:

My post: "an egomaniac. (I am using this term as a categorization as opposed to an insult)"

Yes this was clearly not only intended as an insult but we know every rude person writes this to emphasize their rudeness.

Supplementary evidence to Evidence D (aka Evidence E):

My post:

"If you weren’t in a rush to get narcissistic about your own needs, you would have spotted my reply also containing web example vs. web example for I wasn’t talking about power alone, I was also talking about how the different design affected the model and why because of such effect, it cannot be a pure speed boat vs. row boat assumption. It cannot be a linear “this is a superior model to a Kanban” statement especially thrown loosely as you did."

Yes, I'm so rude that I not only provided evidence but spelled out why he is being an egomaniac.

...and yes as you can see, this is clearly about him mentioning collaboration. NOT!

Does one really need to exhibit egomaniacal behaviours in quotes just to highlight the difference between calling a person an egomaniac because they mentioned collaborative tools and calling a person an egomaniac because they made a reply dealing with their own unrelated issues while selfishly ignoring the core issues? All above the mountain of bs that they've just thrown out?

Alexander wrote:

I can’t fathom updating specifications and task percentages on paper, even though I may have
used it at the initial planning phase.

Notice the key word, "I".

Fredy mentioned Nassi/Shneiderman diagrams; I have not used them, but I could easily have >nightmares of myself endlessly redrawing them. Some things could work on software but fail in
the physical world.

Notice the sudden mention of "Fredy" with "diagrams" and once again "I".

Also notice that he no longer talks about collaboration but about "Some things could work on software but fail in the physical world."

[separator]
The above are the obvious ones and each of those are so random and unrelated to the topic that one could argue they are clear separate evidences of narcissism.

The first quote is a narcissistic tendency towards turning the topic about themselves (while having prior thrown an accusatory reply filled with hollow premises.)

The second quote is a narcissistic tendency towards turning the topic about their their issues with software and the physical world. (while having prior thrown the accusatory reply that I was making a multi-topic post.)

Speaking of the physical world, evidences can contain multiple substances but they are all recognize as one topic. The topic of being evidences against a singular issue.

Need I remind you that this is a long time poster who have written similar thoughts on this issues before on other older threads yet clearly feels justified in bringing them here?

However that is the evidence against him. Please tell me here where he's even talking about collaboration and how my calling him a narcissist on this is related to him mentioning collaboration?
[separator]

And when you look at something like Wikipedia, or even much less ambitious projects, you
realise that simple tools that harness the power of the community are much more powerful than
complex tools in the hands of a limited number of individuals.

Again, instead of insulting him, I wrote this:

"you would have spotted my reply also containing web example vs. web example for I wasn’t talking about power alone"

Yes, this is clearly evidence that I "insulted" him because he mentioned collaboration.

In fact pay attention to the sentence exactly after this. If this forum featured a bold formatting, this would be what I would bold for you as a mod:

Apart for the collaborative aspect, the issue of updating is quite important.

APART.

adjective, adverb

without considering or including someone or something in a judgment.

WITHOUT

(prep.) Not with; otherwise than with; in absence of, separation from, or destitution of; not with use or employment of; independently of; exclusively of; with omission; as, without labor; without damage.

CONSIDERING

preposition, conjunction

used for showing that your opinion about something is affected by a particular fact

INCLUDING

used for mentioning that someone or something is part of a particular group or amount

-Sir mod, you may at this point think I am being "RUDE" but there is nothing obtuse about the evidence here. In fact, by showing you these words, I hope you would come to your senses that your reasoning is the one that's clearly flawed. Not because you are dumb or I am insulting you but it is flawed, for if we don't consider them as flawed, the above is what happens! The defender has to copy paste definitions of common words just to defend the subject with the premise that you sir, a mod, is using a non-flawed reasoning to justify your proof of righteous interjection and as consequence of this, I too fell into your pit of chaotic reasoning and risked being re-accused as rude by you or by the ones you don't go after for personal attacks. Had you only investigated, I would not have had to be playing childish evidences such as these and risk being once again called rude because your evidence against me is so ludicrous when one is assuming you are of being sound mind when you concluded upon it.

Evidence F:

The judge, jury and executioner wrote:

Someone mentioning that they need collaborative tools is not the mark of an egomaniac or an
elitist.

"Or an elitist"

Sir, you may be right that there are no objective truths about outliners and subjectivity is fine (to which you are barking on the wrong tree as I have also mentioned and channeled this subjectivity factor in this topic) but worse, you say I marked thy mentioner of collaborative tools AS: "an eltist"

and yet these are my words:

"It doesn’t only apply to hard sciences either. Many in the teaching profession, even long time teachers, end up creating the anti-educational reform culture of teachers union because it is very hard to look beyond ones navel even when one has plenty of experience once a person has gone through a certain length of torture/cultural mindset regardless of expertise. It goes hand in hand with abundance. Those people who have worked hard to be rich can easily forget what got them there. Those people who have their problems solved could easily be apathetic yet intrusive in interpreting why other people haven’t solved their problems yet."

Take this statement:

Speed boats are no superior to row boats in concept except in technical features but there’s >things you can do with one that you can’t with the other.

"This is not incorrect nor rude taken as a sentence but say someone were to be concerned about engineering a boat and understanding the pros and cons of boat design, would such a sentence help? No. It’s a common unproductive roadblock set up to separate the elitist from the curious amateur so as to kill most enthusiasm on the subject or even as a form of deflection towards the real issue being discussed."

Where arth thou talking about collaboration? Where arth thou using the word "you" and "are" and "an" and "elitist" together?

Had thy defendant not even said "this is not incorrect nor rude" in the very first sentence? ...or must thy defendant not say "this is not incorrect nor rude" so as to be vindicated from the accusation that he is rude?

Clearly we are in a forum where a mod can based evidence on rudeness on such words instead of sentences such as:

is to attack anybody who replies to your rambling exegeses by accusing them of stupidity, or narcissism, or some other >kind of self-centred, self-seeking behaviour. Amazing!

or

yours are starting to border on trolling.

...or perhaps there were simply a lack of investigation? Perhaps the interjection is in actually an inquisition in disguise?

Only time will tell but I fear I am not long in this forum to find out for myself.

I shall end my evidence here for there's no point to go any further. Any more would only lead to further mob mud slinging of my rudeness and my tendency to not get to the point when in fact sometimes the point is so clear that it is not the delay that leads to one's lengthy post - it is blindness. Blindness/bias and mod betrayal of neutral analysis.

Since joining this forum many years ago, the only forum I have been a regular and long-term contributor at, I have been aware that anything I write will be put down in ubiquity and permanence (whatever this means in our rapidly changing world), and that it might be read by anyone, interpreted and misinterpreted, or simply ignored. I had never put my full name in a public forum before that, but somehow I felt that this place was right for it. Remember, this was long before Facebook, which then became a catalyst for personal identification in the web --for good or for bad.

I have written elsewhere that English is not my mother tongue, but I'm not saying this as an excuse. Just to note that I am unable to see the nuances others may be able to uncover in sentences of a few words. They may be there, or they may not. A future outliner historian might bring along a linguistic anthropologist and have a field day.

However, I believe that I am more than capable of identifying intentions. And I believe that the forum is, too; and that the uncoordinated but aligned reaction of several people here to the recent 'verbose war' says something (good) about this community's joint culture. In fact, it is quite clear for me now that the reason I am here has little to do with software, and all to do with the pleasure of well-intended and respectful interaction with people I may never even meet in person.

I remain grateful for this, nowadays more than ever. The world is changing, and it is our stance towards the changes that will shape the future. To quote a recent Google+ post "There are real threats - 3m high threats - and we should stick together in the face of them, faithful to our ideals, but not naive".

And to be clear: I believe it is attitudes and behaviours which pose the threats, not people. Speaking for myself, I want Foolness and Fredy in this community. I just don't want them to dictate its terms.

Alexander Deliyannis wrote:

Since joining this forum many years ago, the only forum I have been a regular and
long-term contributor at, I have been aware that anything I write will be put down in
ubiquity and permanence (whatever this means in our rapidly changing world), and
that it might be read by anyone, interpreted and misinterpreted, or simply ignored. I
had never put my full name in a public forum before that, but somehow I felt that this
place was right for it. Remember, this was long before Facebook, which then became a
catalyst for personal identification in the web --for good or for bad.

I have
written elsewhere that English is not my mother tongue, but I'm not saying this as an
excuse. Just to note that I am unable to see the nuances others may be able to uncover in
sentences of a few words. They may be there, or they may not. A future outliner
historian might bring along a linguistic anthropologist and have a field
day.

However, I believe that I am more than capable of identifying intentions. And I
believe that the forum is, too; and that the uncoordinated but aligned reaction of
several people here to the recent 'verbose war' says something (good) about this
community's joint culture. In fact, it is quite clear for me now that the reason I am
here has little to do with software, and all to do with the pleasure of well-intended
and respectful interaction with people I may never even meet in person.

I remain
grateful for this, nowadays more than ever. The world is changing, and it is our stance
towards the changes that will shape the future. To quote a recent Google+ post "There
are real threats - 3m high threats - and we should stick together in the face of them,
faithful to our ideals, but not naive".

And to be clear: I believe it is attitudes and
behaviours which pose the threats, not people. Speaking for myself, I want Foolness
and Fredy in this community. I just don't want them to dictate its terms.

Agreed. I hold the same sentiments. (albeit considering my skin is on the line here, this stance doesn't help my credibility)

I will say though that this is also the reason why I used the username Foolness here.

Although I do not cover my tracks, Foolness I would say is a much more valuable identification to me than even my own real name due to the fact that my blogs, my arguments, personal details that even my real life acquaintances don't know about are most closely linked to this name and the reason I use it here is also because of the community. Or the community, I have thought I have scouted.

It's not much but I hope this little piece (which anyone can easily search on Google to verify) would at least show that I am not simply agreeing with Alexander to save face. In fact I am also saying this because I too am a non-native speaker. This isn't the first time some forum has called me out on my long post either.

Even recently a kind forum whose community have been very hospitable to me is currently being plagued by a long FORUM post I am writing and constantly editing: http://www.donationcoder.com/forum/index.php?topic=32216.msg299771#msg299771

My only disagreement with Alexander's stance is how he tries to speak for others about this joint attack and how he is not only linking me to Fredy but he claims somehow a person who makes 1 long forum topic is the equivalent of dictating it's terms upon a forum.

Sorry Alexander, you can say you are not making excuses but empirically basic math once again goes against your supposed false assertion. You don't help yourself too by once again creating this bs about Fredy and Foolness. It's pretty clear why you want to lump me into that discussion.

But again basic math: 1 person (Foolness) making 1 long topic cannot dictate to a forum with posters where 1 Alexander claims he's not making bs but clearly cannot even do the basic math on who has the dominant numbers to dictate anything, 1 mod who provides false evidence, 1 madaboutdana who has had enough and 1 dr andus who is either misinformed or biased towards what is trolling. This plus 2-3 posters who went to another forum topic just to turn this into an ongoing argument.

However let us assume you really don't have that good basic grasp of the English language. Very well, let me educate you on these two words:

Dictate:

to tell someone exactly what to do and how to behave

Go ahead and search this topic. I can guarantee you that I wasn't the one who said someone's post was bordering on trolling. I can guarantee you that I wasn't the one who suggested exposing a lengthy post to the sunshine at noon. I can guarantee you that I wasn't the one who told someone to throw any personal attack. I can guarantee you that I wasn't the one who told someone how to behave as if a speed boat isn't a row boat.

In fact, I have only presented evidences and elaborations to my statement. Even the so called interjectionists and interventionists never accused me of dictating anything until you did.

Need I also remind you that the slimmest possible entry I had that could be considered as dictating your behaviour, you did not follow which was to make another forum topic? In fact even your recent reply here can be construed as once again turning this all on you albeit without the blatant accusations this time.

You turned this about who you want to stay or not. Polite or impolite as this is, this is still a topic about mindsets. Now by posting in such a manner, we're once again talking about you and your feelings.

Not only this but any semblance of diplomacy on your part falls apart when we consider how you dropped the subject of the topic you were talking about. Not even talking about Wikipedia or collaboration anymore. No, you want to talk about who belongs to you and you try to behind a false sense of unity when in fact, the community is not unified here which leads me to referring you to the 2nd word you should learn.

Mod vs. community

community:
agreement as to goals

Here's a basic outline of each of the joint goals the "community" so far has agreed upon:

1 person wants to talk about who they think should be kicked or should stay but they didn't want a "minority" (as I don't even associate myself with Fredy. You want to talk about derogatory claims? Fredy lumped me as his defender rather than a neutral observer which is a greater and more dangerous label than derogatorily claiming someone as an expert as you so said before) to dictate the forum
1 person has had enough and wants to limit my post to 3 tightly placed paragraphs
1 person wants me to make a blog
1 person wants a posting limit set on the forum
1 person is thanking the mod for "clearly" replying to me.

You know how you can unite all of that goals in one subtree? You can't. At least not objectively.

The only unity that list has is the united "feeling" of "I don't like reading long posts" which is not even a goal but an emotion.

Here's the english definition for mob:

verb
if a large group of people mob someone or something, they surround them in an angry or excited way

noun
a disorderly crowd of people

etymology

1680s, "disorderly part of the population, rabble," slang shortening of mobile, mobility "common people, populace, rabble" (1670s, probably with a conscious play on nobility), from L. mobile vulgus "fickle common people" (the phrase attested c.1600 in English), from mobile, neuter of mobilis "fickle, movable, mobile" (see mobile (adj.)). In Australia and New Zealand, used without disparagement for "a crowd." Meaning "gang of criminals working together" is from 1839, originally of thieves or pick-pockets; American English sense of "organized crime in general" is from 1927.

The Mob was not a synonym for the Mafia. It was an alliance of Jews, Italians, and a few Irishmen, some of them brilliant, who organized the supply, and often the production, of liquor during the thirteen years, ten months, and nineteen days of Prohibition. ... Their alliance -- sometimes called the Combination but never the Mafia -- was part of the urgent process of Americanizing crime. [Pete Hamill, "Why Sinatra Matters," 1998]

Mob scene "crowded place" first recorded 1922.

You want to know what fickle is? Fickle is when a person was talking about kanbans, then talked NOT of mentioning collaborative tools but instead talked about how that's all THEY think about and then prior to that talks about speed boat and row boats and later to that talks about paper vs. software (on a software outlining post) and then later on comes back only to mimic his peers and talk about "this" guy instead of staying true to their conviction on talking about the tools, their collaborative needs and Wikipedia and desktop vs. web services and simplicity and real world and physical world. In short, fickle would be someone talking about a multi-topic subject ABOUT THEMSELVES and then switching to talking about a singular topic ABOUT HOW THEY WANT A PERSON TO BE DICTATED UPON.

Again, this may come off rude but i hope you receive this as clarification for what you are doing. Much as my earlier replies were intended to be. Think of it as a guide from one bad non-native English speaker to another bad non-native English speaker. I know you can think for yourself but it can be tough when it is so easy to just hide among the tyranny of mobthink and state you hold a unified empathy towards the plight of your fellow community mates only to be shown how contradictory and egotistic your words are when analyzed upon...but still you must fight through this! You are a user capable of great posts. In fact, if you remember, you are one of the old timers who are well known for talking and making topics about outliner theory just as much as you recommend software. You didn't used to make up falsehoods with no proof such as claiming someone is challenging people he didn't challenge or someone is making multi-topic subjects when they are not or such as claiming you have bad nuance of English and then suddenly you are capable of identifying not just your intentions but the intention of an entire community while showing no evidence of proving so. Persist sir. Persist!

Foolness, it's quite simple.

To gain credibility and acceptance within this particular community, discuss outliners and software without making any negative comment on the motivations or character of other members.

To lose credibility and acceptance within this particular community, make lengthy posts that have nothing to do with software, in which you "prove" your victimization by the mob by dissecting individual words of posts, and take offence at (and write at length about) any casual sentence that begins with the word "I."

To quote you: "It is a matter of a choice. A matter of choice between making this topic about you or making it about a topic on outliners." Yet you are the one who consistently chooses to post things about ethics, corruption, mob rule, the meanings of words, etc. - which are probably hot topics elsewhere, but are just tedious and boring to those of us interested in discussing software.