Incoherence and sales II

[Valamir]

Thanks for the post MK.  But the two models are completely seperate entities.  They bear superficial resemblance to each other but both have completely different goals in what they're trying to accomplish and have evolved very differently from each other.

In short, the above post...while likely very interesting and relevant to a threefold discussion, doesn't really apply directly to a GNS discussion.

Its certainly good and useful to be familiar with both theories and see what ideas might enhance each other...but its very dangerous to read them too closely together.  Both theories share certain terminology...but the definition of those terms can be very different.  i.e. what GNS means by the word "simulation" is not what the threefold means by "simulation".  Therefor the cross pollination of ideas is often much more difficult than cut and pasteing bits of discussion.

In short, the Forge is not an alternate site for discussion of the three fold.  It is a site for discussing GNS.  Which while related in some concepts are radically different in others.

[Ron Edwards]

Hi there,

I'd also like to emphasize that posting other folks' words here at the Forge is a questionable practice. Some of them might not like the act as a general thing, and some might disapprove of this particular site, or whatever.

MK, I'm likin' all your input at the Forge, and I don't want to moderate this in a "smack" sort of way. There's no Forge policy about this because it's never come up before, which is a lapse on my part. So maybe this can be considered one of those limits that we hit by application, and just take it from here that "quote posting" ought to be considered carefully; at the very least, it should come with the permission of the quoted parties.

Best,
Ron