| 
  • If you are citizen of an European Union member nation, you may not use this service unless you are at least 16 years old.

  • You already know Dokkio is an AI-powered assistant to organize & manage your digital files & messages. Very soon, Dokkio will support Outlook as well as One Drive. Check it out today!

View
 

Explanation

Page history last edited by Mike 10 months ago

"No concept man forms is valid unless he integrates it without contradiction into the total sum of his knowledge. To arrive at a contradiction is to confess an error in one’s thinking; to maintain a contradiction is to abdicate one’s mind and to evict oneself from the realm of reality." ~Ayn Rand

"No concept you form is valid unless you integrate it without contradiction into the sum of human knowledge" ~Mike Laub

 

Table of Contents:

 

 

Abstract

SQL Project Description

Basically it is a family tree database with these differences:

  • Parents are replaced by arguments and
  • children are replaced by conclusion, in such a way that multiple arguments (parents) are combined to support a conclusion (child).
  • Multiple arguments are organized to support conclusions, but we will add arguments that also link to conclusion, but they will go into a table of reasons that disagree with the conclusion. So just as some parents are tagged as "male" and some parents are tagged as "female" some arguments will be tagged as reasons to agree, and some will be tagged as reasons to disagree.
  • We will use the listed formulas to count the number of reasons that agree and subtract the number of reasons that disagree (ancestors)

 

This is an open source family tree website, that we could use as a starting place:

http://gitorious.org/opengb#more

Why we should use SQL/PHP databases to count the reasons to agree and disagree with a conclusion

How do you define a good conclusion? It is simple: a good conclusion has lots of good arguments that support it, and not very many good arguments that oppose it. But how do you know if an argument is any good? Well of course the turtle stack goes all the way down: good arguments have lots of good reasons to agree with them, and not very many good reasons to disagree with them.

(For example, as you can see below, the conclusion in red has two reasons to support it, and one reason to disagree with it. The first reason to agree with the conclusion also has a reason to agree with it, and a reason to disagree with it. So the conclusion in essence has 3 reasons to agree with (shown in black) and 2 reason to disagree with it (in blue and green).

Diagram #1: Arguments support conclusions. Other arguments support them. 

So if we build a debate forum, in which people enter their arguments in a structured way, we could gather the data necessarily to count the relative number of reasons to agree or disagree with each conclusion. Luckily people love to debate. People will debate who the hottest supermodel is, and won't shut up about who is going to win the Superbowl. Of course we could just wait and find out, but opinions are like elbows, everyone has them. With the world wide population approaching 7 billion, if we have a good forum, it shouldn't be too hard to get a few hundreds of people enter data.

I propose that we build the SQL/PHP code that would facilitate an online forum. This forum would use a relational database to track reasons to agree and disagree with conclusions. It would also allow you to submit a belief as a reason to support another belief (see the image above):

Arguments are currently made on websites, in books, and even in videos and songs. It would be powerful to outline all the arguments that agree or disagree with a conclusion and put them on the same page. The best way to do this, is with a relational database, as seen below:

Having the structure of how all these arguments are used to support each other, could allow us to automatically strengthen or weaken a conclusion's score based on the score of their assumptions.

The purpose of the Idea Stock Exchange (this site) is to find ways to give conclusions scores based on the quality and quantity of reasons to agree or disagree with them with an open sourced SQL database.

Pros and Cons are a tried and true method to evaluate a conclusion

Many people, including Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin advocated making a list of pros and cons, to help them make decisions. The assumption is that the quantity and quality of the reasons to agree or disagree with a proposed conclusion has some bearing as to underlining strength of that conclusion. I wholeheartedly agree.

No one has yet harnessed the power of Pros and Cons in the information age, we can

However, now that we have the internet, we can crowd source the brainstorming of reasons to agree or disagree with a conclusion.

The only trick is how do you evaluate the strength of each pro or con? Many people suggest putting the strongest pros or cons at the top of the list. Also, if we had enough time we might make a separate list FOR each pro or con.

For instance, FDR had to decide if we should join WWII or not. One pro might be that the German leaders were bad. There were many reasons to support this belief, and this belief was used to support another belief.

Not very many people have enough time to do a pro or con list for each pro or con. But on the internet we keep making the same arguments over and over again. For thousands of years we have been repeating the same arguments that Aristotle and Homer have made. Most of our arguments have been made thousands or millions of times. However no one has ever taken the time to put them into a database, and outline how they relate to each other. We can change this.

How we build algorithms that count reasons to agree and disagree with a conclusion

I propose that we find algorithms that attempt to promote good conclusions and arguments. This simplest and best method of scoring conclusions is to counting the number of reasons to agree, and subtracting the number of reasons that disagree. Because some arguments are better than other arguments, we should repeat this process for every argument until we reach verifiable data. The following equation represents this plan:

We can use algebra to represent each term, and make it look a little more mathematical, with the below formula: 

  • n: Number of “steps” the current arguments is removed from conclusion
  • A(n,i)/n: When n=1 we are looking at arguments that are used directly to support or oppose a conclusion. The 2nd subscript is “i”. This is used to indicate that we total all the reasons to agree. So when n=1, we could have 5 “i’s” indicating there are 5 reasons to agree. These would be labeled A(1,1), A(1,2), A(1,3), A(1,4), and A(1,5). N on the bottom indicates that reasons to agree with reasons to agree only contribute ½ a point to the overall conclusion. Thus reasons to agree with reasons to agree with reasons to agree would only contribute 1/3 of a point, and so on.
  • D(n,j)/n Ds are reasons to disagree, and work the same as As but the number of reasons to disagree, are subtracted from the conclusion score. Therefore, if you have more reasons to disagree, you will have a negative score. “J” is used, just to indicate that each reason is independent of the other.
  • The denominator is the total number of reasons to agree or disagree. This normalizes the equation, resulting the conclusion score (CS) representing the total percentage of reasons that agree. The conclusion score will range between -100% and 100% (or -1 and +1)
  • L: Linkage Score. The above equation would work very well, if people submitted arguments that they honestly felt supported or opposed conclusions. We could probably find informal ways of making this work, similar to how Wikipedia trusts people, and has a team of editors to ensure quality. However, we could also introduce formal ways to discourage people from using bad logic. For instance, people could submit that the “grass is green” as a reason to support the conclusion that we should legalize drugs. The belief that the grass is green, will have some good reasons to support it, and may have a high score. At first, to avoid this problem, I would just have editors remove bad faith arguments. But a formalized process would be to have for each argument a linkage score, between -1 and +1 that gets multiplied by the argument’s score that represents the percentage of that argument’s points that should be given to the conclusions points. See LinkageScorefor more

Examples

We might be arguing the conclusion that “It was good for us to join WWII.” Someone may submit the argument that “Nazis were doing bad things” as a reason to support the conclusion about entering the war. The belief that Nazis were doing bad things might already have a score. Let’s suppose that this idea score has a high ranking of 99%. This might be awarded a linkage score of 90% (as a reason to support the conclusion that we should have gone to WWII). In this situation it would contribute 0.495 points (0.99 X 0.5) to the conclusion score for the beliefs that “It was good for us to join WWII”. Someone else might submit a belief that “Nazis were submitting wide scale systematic genocide” as a reason to support the belief that “It was good for us to go to WWII”. Because we don’t go to war with every country that “does bad things”, we would assume that this linkage score would be higher, perhaps a 98%.

For example the belief that Nazi Germany leaders were evil, is a belief with many argument to support it. However it can also be used as an argument to support other conclusions, such as the belief that it was good of us to join WWII.

Additional Information

 



Google tries to “organize the world's information and make it universally accessible and useful.” In order for information to be “useful” someone has to take information and proposed that it be “used” in a specific way. In our mind we take bits of information and classifying them as “reasons to agree with my conclusion” or “reasons to disagree”. Why not create method to do this on the internet?

 

Why are bad argument re-made thousands of times, when there is information that disproves them? It is because these arguments are taking place in millions different places on the internet. No one on the planet is trying to come up with a comprehensive list of the reasons to agree or disagree with different courses of action.

 

If we aren’t organized we can’t disprove a stupid argument once and for all. We have to disprove it every time that argument will ever be made. However if we create a comprehensive list of all the reasons to agree or disagree with a conclusions, and we let people classify a specific argument, it will create a situation where there is only one place for a specific argument to, with a specific description to live. When there is no duplication, we can finally organize information, and kill bad information once and for all.

 

If humans can map the universe, we can tag information as a reason to agree or disagree with a conclusion, in a format that makes information useful.

 

Problems

People who disagree don't talk to each other.

 

Outcome:

People and nations that would act differently if they had access to well organized information.

 

Plan:

Build a prototype. Make it better. Repeat.

 

Success:

The number of people using it. The number of ideas. The quality of the arguments.

 

 

My beliefs, with reasons to agree and disagree:

  1. A website can make money by helping users organize reasons to agree & disagree with different ideas.
  2. Debate websites should put reasons to agree and disagree with an idea in different columns.
  3. We should create an algorithm that promotes good ideas.
  4. We need better organized debates.
  5. We should brainstorm lists of probable interest of those who promote and appose different beliefs.
  6. We should organize those books that support and those that appose different beliefs.
  7. People would like to go to a website that organizes reasons to agree or disagree with ideas.
  8. It is strange that someone has not already created a website where people are able to brainstorm, and organize reasons to agree or disagree with different ideas.
  9. Thread-type discussion groups accomplish nothing.

 

Conflict Resolution on the Web

Everyone has conflict in his or her lives. The source of conflict is that everyone has different reasons for doing things. When we find ourselves in groups what other people do affects us. Conflict arises when we do not understand, or accept other people’s reasons for doing things. People’s reasons for doing things come from their values and their needs. These values and needs help people decide what should be done with problems that they face. I would like to create a web site should be created that allows people the opportunity to brainstorm and debate different solutions to problems. To help them get to this step they will first be asked to list their interest, needs, and goals. I will explain how this web site follows the principles of successful dispute resolution.

 

Web-Based Conflict Resolution

Conflict is an inherent part of our lives. It arises when we fail to understand or accept others' reasons for their actions. These reasons are often tied to individuals' values and needs, which guide their problem-solving approaches. I propose the creation of a website that allows users to brainstorm and debate various problem solutions. Users would initially list their interests, needs, and goals to align with the principles of successful dispute resolution.

Brainstorming Solutions

The book, "Getting to Yes," introduces the technique of brainstorming sessions, which I aim to incorporate into this website. The online community would be encouraged to list all potential solutions to the problems they encounter, aligning with the book's advice to “generate a variety of possibilities before deciding what to do." This website would become a platform for sharing and debating the validity of these ideas.

For instance, in the current events section, a user might find a topic like the “US & China spy plane incident." Upon clicking on this problem, they would be presented with a list of possible solutions, along with listed interests and goals from various perspectives. The website could employ data organization techniques such as voting on the validity of certain interests or solutions. The most valid ones would rise to the top, enhancing user-friendliness.

The evaluation of ideas would align with another principle from "Getting to Yes," which advises separating the people from the problem. Users would be able to vote based on the merits of the idea, not the person who proposed it.

Listing interests related to a specific problem would meet the criteria for successful negotiation: focusing on interests, not positions. Moreover, it would promote mutual understanding among different viewpoints. This dynamic website would stay current, reflecting changing popular views over time.

The Potential of this Website

This website would have capabilities beyond those of any mediator. It could track the opinions of millions, prevent duplicate voting through user logins, and record vote history. This data could serve various purposes, such as supporting political campaigns. Candidates could explicitly publish their opinions on numerous issues, potentially pushing other candidates to do the same and promoting specificity over one-issue campaigns.

Furthermore, this platform would be a valuable resource for sociologists, providing real-time data on societal trends and opinions without the need for traditional polling. The data could be analyzed according to age, location, gender, race, and more, contributing to the evolution towards online democracy. Mediators and lawyers could also use this platform as a learning resource, observing how various conflicts are resolved.

 

Harnessing Information for Conflict Resolution

This website is designed to aid in conflict resolution by effectively managing information. Numerous websites express positions and the rationales behind them, but none have attempted to encompass the entirety of truth. On this site, all information serves as support for some opinion. We're overwhelmed by information, not because there is too much of it, but because we lack efficient methods of handling it. This site aspires to consolidate world knowledge into a unified whole with the help of countless contributors and a system that promotes the survival of the fittest idea, thereby facilitating organic conflict resolution.

Detailed Tracking and Discussion

The website is designed to keep detailed track of solutions to specific problems, needs, and goals. Beyond this, it can serve as a hub for problem-solving discussions. Users can view proposed solutions to a problem and present arguments for or against them. The most compelling exchanges would rise to the top, providing a dynamic, evolving discussion board.

Positional bargaining, despite its potential pitfalls as highlighted in "Getting to Yes," could serve a purpose on this platform. Users could state a specific position, such as "Late term abortion should be illegal," and contribute reasons supporting or opposing the legality of the issue. As with other sections of the site, the most accepted reasons would rise to the top.

Users could delve into reasons for agreeing or disagreeing, view the popularity of each reason over time, and explore the top reasons for each side of the argument. Theoretically, this process could lead back to grounding principles, precedents, laws, or scientific principles.

Facilitating Constructive Dialogue

The website leverages a predetermined process to facilitate dialogue. For example, a user might need to consider five reasons supporting a particular belief before they can disagree with it. This dynamic exchange, coupled with a thriving evaluation process, would consistently lead to improved positions, mimicking the scientific process. Clear, valid, and logical positions, solutions, interests, and goals would garner the most acceptance.

The platform also bypasses the media, which often oversimplifies complex issues. Instead of relying on the media to disseminate perspectives, this website allows opposing sides to communicate directly. In theory, figures like William Buckley and Bill Clinton or George Bush and Saddam Hussein could engage in direct debates.

Promoting Honest Exchange

The website requires opposing sides of an issue to engage directly with each other. The best arguments for each side could appear on the same page in separate columns, promoting transparency and accountability. The possibility of immediate fact-checking discourages exaggeration, blaming, and dishonesty.

On current internet platforms, opposing sides rarely encounter each other directly. This website addresses that gap, allowing users to present their views, see how many people have read and agree with their idea, and understand popular reasons for support or disagreement.

Resolution of disputes is impossible without open communication. This platform strives to bring people off their soapboxes and into direct, productive dialogues, facilitating the resolution of conflicts and fostering a more understanding, cooperative online community.

 

Chat Rooms

If you desire a live discussion, you might head to a chat room dedicated to your topic of interest. However, you might find yourself amidst two high school kids chatting about pop culture icons. Initiating a conversation proves futile. Each new discussion demands a reset to ground zero, as though no one had ever debated the issue at hand before. This frequent reset in chat rooms signifies lost progress in understanding every time you exit the chat window. Consider the state of science if scientists had to restart their discussions from scratch each time. What if scientific records were written in a format that could not be retraced or scrutinized by future generations? What if everything was written in the sand? Society has been engaged in debates for thousands of years, yet we often find ourselves starting from scratch when we meet someone new with whom we want to discuss matters. The potential of this website becomes evident when considering entities like the History Channel. What would historical figures like Abraham Lincoln have to say about the issues we face today?

 

It's as though we are so self-righteous as to believe that no one else besides us has ever debated certain ideas, and we don’t care what they concluded. It is presumptuous to think that we can find truth, independent of what the rest of the world believes.

Promotion for this website wouldn't be, "Come to our site, we have the truth." Instead, it would read, "This is the collective consciousness of the internet," representing the decisions the internet would make if it were a sentient entity.

 

Current Events and the Media

A section of the site would be dedicated to news events, providing a framework to understand why people undertake certain actions and how news events serve as evidence for particular courses of action. News itself doesn't serve any purpose unless it's used as a reason for a specific course of action. The media, like a lawyer, often miscommunicates the narratives of opposing sides, creating distrust and confusion on both sides of the aisle.

Motivated by profit, the media doesn't necessarily aim for the best solution but a juicy story. They are more interested in crafting a simplistic narrative with clear "winners and losers" for their audience. Why do we rely on the media to dictate the issues and our perspectives on them?

 

Other Comparisons

 

Multiple analogies come to mind when comparing this website to existing platforms. It resembles a continuous poll running 24/7, a dynamic discussion board, and a stock exchange tracking the popularity of brainstormed solutions much like the rise and fall of companies' stock prices.

 

This platform is a hybrid, echoing nature's survival of the fittest mechanism. Each position could have an Idea Executive Officer (IEO) in charge of maintaining the website and garnering support for their cause. Potential revenues from advertising could be directed towards the IEO, allowing them to make editorial comments or categorize additions to their website.

 

This website could be improved further. In the business world, monopolies are a concern. An idea might gain popularity and maintain it, potentially receiving preferential treatment due to its top position. This could be countered by having a section dedicated to promising new ideas.

 

A section for specific party conflicts would also be beneficial. Conflicts such as Al Gore vs. George Bush or Israelis vs. Palestinians could be addressed without reducing it to a case of group A vs. group B. This section would aim to lessen tensions between groups and foster understanding.

 

I would also have a spot on the web for conflicts of specific parties. There are many parties that are in conflict such as All Gore and George bush, or the Israelis and the Palestinians. In other parts of my web site I would try to address the “problem of violence in the middle east” without making it a case of group a vs. group b. Assuming that these portions of my web site we have already tried to list all of the interest of every individual party we can go forward with addressing the conflicts between specific groups. This section of the web site would address conflicts in which violence is taking place, or certain groups have declared other groups as their enemy. This part of the web site may have to be framed in a conflict between group A and group B manor.

 

The purpose of this side of the group is to lesson the tension between these groups and to increase understanding.

 

Extreme care will need to be used in making this portion of the web site most productive. Some groups in side this portion of the site have killed the members of the other side of their conflict. Emotions will run very high. But even if this was nothing more than a discussion board in which appeasing sides could vent their frustration, some good may be done. However I believe we can do much better than that. Again we must follow the principles of successful dispute resolution.

 

Getting to yes teaches us that we all have mutually overlapping common interest, and it is best if both sides of a dispute physiologically work together against a problem instead of working against each other. However we must be realistic and acknowledge the guns that different groups have pointed at each other. This web site can do some things to help these groups too.

 

On the front page of this portion of the sight we will have a list of common interest, goals, and values. Perhaps before you can vote or submit conflicting goals, interest, or values, you will have to vote on weather you agree or disagree with the top ten positions of your advisary.

 

There are many advantages of having a spot for violent debates. This would help focus interest on the issues that need the most attention. Common interest, goals, and values between groups that are fighting can be discussed.

 

A possible problem comes with the freedom of anonymity. People may feel too free to express malicious ideas. In addition traditional problems will arise between people as the work their way to the real issue, and deal with roadblocks in the dynamic exchange of ideas. Creating a way that the people on the site can regulate themselves could solve this problem. One way to create a web site that allows freedom, but is self-regulating would be direct people in the way of evaluating solutions, interest, and goals. We could ask people if the way the solution, interest, or goal was worded might cause people problems. Perhaps someone worded their position in a partisan way, or maybe used hostile emotions. Each of these separate issues could be a plus or minus, that sends your idea up or down the slide. Questions could be asked such as, “Is this action consistent with principles? Which ones?” If people know before hand the criteria with which their ideas will be judged, they will frame their comments in the best way.

 

One thing this web site will be very good at is establishing the will of the majority. Another possible problem comes from the assumption that the majority of people will always choose the best option. The fact is that the majority of people are not very well educated about very complex problems. Another fact is that we live in a republic not a democracy. I believe the purpose of a republic is to vote for the best individual to represent us. The majority of southerners saw no problem with slavery. The majority of Germans were willing to go to war in WWI and WWII. The majority of teen-age boys like Brittany Spears. Clearly there are major problems with the majority of people. In fact is it best that scientific principles are up for debate? Would a wise community plan result if the will of the majority were responsible for designing the sewer system, and waste treatment plant? Would you want to live in a country where national emergencies in delicate diplomatic situations, such as the plain crash with China, where handled by the will of the majority?

 

Perhaps we could have a portion of the web site that high lightens the issues that have the biggest discrepancies between experts and the masses. One option for deciding who experts are, would be to let professors at colleges be experts in their field. We could ask colleges to keep us updated with a list of professors, and their user-names. We could inter this into the data base, and the computer would do the rest, giving them the ability to have more status in their field.

 

A possible solution to this would be to have a separate debate with each stated problem, as to how the solution should be solved. A heading like, “What objective criteria could be used to resolve this conflict.” It seems probably that a variety of solutions would become most popular for different problems. Perhaps some of these suggested objective criteria would be to let the UN decide, or a panel of independent experts. Should a coin be tossed? Should a governmental task force be formed to study the issue? Should it be a matter for lawyers, the president, congress, UN, or other institution resolve? This is yet another way that the principles of Getting to Yes could be implemented. In getting to Yes we learn that whenever you have a debate, you are really having two debates. One about the issue, the other about how the issue will be resolved.

 

Building this site will focus a lot of attention on the best way for coming to a solution. As people are herded threw the process of brainstorming on this site, it will become a natural response to a problem, along with the other techniques that we have discussed.

 

There are lots of people out there that would be interested in making this web site. Many companies now sponsor discussion boards. Yahoo, MSN, NBC, CBS and other company’s sponsor chat room.

 

In conclusion the principles of dispute resolution can be applied anywhere people have conflict as long as they are willing to meet at a common table and discuss their differences. The internet is the largest table that mankind has ever met, and thus offers great opportunities for conflict resolution. However communication on the Internet will only bring people together to the degree that they follow the principles of successful dispute resolution. I believe that an arena can be built on the Internet that will naturally promote successful dispute resolution.

 

 

 

 

  • No concept man forms is valid unless he integrates it without contradiction into the sum of his knowledge.
  • "Everything should be as simple as it is; but not simpler."
    • Albert Einstein

 

 

 

I think Mitt Romney should use the online debate format I explain below, to allow users to post reasons to agree and disagree with his beliefs.

 

The current online discussion forums cause more conflict than they solve. There are many reasons that these online discussion forums are so frustrating. Internet forums that do not try and organize the different aspects of a debate are much like an argument where no one is in charge, and everyone can instantly change the subject. Sure the internet offers everyone a voice, but a voice without order is just noise.

 

A car with multiple searing weals would not work. Thread type discussion forums that allow each new post to change the subject will never get anywhere.

 

However we can allow everyone to “talk” at once if we allow users to organize their contributions. For instance if we give one page per issue, we could then allow users to interact with that issue by posting their comments within a column of reasons to agree or within the reasons to disagree column.

 

This simple innovation of allowing people to tag the innovation of allowing people to tag their post as a reason to agree or disagree will revolutionize the way we debate, come to conclusions, and think.

 

Allowing people to categorize their arguments as a reason to agree or disagree will allow us to compare the number of reasons to agree or disagree with a belief.

 

Of course the quality of the reasons to agree or disagree with a belief is as important as the number of reasons to agree or disagree with that belief. There are many ways to evaluate or allow users to the quality of a reason to agree or disagree with an idea.

 

Counting scheme’s can be devised to reflect the cumulative perceived validity of all the reasons to agree or disagree with an idea. For example each reason to agree or disagree could be assigned a value based on user feedback resulting in a numerical value for each reason, and therefore a total score for the reasons to agree vs. disagree.

 

An additional and more elegant way to evaluate the validity of each reason to agree or disagree is to allow users to provide reasons to agree and disagree with them.

 

This type of discussion forum will allow a significant leap forward by integrating statistical analysis techniques with debate forums. For instance confidence intervals can be assigned to each belief based on the number of reasons posted, the percent difference between reasons to agree vs. disagree, the amount of variance between.

 

Using lists that try to get to the main point quickly, do not allow for advertising. And that is what is being done when someone uses a lot of words to describe their idea… they are advertising. But when you use lists of reasons to agree or disagree, the issue becomes clear. You see the complexity. People don't want to see that there are good reasons to agree or disagree with both sides. They want to stick with their prejudices and previous conclusions. They want to gloss over everything with a nice wordy paragraph that hides the shortcomings of their thinking with wordiness.

 


The Need For This Site

 

Some say that God is order and that Satan is chaos. I think having reasons to agree and disagree with an idea on separate pages, or in a thread-type format is confusing. For example, some people think Mitt Romney is bad, and they give reasons to agree with their point of view on their websites. People that like Mitt Romney do the same thing on their website. I think we should bring all of their reasons to one webpage and organize them. I would especially like for Mitt Romney blogers to integrate the things they post by subject on this site. I think if we organize Mitt Romney data in such a way that it promotes order, that it will lead to one logical conclusion: he should be our next president.

 

"Everything should be as simple as it is; but not simpler." - Albert Einstein

 

I would like to create an internet revolution with Governor Mitt Romney's campaign for the presidency in 2008. I'm sure a lot of you would too. Some people think that Howard Dean had an affective online campaign for president. The fact that Howard Dean was able to send millions of spam messages every day does not impress me. These people could have just went to his website and read his ideas. Thousands of Idiots are able to send out millions of Viagra advertisements every day, and we don't try and make presidents out of them. Substance is more important than just using a new technology.

Some people site the number of Governor Mitt Romney blogs as early evidence of his appeal. Or perhaps we should pay attention to how he is doing on very unscientific polls.

 

I was one of the creators of an early Mitt Romney blog. I wanted to preserve Governor Mitt Romney's press releases, and enter them into cyberspace in such a manner that people could respond and interact with his words. Over the past 6 months I've received about 3 or so comments. I don't know about you, but I am not impressed with our ability to all recycle the same old news stories. Aleister Crowley said, "To read a newspaper is to refrain from reading something worthwhile. The first discipline of education must therefore be to refuse resolutely to feed the mind with canned chatter". I'm not saying that what we are righting on our blogs is canned chatter, I'm just saying that the format of the blog does not lend itself well to improvement or organization.

 

It would be impossible for someone to read every single Mitt Romney blog post on the internet, besides there would be lots of repetition between all the Romney blogs.

Contrary to the field of dreams, just because you build it, does not mean they will come.

 

With the proper funding, this website could become much more than the typical discussion group, or blog. Click on the explanation to your right, to learn more. Look around this site, and join me in the Mitt Romney internet revolution!


 

This is my plan:

 

  1. Put all of Mitt Romney's press releases, and quotes from those press releases on this page. Done.
  2. Organize all of Mitt Romney's press releases by topic. Done.
  3. Organize all of Mitt Romney's quotes by topic. Almost done. Now that I have this much romney content on this page, all I have to do is put brackets around any word, such as education and it will lead you, the reader to all of Romney's press releases and quotes on education. Now my last and final step it to:
  4. Organize Reasons to agree and disagree with Romney's statements, in order to show the usefulness of the online discussion format that I advocate.

 

 

Explaining this website one letter at a time

A`, B`, C`, D`, E`, F`, G`, H`, I`, J`, K`, L`, M`, N`, O`, P`, Q`, R`, S`, T`, U`, V`, W`, X`, Y`, Z`

 

Also See

Alphabetical Listing of Debate Reform Thesis Statements

 

 

Links 

  1. http://groups.google.com/group/Good-Idea-Promoting-Algorithm
  2. http://groups.google.com/group/Idea-Stock-Exchange
  3. http://www.opposingviews.com/
  4. http://whereistand.com/
  5. http://www.createdebate.com/ 

Top

 

Comments (0)

You don't have permission to comment on this page.