[tux3]

Sure, but at some point it's a debate of high-contextualisation versus low. We can commiserate about the poverty stricken corners of the planet. And I'm happy to recomend global health charities. It's taking effort not to.

But what's that have to do with the much more specific legal situation the Internet Archive is in, with old archived works of audio?

[IndySun]

How? Firstly, do not commiserate poverty. I think you might mean something else. I hope.

Not sure what you mean by 'high contextualisation'.

I put ballet dancers on a par with accountants, scientists, and (above) politicians. Not above scientists et al, you mind, on a par.

The question specific to IA being pursued and my role here is to do with questioning the somewhat regimented reaction on this forum. I have already said 'context' is critical. And blanket change never works, evolution, not revolution. There are considered views that aught to be seen by people other than the converted.

[tux3]

>I have already said 'context' is critical

That's what I mean by high-contextualisation!

There are discussion cultures where it's okay to talk about just a thing in isolation with the understanding that we're putting context aside (low-context), and there are cultures where it's important to be very explicit about the context (high-contextualisation)

Both can be completely okay, but it's something to be aware of when someone wants to discuss a specific point, and someone else thinks the context is more important. Otherwise we're just talking past each other.

[IndySun]

Thank you. On a public forum I/we know how conversations quickly become diluted/inflated/twisted and often for the most innocuous reasons. As I follow the IA story, a subject that has been around many many time before, I wonder why they have chosen to highlight this one, as presumably they are challenged on a regular basis.