The way I interpret that rule: they are asking people not to ONLY make posts that are self-promotive. You should be fine.
I created a post late last week containing a link to a shared Google sheet containing links to songs I recorded in the past.. and then somehow, somewhere along the line chanced upon the "Guidelines" section of
the Midnight Pub manualwhose "Pure self-promotion" bullet point under "Don't" gave me pause. So I deleted that post this morning.
I mean, it wouldn't have been "pure" self-promotion. To me it's ancient stuff I thought others might find interesting/fun, and there's no financial aspect to it. But it occurred to me it could seem waaaaaaaaaay too self-centric for some.
What do you think?
(NOTE: I leveraged a Google Sheet because although I have a tiny web presence at so-called "NearlyFreeSpeech.net", recent notifications about being on the verge of running out of funds there, and not quite remembering how I put things there in the past had me looking for an "el cheapo" route... and since Google Drive files can become read-accessible to others via URLs, well....)
The way I interpret that rule: they are asking people not to ONLY make posts that are self-promotive. You should be fine.
My interpretation is that *pure* self promotion applies across *all* of your posts, and your posts certainly aren't purely self promotion!
Noswaith dda, ~inquiry... well I for one am curious now :)
I guess that's all well and good so long as you're not feline.... ;-)
The tunes are rather incomplete in the sense that there were plans to add solos here, other backings there, etc. But I had two kids dominating my personal scene most of the 1990s, along with the need to recover from that on a regular basis in, well, "traditional, liquid ways"... plenty to keep up with at work... the relationship with the wife at the time deteriorating at greater than half-life speeds....
And then something funny happened: I wound up rather enjoying their incompleteness, as though far more a feature than missing function.
Of course, that didn't stop me from feeling I had to perpetually apologize for how I couldn't other than imagine others considering them incomplete.
(NOTE: The word 'perpetually' is vast overkill given I threw them together at a website that I never promoted - let alone monetized... (gawd, how I despise that word....))
I guess that's all well and good so long as you're not feline.... ;-)
Nage, dydw i ddim cath :)
However, the lawyerish part of my mind now wonders, if pure self-promotion isn't allowed, how about impure self-promotion? 😆
In re musicae: perceived incompleteness can be a feature... it reminds me of the collection A Few Old Tunes by Boards of Canada that got leaked years ago; they're already perfect in my ears...
> Nage, dydw i ddim cath :)
Hilarious! (assuming Google Translate ain't merely ticklin' me whiskers..)
> However, the lawyerish part of my mind > now wonders, if pure self-promotion > isn't allowed, how about impure > self-promotion? 😆
Dang! Now I'm going to spend the rest of the day trying to forget how often I uttered the words "impure thoughts" in a confessional as a kid.... :-)
Hilarious! (assuming Google Translate ain't merely ticklin' me whiskers..)
Wel, dydy cyfieithiadur Gwgl ddim yn berffaith, ond yma mae hi'n gweithio'n dda :)
Dang! Now I'm going to spend the rest of the day trying to forget how often I uttered the words "impure thoughts" in a confessional as a kid.... :-)
I didn't grow up Catholic, so never had to do confession, but got messed up by religion in other ways...
> I didn't grow up Catholic, so never > had to do confession, but got messed > up by religion in other ways...
I was raised Catholic, although not super devoutly so. Near the end of high school I somehow wound up in the throes of some major league Protestantism for, oh, a couple, three years.
Overall, I've concluded a religion isn't a "thing" (despite my having implied such by placing an 'a' before it..) so much as a collection of ideas people assign meaning to, i.e. come to conclusions about. Whether that meaning and/or conclusions have anything to do with what any alleged original authors allegedly meant is likely impossible to know, especially since the first thing we as potential investigators of such do is assign our own meanings to said words, which... well, heh... we assign meaning to the alleged original text, and then to the words of the meanings/conclusions of others *about* such text... and... well, anyone else see a sort of house of conceptual cards forming, there?
Which reminds me... a favorite saying that came to me long ago in USENET times goes like this:
the words are mine; the meaning is you
Why? Well... after years of posting and "discussing" various topics while convinced words *contain* meaning, it bothered me - in a "makes no sense" sense - that people could somehow not understand each other when using the same words. And the best explanation to me at that time was that a given ego and the point of view it defines heavily - if not utterly - influence the meaning, significance, etc. of words.
The situation is actually so laughably dire that "the words are mine; the meaning is you" is itself similarly meaningless apart from an observer thereof's "point of meaning view".
as is the previous sentence
as is the previous sentence
as is the previous sentence
....
amen (non-ironically intended)... i've reached similar conclusions, hepled along by my linguistic adventures, exposure to Korzybski's General Semantics, and many other factors...
also love the usenet quote!
Well, no wonder our smileys and winkies seem to have so joyful an alternating coexistence! :-)
Pretty sure I've mentioned this next quote before in these parts, but it remains a fave:
"All mental is illness."
Context:
The species seems wont to discuss some relatively limited forms of mentality constituting illness. But I've noticed I'm significantly happier and/or more at peace sans thoughts altogether.
Sure, some thoughts are seemingly fun for a season, but have a tendency to invoke their own opposites (e.g. can you think about light without dark, heavy without light, loud without soft, etc., etc.? ), and eventually become infested with a loathsome what-might-be-called "ennui mold".
But sans thoughts altogether... how could their be either a problem or its opposite? There's essentially no modeling of an alleged objective reality in terms of pairs of opposite notions.. not even an infinitely lonely, "free-willed" instantiation of subjectivity relative to said object reality, just <of COURSE it can't be said>.
Oh the mind, or some functions/manifestations of it rather, has its role and uses; it's just when it gets out of hand and thinks it's running the whole show that one has to watch out :)
Also in re thoughts and questions and answers and problems and solutions: one dear teacher said something about how there are questions out there that seem not to have answers, but if you sit with them long enough, the questions may change and the need for answers becomes less important... also Harding had an essay on how both problems and solutions come from the same place, which is of course that ineffable presence/absence that we really really are.
Also also, art and music can express better what words can't...
> Also also, art and music can express > better what words can't...
There are times I'm convinced words not only can't, but are actually the mechanism of ignore-ance - i.e. ignoring the ineffable <can't be said (haha)> in favor of modeling/re-presentation.
Or in general confusing synbol(s) with the symbolized... this is where the stuff about Korzybski's General Semantics is/was really helpful to me.
I'm occasionally mildly suspicious there's nothing but symbols, some of which have what I've occasionally called their "reality bit" set.
For example, we say we're "conceived", and that there's more than one meaning to that word, formulate (again, conceive..) a dualistic split between "body" and "self"....
Kinda makes me wonder (i.e. conceive even more)....