The later contributions to the "Absent Keynoters" thread get my gears going... Why is there so much bad conference behavior, especially during the q&a period? It seems that at almost every session I've been to of late, there's some jackass who didn't listen to the paper or didn't understand it, but nevertheless wants to 'make a comment' or 'share an observation' about it. These "comments" and "observations" are rarely to the point, and the pointlessness is most often directly proportionate to the length of time the questioner takes to articulate them.
First Rule of Philosophy Q&A: ASK A FUCKING QUESTION AND BE CONCISE.
And then there's the widespread attitude according to which follow ups are always permissible, as long as you preface it with an assurance that it will be quick. Is it me, or do most "quick follow ups" simply restate the original question?
Second Rule of Philosophy Q&A: DO NOT FOLLOW UP UNLESS (1) YOUR FOLLOW UP REALLY IS QUICK, (2) YOU HAVE SOMETHING NEW TO ADD, AND (3) THERE'S LIKELY TO BE SUFFICIENT TIME FOR ALL QUESTIONS FROM THE FLOOR .