FF customs that gnaw at my patience

[ApostateAbe]

Smilies. I HATE seeing them ALL THE TIME. You must think you are cool if you use smilies that are unique/funny/fitting, but you are not cool. You are lame. Especially you, livius. Smilies are for teens, pre-teens, and noobs of chatrooms, bloggers, and forums.
Excess profanity. If you cuss like a high-school bitch all the goddamn time, then you are contributing to the overinflation of such words. Leave them out of your thread titles, for God's sake.
Too much attention to avatars and usernames. Stupid, stupid, stupid. If someone else changed his or her avatar, it doesn't matter. You are better off picking a good avatar and sticking with it forever so that your posts are easily identified.
Pointless threads. Yeah, let's have some more threads where we can show off our smily skills and make lots and lots of small talk.

Is it just me or is there an overabundance of women in this forum? There was once a time when the Internet was a man-zone. Those were the days.

[Soubrette]

I fucking love smilies :yup: :cool: :P :D :wink:

Sou

[John Carter]

To some extent, I can see some of your points, though I also think you are grossly overstating your case. An occasional smiley can reinforce a point at times, but over reliance on them makes this place look like a subsidiary of AOL at times. That said, if they annoy you so much it's pretty easy to ignore, Abe. Just turn them off in your control panel. Also, I found the random smiley stories thread to be rather interesting. I certainly don't think I'd be able to come up with anything as imaginative as some of those posts.

I haven't noticed excess profanity, myself.

I don't know if there is "too much" attention given to avatars, etc, but an uncharitable view could be that there is an emphasis on flash and show over substance, especially when coupled with the plethora of smilies and their sometimes excessive use. I don't know that it's as endemic as you imply, though. Again, they are easily ignored, even selectively. Myself, I have all animated avatars turned off as I find them almost universally annoying. But that's just me, and others may find them entertaining. That's their prerogative. I suspect this is why the admins here have given us all a very high level of control over what you see or don't see.

I'm not sure what is wrong with small talk. If it's not for you, then simply don't participate in those threads.

And what's with the misogyny? Do you really think that anyone will take you seriously after saying stupid things like that? You just show us how lame you are, Abe. I can remember when the internet was an all-geek zone. In some ways, "those were the days", but in many others, I prefer it the way it is now.

[Dingfod]

Smilies. The only thing I even halfway agree with you on is the overabundance of smileys. But, I don't think those that use them are lame, just a wee bit annoying. If you don't like smileys, don't use them. Excessive complaining about smileys is worse than using them.
Excess profanity. What the fucking hell is excessive fucking profanity? How is fucking using of goddamn profane fucking language contributing to fucking overinflation of the sons of bitches? If any-fucking-thing their use fucking devalues them, it fucking reduces their shock value. They are just words, after all. They have no more value than the reader assigns them. Avert your eyes if you are offended.
Too much attention to avatars and usernames. Big fucking deal. If they are user changeable, they're going to get changed. I get bored with the same old thing all the time. Moods change, things change, deal with it. Why don't you just advocate people put their real picture in as avatar and their real name as username? Go ahead, see how far that goes. I dare you.
Pointless threads. vm, liv and others will probably agree with you there. However, these so-called pointless threads add a sense of community to a group. If every damn thread was serious shit and philosophical debate what a fucked up boring motherfucker this place would be.

Is it just me or is there an overabundance of women in this forum? It's just you. There's no such thing as too many women.
There was once a time when the Internet was a man-zone. Those were the days.Ah, the good old days where women knew there place, on their knees in front of me. [/Diceman]

[beyelzu]

the only thing irritating about smilies in my opinion is that I do not use them as deftly as many of the members of this board. A well crafted post with an abundance of smilies is a thing of beauty. I forget the thread, but eldar has a post somewhere that is just three smilies where he iirc calls bullshit on what someone else posted and calls them an asshat, that is just good shit. Crumb has also made some great posts that rely more on smilies than words to get his points across. Smilies add inflections to our forum voices, our 1700+ smilies mean that the range of emotion that we can show is virtually limitless.

:rif:

when you bitch about excessive profanity, I can only assume that you have been reading my posts again :tmtongue:. shit, fuck, cunt, mutherfucker, bitch, faggot, nigger, goddamn, cocksucker, and prick are just fucking words, man. I use them as I see fit. Often, their use is inappropriate, like when I am at work dealing with a bunch of stupid, cocksucking, motherfucking pricks and have to put up with a steading stream of shit from an endless supply of bitches, cunts, and assholes. In truth, I dont use nigger very often because of its incredible derogatory nature, and I only use faggot occassionally, but I reserve the right to use any word at anytime.

[livius drusus]

Smilies. I HATE seeing them ALL THE TIME. You must think you are cool if you use smilies that are unique/funny/fitting, but you are not cool. You are lame. Especially you, livius. Smilies are for teens, pre-teens, and noobs of chatrooms, bloggers, and forums.

Many assumptions, no evidence. I don't think I'm "cool" for finding le smiley juste; it just makes me happy. If that makes me lame, well so be it. Personally, I find labelling people things like cool, lame and noobs rather teenyboppish myself, but de gustibus non est disputandum, as the man said.

John Carter mentioned the disable smilies option in your user CP. Is there a reason you don't use that instead of getting so frustrated at other people's choices?

Excess profanity. If you cuss like a high-school bitch all the goddamn time, then you are contributing to the overinflation of such words. Leave them out of your thread titles, for God's sake.

What do you mean by overinflation? That they lose their profane impact through overuse? If so, I can't really say I give a damn. So much the better, in fact.

Too much attention to avatars and usernames. Stupid, stupid, stupid. If someone else changed his or her avatar, it doesn't matter. You are better off picking a good avatar and sticking with it forever so that your posts are easily identified.

Avatars are a means of self-expression in a flat medium. If someone wants to play around with that I'm all for it. I myself am content with the one I've picked, but I enjoyed having the Christmas version up while it lasted.

Pointless threads. Yeah, let's have some more threads where we can show off our smily skills and make lots and lots of small talk.


Some pointless threads are fun, some are just pointless. The latter tend to sink relatively quickly. Have you considered making liberal use of the Ignore this thread feature? It might help you with your little premature impatience problem.

Is it just me or is there an overabundance of women in this forum? There was once a time when the Internet was a man-zone. Those were the days.

Ah yes, the good ol' days when you were, what, 8? Did a lot of male bonding on the web back then, did you? Of course, even at that late date lisarea already ruled the place.

[slimshady2357]

Shit, I thought he was just joking! :eek: :D

But y'all have cooked his fucking goose :flambe: and burnt his ass :abitmuch:

Now I'm off to change my avatar and start a thread about it.... I hope all the ladies like it :cool: :yup: :wink:

Adam

[viscousmemories]

I think John Carter, warrenly and the others have already addressed most of these things, but I'd like to throw in my pennies anyway.

I like smilies. I think they're by turns cute, funny, endearing, and artistic as well as useful for conveying emotion in an otherwise flat medium. I've heard the arguments that they are immature, stupid, and most of all favored by people who aren't capable of expressing themselves without graphical assistance. But given that we have more than a few mature, brilliant, excellent writers here who seem to have no problem using them freely, those claims appears to have no substance.

I'm sorry you are offended by excessive profanity and avatar-related discussion, but you can limit the amount of the former by opting to have 'profane' words censored in your user control panel. I don't know how you can avoid any mention of avatars, but that might just be a risk you have to take participating in a discussion forum that prizes free speech.

As for there being too many pointless threads here warrenly's wrong about what I'd prefer in this case. I like pointless threads. I'm one of the silliest, stupidest people on the planet. But I also take a lot of things pretty seriously, and so appreciate being able to be serious without being accused of being a party-pooper. But anyway it's all about ebbs and tides. We've had weeks here with an abundance of serious, educational topics and weeks of pure silliness. It's all good to me.

If you think there aren't enough serious threads here, I suggest you start some more. That's usually the best way to get people involved in serious discussions. And as has already been suggested you can disable avatarts, signatures, images, smilies, and profanity - if that's the kind of forum you'd rather see when you come here. I personally find such places far too cold and impersonal, but we made it possible because we understand others disagree.

Lastly, while I'm not saying you don't have a right to hold your opinion and say whatever you want, attacking the social conventions nearly every forum member has been involved in at one time or another while singling out one of the admins for criticism is a textbook trolling maneuver. Would you have gotten the same tone and content of responses in an AOL chatroom full of teenagers? I can't say I've ever spent time in one.

[Ex-zombie]

Men who are threatened by the presence of women generally have one of two issues going on.

1. Women destroy the immature drivel that spews from the male's mouth.

2. Women won't give the male any attention of a sexual nature.

[Dingfod]

Men who are threatened by the presence of women generally have one of two issues going on.

1. Women destroy the immature drivel that spews from the male's mouth.

2. Women won't give the male any attention of a sexual nature.Both of these have happened to me aplenty and I still love having women around.[/blatent suckup to women]

[Seven of Nine]

ApostateAbe, I assume you're joking, too, since you have pinpointed nearly every practice which adds even a shread of personality to a message board, and nearly all can already be filtered out here to provide a sterile, cold virtual enviornment for those who require one.

Sadly, over half the human race is not about to switch genders anytime soon. Liv, could you work on a filter for this? (What a hack that would be!) :D




Don't forget colored fonts!

[TomJoe]

Smilies. I HATE seeing them ALL THE TIME. You must think you are cool if you use smilies that are unique/funny/fitting, but you are not cool. You are lame. Especially you, livius. Smilies are for teens, pre-teens, and noobs of chatrooms, bloggers, and forums.
Excess profanity. If you cuss like a high-school bitch all the goddamn time, then you are contributing to the overinflation of such words. Leave them out of your thread titles, for God's sake.



:P Smilies :D Kick :chin: Fucking :giggle: Ass! :yup:

[Dingfod]

ApostateAbe, I assume you're joking, too, since you have pinpointed nearly every practice which adds even a shread of personality to a message board, and nearly all can already be filtered out here to provide a sterile, cold virtual enviornment for those who require one.I wouldn't be so sure that isn't exactly what Abe is advocating. I'm a member of a motorcycle model specific Yahoo group where there is a constituency that doesn't believe there should be anything except technical information on it. They've driven my silly ass off, I'm still a member there but got tired of the insults and flames. The sterile board advocates have taken over. It is a sad place indeed. And right wing.

Sadly, over half the human race is not about to switch genders anytime soon. Liv, could you work on a filter for this? (What a hack that would be!) :D No kidding. It'd be easier if we just got everyone to switch genders.

Don't forget colored fonts!COLORED FONTS???

[lisarea]

Ah yes, the good ol' days when you were, what, 8? Did a lot of male bonding on the web back then, did you? Of course, even at that late date lisarea already ruled the place.

All the more reason for me to be bitter about youse bitches horning in on my territory, you know.

As far as smilies go, well:


/ \
|\_/|
|---|
| |
| |
_ |=-=| _
_ / \| |/ \
/ \| | | ||\
| | | | | \>
| | | | | \
| - - - - |) )
| /
\ /
\ /
\ /
\ /
| |

[Petra]

I think Abe is being more facetious then serious. :pokes: He just thrives on being contentious, methinks. Luckily, I don't give a shit. Although my av is getting stale now - I think it's time to change it. :yup:

[TomJoe]

Although my av is getting stale now - I think it's time to change it. :yup:

Not me, nope... never.

Everytime I look at that little guy in my avatar, I bust out laughing. Yes, I know that's not normal... but... I don't give a shit. It's just too funny.

If anyone knows of Rapture Ready (and boards of that similar fundy ilk) you'd know why it's so funny, especially after you see where this little fella originated.

And if you don't think it's funny... ahh, piss off.

[viscousmemories]

ApostateAbe, I assume you're joking, too, since you have pinpointed nearly every practice which adds even a shread of personality to a message board, and nearly all can already be filtered out here to provide a sterile, cold virtual enviornment for those who require one.
I wouldn't be so sure that isn't exactly what Abe is advocating.
Yeah, I assumed he was completely serious. Just about every thread at IIDB regarding smilies, avatars and sig files is full of people arguing that serious, intellectual discussions are impossible with the intolerable distraction of pretty pictures and colors. I agree that it can go overboard in either direction; in my opinion IIDB is too cold and impersonal in that regard, and CF is absurdly cartoonish. But I honestly think we fall in between them, while at the same time providing people with the option of having it be more or less like either.

[LadyShea]

Abe, if you aren't taking advantage of the blocks and filters livius and vm built into this forum, then you must enjoy being annoyed. I have known people like that, they live for somethin' to bitch at others about rather than taking the steps necessary to make themselves happy. Is this the case with you? If not, can you explain why you have not changed the options so you don't have to see the offending material?

[Skep]

http://skeptech.net/emotipad/cache/SmiliesSuck.gif

Although my av is getting stale now - I think it's time to change it. :yup:
Ooooh, I like the new one. http://skeptech.net/emotipad/cache/Excited.gif Very colorful. :colors: What's it from? http://skeptech.net/emotipad/cache/Ponder2.gif

'Course, I'm gonna miss the old one. :( :wink:

[Petra]

http://skeptech.net/emotipad/cache/SmiliesSuck.gif

Although my av is getting stale now - I think it's time to change it. :yup:
Ooooh, I like the new one. http://skeptech.net/emotipad/cache/Excited.gif Very colorful. :colors: What's it from? http://skeptech.net/emotipad/cache/Ponder2.gif

'Course, I'm gonna miss the old one. :( :wink:

It's a Marc Chagall painting. :)

[ApostateAbe]

Abe, if you aren't taking advantage of the blocks and filters livius and vm built into this forum, then you must enjoy being annoyed. I have known people like that, they live for somethin' to ***** at others about rather than taking the steps necessary to make themselves happy. Is this the case with you? If not, can you explain why you have not changed the options so you don't have to see the offending material?I didn't know the filters existed, but I am using them now. Thanks for the heads up.

[Skep]

lunachick: It's a Marc Chagall painting. :)

When I started my post you had one with colorful horses. What was that one? :museum:

[Petra]

You put asterixes in where LS said "bitch". That's pretty funny. :giggle:

[Petra]

When I started my post you had one with colorful horses. What was that one? :museum:

Oh, yeah - I had that for a few minutes, but decided it didn't look very good in a small format. It's a book cover illustration (http://www.yuricareport.com/), representing what must be the Four Horses of the Apocalypse. :yup:

[pescifish]

I think Abe is being more facetious then serious.And you wimmin on da Internet are too fuckingass generous to sniffly nosed misogynist boymen!

:naughty: But! I am being facetious! :wink:

LooK! I used
:wink: <- the winkie -> :wink:

:cancan3: :cancan3: :cancan3: :cancan3:
....................... :cannon: ..........................
:cancan3: :cancan3: :cancan3: :cancan3:


Sorry, Abe. :bouquet: I hope you find what you are looking for. :lovenot:

[livius drusus]

You put asterixes in where LS said "bitch". That's pretty funny. :giggle:
I'm guessing he's turned on the user-optional censor, luna. Abe, let us know if there are any changes you'd like to see us make to the censored word list (http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showthread.php?p=139#post139).

[Petra]

You put asterixes in where LS said "bitch". That's pretty funny. :giggle:
I'm guessing he's turned on the user-optional censor, luna. Abe, let us know if there are any changes you'd like to see us make to the censored word list (http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showthread.php?p=139#post139).

Well, **** me! I didn't know there was a censor option. I still think it's funny in that twee old lady kinda way. :giggle:

[Seven of Nine]

ApostateAbe, I assume you're joking, too, since you have pinpointed nearly every practice which adds even a shread of personality to a message board, and nearly all can already be filtered out here to provide a sterile, cold virtual enviornment for those who require one.

I wouldn't be so sure that isn't exactly what Abe is advocating. I'm a member of a motorcycle model specific Yahoo group where there is a constituency that doesn't believe there should be anything except technical information on it. They've driven my silly ass off, I'm still a member there but got tired of the insults and flames. The sterile board advocates have taken over. It is a sad place indeed. And right wing.

Did they drive your ass off on a motorcycle or a rail? :D
I've been to left wing places run and peopled by sterile board advocates, too. It's just sad. IMNSHO, the cold look of such a board subtly encourages insults, flaming, and FARBing, in general.
I assume that they require that we be assimilated into their Collective?

But...but...supposing Abe is sincerely advocating that all our posts smack of stultifying uniformity on a board named "Freethought" :ironymeter:, why isn't he using all those filter options we've been so kindly provided with to whisk away as much of our tacky individuality from his sight as possible?
Of course, Lunachick just now discovered our nanny program! :giggle:

Sadly, over half the human race is not about to switch genders anytime soon. Liv, could you work on a filter for this? (What a hack that would be!) :D

No kidding. It'd be easier if we just got everyone to switch genders.

Just think, if liv is sucessful, we could wake up everyday and Choose a Gender!

Don't forget colored fonts!COLORED FONTS???

Why, you color slut, you! You should be ashamed! and how dare you change your FONT SIZE in that revolting manner!



Look! Bolding and italics! Is there no end to these trashy options?!

[lisarea]

Ha! A censor tool! Finally, I have a way to keep you twatsniffing bumblechoads from further offending my sensibilities!

[Petra]

...twatsniffing bumblechoads...


:hysteric:

[Beth]

I think Abe is being more facetious then serious. :pokes: He just thrives on being contentious, methinks. Luckily, I don't give a shit. Although my av is getting stale now - I think it's time to change it. :yup:
Great, now my ass thread is null. :giggle: Your new av is purty.

[Dingfod]

You put asterixes in where LS said "bitch". That's pretty funny. :giggle:
I'm guessing he's turned on the user-optional censor, luna. Abe, let us know if there are any changes you'd like to see us make to the censored word list (http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showthread.php?p=139#post139).Asshat?

[Dingfod]

Just think, if liv is sucessful, we could wake up everyday and Choose a Gender!That would be cool. I wonder if I get some sort of option that would make me better looking as well?

[livius drusus]

Great, now my ass thread is null. :giggle: Your new av is purty.
You want I should edit in her old av as an attachment in your OP, Beth?

[Beth]

Great, now my ass thread is null. :giggle: Your new av is purty.
You want I should edit in her old av as an attachment in your OP, Beth?
Sure! Thanky. You know, in a few more weeks, I could just use a pic of me own arse. :wink: J/K :D

edit: on second thought, I think it died, so maybe only for the sake of the archives...up to you.

[Seven of Nine]

[QUOTE=Seven of Nine]Just think, if liv is sucessful, we could wake up everyday and Choose a Gender!

That would be cool. I wonder if I get some sort of option that would make me better looking as well?

Yes! then those of us who aren't bisexual could fully enjoy each others' pornography!

Warrenly, you weren't thinking that I really look like Jeri Ryan, were you? :D
Behold, the Magic of Avatars!
(Now, if liv would only allow us larger ones!)

[Dingfod]

Don't go breaking my heart.

[Seven of Nine]

Great, now my ass thread is null. :giggle: Your new av is purty.
You want I should edit in her old av as an attachment in your OP, Beth?
Sure! Thanky. You know, in a few more weeks, I could just use a pic of me own arse. :wink: J/K :D

edit: on second thought, I think it died, so maybe only for the sake of the archives...up to you.

Beth, your arse died??!! :eek:

[Seven of Nine]

Don't go breaking my heart.

Forget I ever posted that, warrenly.
I am Jeri Ryan, and, what's more, I want you, but am too shy to say so!

Warrenly, would you like to see me with my cuffs rolled up, or do I have to post that image in the Sexuality forum?

[Beth]

Great, now my ass thread is null. :giggle: Your new av is purty.
You want I should edit in her old av as an attachment in your OP, Beth?
Sure! Thanky. You know, in a few more weeks, I could just use a pic of me own arse. :wink: J/K :D

edit: on second thought, I think it died, so maybe only for the sake of the archives...up to you.

Beth, your arse died??!! :eek: :hysteric: Well, I think from the soreness, it is screaming to. Man, I need a good tushie rub. I should probably do a Peg Bundy and get hubby to do it.

[Seven of Nine]

[QUOTE=Beth]Great, now my ass thread is null. :giggle: Your new av is purty.
You want I should edit in her old av as an attachment in your OP, Beth?
Sure! Thanky. You know, in a few more weeks, I could just use a pic of me own arse. :wink: J/K :D

edit: on second thought, I think it died, so maybe only for the sake of the archives...up to you.

Beth, your arse died??!! :eek:

:hysteric: Well, I think from the soreness, it is screaming to.

Well, damn! Now I have to tell my arse it can't go to your arse's funeral.

Man, I need a good tushie rub.

As someone with permanent arse damage, I empathize.

I should probably do a Peg Bundy and get hubby to do it.

I hope your hubby is more of a firecracker than Al!

[Crumb]

This thread has gone in an ironic direction.

[Dingfod]

/me swoons

[pescifish]

This thread has gone in an ironic direction. :lol: Perhaps there is a method to the madness? :crazy:

Nonetheless, Abe was given a suggestion of which, it seems, he was not previously aware. I think that's a rather successful result for such a thread, considering! :yup:

[Petra]

Nonetheless, Abe was given a suggestion of which, it seems, he was not previously aware. I think that's a rather successful result for such a thread, considering! :yup:

Indeed. :yup:

[lisarea]

This thread has gone in an ironic direction.Perhaps there is a method to the madness? :crazy:

Indeed. Consider the two possibilities:

1. He was joking, and the thread evolved in an appropriately comical fashion, to the enjoyment of all.

2. He was being kind of a dick, and the direction the thread took annoyed him, which is what he gets for being a dick.

Win-win.

Also, we have learned that 'dick' 'choad' 'twat' and 'shiznit' are not on the naughty words list, which is a good thing to know. Also: Knobend, willydiggler, smeg-goblin, slappyflaps, and probably some more ones I will try to think of later.

ETA: "Glistening drop of pre-cum."

ETAA: Oh, I guess dick is on the list, but not if you use single quotes, thus styling it as 'dick'. Ha ha!

[Seven of Nine]

/me swoons

Just for you, warrenly! :)
http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1951

This thread has gone in an ironic direction.

How so, Crumb?

[Ex-zombie]

Yoohoo liv!

Don't you think Crumb's new avatar looks sorta like an orange? A navel orange? :yup:

[Seven of Nine]

This thread has gone in an ironic direction.Perhaps there is a method to the madness? :crazy:

Indeed. Consider the two possibilities:

1. He was joking, and the thread evolved in an appropriately comical fashion, to the enjoyment of all.

2. He was being kind of a dick, and the direction the thread took annoyed him, which is what he gets for being a dick.

Win-win.

A win-win, indeed!

Also, we have learned that 'dick' 'choad' 'twat' and 'shiznit' are not on the naughty words list, which is a good thing to know. Also: Knobend, willydiggler, smeg-goblin, slappyflaps, and probably some more ones I will try to think of later.

ETA: "Glistening drop of pre-cum."


Useful knowledge indeed. Have you tried "Vaginal blood fart" yet?

We may also have learned that Beth's arse thread need not have died had only someone invited me (and my neurologically disadvantaged arse) here a bit sooner?

[livius drusus]

This glare's for you, Ex-zombie. :glare:

[Skep]

You don't like navel oranges, liv? http://img172.exs.cx/img172/6579/navel1vy.gif

[Lauri D]

Hi Abe :wave:

I admit that I have read nothing other than your original post. I did not want to be affected by others' opinions. So I have only my own opinion to offer, and I offer my apology to anyone that I may be unwittingly copying.

Get the fuck over yourself, dude. You are not fresh or original and you never have been, despite your delusions. It's quite possible to be strange but not weird. Do you hear me now?

[ApostateAbe]

Hi Abe :wave:

I admit that I have read nothing other than your original post. I did not want to be affected by others' opinions. So I have only my own opinion to offer, and I offer my apology to anyone that I may be unwittingly copying.

Get the **** over yourself, dude. You are not fresh or original and you never have been, despite your delusions. It's quite possible to be strange but not weird. Do you hear me now?OK, sure. I don't understand what this has to do with originality or whatnot.

[Lauri D]

Hi Abe :wave:

I admit that I have read nothing other than your original post. I did not want to be affected by others' opinions. So I have only my own opinion to offer, and I offer my apology to anyone that I may be unwittingly copying.

Get the **** over yourself, dude. You are not fresh or original and you never have been, despite your delusions. It's quite possible to be strange but not weird. Do you hear me now?OK, sure. I don't understand what this has to do with originality or whatnot. I don't understand you, please expand.

[ApostateAbe]

Hi Abe :wave:

I admit that I have read nothing other than your original post. I did not want to be affected by others' opinions. So I have only my own opinion to offer, and I offer my apology to anyone that I may be unwittingly copying.

Get the **** over yourself, dude. You are not fresh or original and you never have been, despite your delusions. It's quite possible to be strange but not weird. Do you hear me now?OK, sure. I don't understand what this has to do with originality or whatnot. I don't understand you, please expand.You were accusing me of not being original, but I don't even see why that matters. So what if I am not?

[Lauri D]

Fine and dandy, dear. It really does not matter. You are right and I am wrong; what the fuck else do I have to bitch about?

[Brimshack]

All the things you complain about (with the exception of the absurd notion that there could ever bee too many women in any setting) are features of the general lightness of the forum. Were there more serious debates and discussions, the extra visuals would indeed be a distraction. But most of us are members of other forums where we can go and throw down for serious discussions. This to me is like a social lounge, and the frivolity strikes me as quite appropriate.

[viscousmemories]

ApostateAbe, I assume you're joking, too, since you have pinpointed nearly every practice which adds even a shread of personality to a message board, and nearly all can already be filtered out here to provide a sterile, cold virtual enviornment for those who require one.
I wouldn't be so sure that isn't exactly what Abe is advocating.
Yeah, I assumed he was completely serious. Just about every thread at IIDB regarding smilies, avatars and sig files is full of people arguing that serious, intellectual discussions are impossible with the intolerable distraction of pretty pictures and colors.

Were there more serious debates and discussions, the extra visuals would indeed be a distraction.
See? There's someone else who believes this nonsense right here among us. :P

[livius drusus]

CF is far more flashy than we are, Brim. How do you manage to post seriously there?

[Brimshack]

I didn't say serious discussions were impossible, just that the bells and whistles can be a distraction. I was also talking about the number of frivolous threads (like LUNA'S!). The former may generate some of the latter, which could be a problem if you expect every debate to be totally focused. If not, then ...the physh!

[Brimshack]

...and if you guys hadn't been so distracted by my beautiful graduation photo, you would clearly have seen that the word "impossible" was not in my posts.

[Seven of Nine]

I didn't say serious discussions were impossible, just that the bells and whistles can be a distraction. I was also talking about the number of frivolous threads (like LUNA'S!). The former may generate some of the latter, which could be a problem if you expect every debate to be totally focused. If not, then ...the physh!

Although I have more trouble than I would like focusing at times, my virtual envoirnment is the least of my problems in doing so, and a cold, sterile board can be far more distracting than a garish one, like CF.
We are, after all, used to living in a real world filled with such complex combinations of distractions that, unless we lives from early childhood of nearly total monasticism, our brains automatically filter them out.
I don't live on Death Row, so I don't want the places in my virtual life to resemble one.

However, I think it's lovely that you can find acceptance at a "real" board, unlike mental lightweights like myself, and then come slum with us lesser beings when it suits you. In case you think I'm joking now, Brim, I can assure you I'm not.

[Ex-zombie]

However, I think it's lovely that you can find acceptance at a "real" board, unlike mental lightweights like myself, and then come slum with us lesser beings when it suits you. In case you think I'm joking now, Brim, I can assure you I'm not.

I can definitely relate, Seven, being a mental lightweight myself. My feelings always get a little bit hurt when individuals slam the friviolity. I don't suppose they can spare any empathy for those of us who are not as intellectually endowed as they are. :(

[pescifish]

Actually, undistracted by potty-mouths, cute smilies or a preponderance of women, I was completely serious in both of my previous posts on this thread. I used the :wink: after the only statement that I meant in jest.

[beyelzu]

I like the serious conversations that I engage in here at ff far more than the ones that Iengage in elsewhere, which is why I so rarely go elsewhere anymore, that and I am banned from cf. when I engage in more rigorous debate here, I actually try to understand the person I am discussing the issue with. sorry for the derail of the derail guys, but brim's comment and the response to it got me to thinking.

[beyelzu]

btw zombie and seven of nine, you both fucking rock and are far from mental lightweights. I dont think anyone thinks that of either of you.

[beyelzu]

Actually, undistracted by potty-mouths, cute smilies or a preponderance of women, I was completely serious in both of my previous posts on this thread. I used the :wink: after the only statement that I meant in jest.
just in case I havent said it today, you fucking rock as well, 'fish

[Brimshack]

[QUOTE=Brimshack]
However, I think it's lovely that you can find acceptance at a "real" board, unlike mental lightweights like myself, and then come slum with us lesser beings when it suits you. In case you think I'm joking now, Brim, I can assure you I'm not.

Fair enough, you are serious. You are also reading a great deal more into my post than I actually said or even implied. I have never referred to you as a lightweight, and I do not believe I have ever implied anything to that effect. You are responding to comments I haven't made and to a position which I haven't taken.

Nor have I suggested that this is not a "real" board either, merely that more time here seems to be devoted to social interaction than usual. I could be wrong, but I think the bulk of us are taking our regaular debates elsewhere, not because of the quality of intellect here, but because of the particular relationship that this site has to the others in which we participate.

[viscousmemories]

I guess I just don't understand why it has to be an either/or proposition here. In my opinion we have as many serious, educational threads as we do silly, frivolous threads. I honestly don't begrudge Brim or anyone else choosing to have serious discussions at other forums and coming here to be social, but I think it's unfortunate because I like having serious discussions and this is my favorite place to post, so I think the more would be the merrier.

But anywayz...

I just got done watching Malcolm X and it's past my bedtime. :wave:

[WinAce]

...and if you guys hadn't been so distracted by my beautiful graduation photo...

How true. :blush: That green face is just so hauntingly cute! And I can admit that, being so comfortable with my own masculinity and all. :P

P.S. Which hairspray do you use?

[Brimshack]

I guess I just don't understand why it has to be an either/or proposition here. In my opinion we have as many serious, educational threads as we do silly, frivolous threads. I honestly don't begrudge Brim or anyone else choosing to have serious discussions at other forums and coming here to be social, but I think it's unfortunate because I like having serious discussions and this is my favorite place to post, so I think the more would be the merrier.

But anywayz...

I just got done watching Malcolm X and it's past my bedtime. :wave:


It is definitely NOT an either or situation, in terms of what the board itself should be. For myself, I am keenly aware of the fact that I tend to focus my attention to one board at a time, and other boards get a lighter treatment. When I was at CF, I tended to use the CF Outcast threads as a chance to blow off steam. Then I posted more at II and used FF-HH as a social forum. Now, I still tend to put my own serious efforts into II and come here more to enjoy the company. I could be wrong, but I suspect I am not the only one who has assigned a different role to different message boards. The proportion of social interaction threads and devices to serious discussion thread seems pretty high, and I take it that is what AA was complaining about. The sole goal of my response was to try and say that that there was nothing wrong with that.

[Ensign Steve]

Is it just me or is there an overabundance of women in this forum? There was once a time when the Internet was a man-zone. Those were the days.

quoth dorian: "back then all the geeks were complaining about the sausage party"

:roflmao:

And most importantly: fuck

[viscousmemories]

I could be wrong, but I suspect I am not the only one who has assigned a different role to different message boards. The proportion of social interaction threads to serious discussion threads seems pretty high, and I take it that is what AA was complaining about. The sole goal of my response was to try and say that that was entirely appropriate.
I'm really not trying to give you shit for treating the FF as a more social forum. I won't say I didn't think something similar to what Seven of Nine said when I saw your post, but of course I want you to get whatever you want out of being here. I enjoy having you here regardless of whether you are more interested in the FF for frivolous banter or serious debates.

But I think you're off the mark when you say the bulk of us feel similarly, and when you say that it's appropriate that there would be more frivolous threads than serious ones (even if that were the case, which I honestly don't think it is). I think the bulk of the most active members here actually engage in just as many serious discussions/debates as social threads.

I'm not saying your impression is totally baseless though, either. I know there are a number of people here who are far more active in serious discussions and debates at IIDB (for example) than here. I think there are a number of reasons for that, but probably the biggest is the extremely high traffic there. It's a lot easier to get into a pretty deep, broad discussion there in near real-time. That's not always possible here.

Anyway I guess the point of this ramble is that I respect your right to view the FF as a purely social forum, but if there is anything in our structure, policies or general approach to dialogue here that leads anyone to feel like that's all we are and this isn't the place for serious discussions, we might need to change something.

Then again it may be that we're just talking about different things. I don't expect there to be the quantity or intensity of ideological discussions or debates here that one would expect to find at CF or IIDB, but I don't see why anyone would see us as inherently ill-suited for non-religious discussions or debates.

Ugh. Well as I said it's past my bedtime as I'm sure is evident. Maybe I can articulate what I'm trying to say better tomorrow, or will conclude that I don't really have anything to say at all (the more likely).

[Seven of Nine]

However, I think it's lovely that you can find acceptance at a "real" board, unlike mental lightweights like myself, and then come slum with us lesser beings when it suits you. In case you think I'm joking now, Brim, I can assure you I'm not.

I can definitely relate, Seven, being a mental lightweight myself. My feelings always get a little bit hurt when individuals slam the friviolity. I don't suppose they can spare any empathy for those of us who are not as intellectually endowed as they are. :(

Zombie, I don't guess I see "frivolity" as a barrier to learning from others; I think the reverse is true: humor helps me to comprehend posts that otherwise might be beyond me, but then, if I was ever terribly intellectually endowed (and I doubt it), those days are over now.
Besides, I've learned some way cool things from people who everyone just loved to look down on, so less and less sure all the time that wisdom is the sole possession of those who qualify for Mensa.

[Seven of Nine]

[QUOTE=Seven of Nine][QUOTE=Brimshack]
However, I think it's lovely that you can find acceptance at a "real" board, unlike mental lightweights like myself, and then come slum with us lesser beings when it suits you. In case you think I'm joking now, Brim, I can assure you I'm not.

Fair enough, you are serious. You are also reading a great deal more into my post than I actually said or even implied. I have never referred to you as a lightweight, and I do not believe I have ever implied anything to that effect. You are responding to comments I haven't made and to a position which I haven't taken.



Nor have I suggested that this is not a "real" board either, merely that more time here seems to be devoted to social interaction than usual. I could be wrong, but I think the bulk of us are taking our regaular debates elsewhere, not because of the quality of intellect here, but because of the particular relationship that this site has to the others in which we participate.

No, you didn't say it wasn't a"real" board; you said it was your "social lounge", so the "frivolity" struck you as "quite appropriate", and that you have other fora to which you go to "throw down for serious discussions". .

This is how my dictionary defines "frivolous":

"frivolous 1 of little value or importance; trifling; trivial 2 not properly serious or sensible; silly and lightminded; giddy."
(Webster's New World College Dictionary, Third Edition).

I had what I think of as a "serious discussion" right here tonight, and I will be continuing to have them here, however valueless, unimportant, trivial, trifling, silly, giddy, and lightminded they may be compared to the ones folks have elsewhere.
I was, after all, tried and found wanting at one of those boards where "the bulk of you are taking your regular debates" because of some "particular relationship that this site has to the others in which you participate." (whatever that's supposed to mean).

Whatever FF is to you, Brim, it stands alone in my mind; I don't see it as the annex of any other board (if, indeed, that's what you meant by the phrase "particular relationship that this site has to the others in which you participate.", because, frankly, that just sounds like backing and filling to me).

What I do know is what the term "frivolity" means. If that's the term you intended to use, then I don't see what I could possibly have read into your post that the term doesn't clearly convey.

[ApostateAbe]

Can one of the admins please take "ass" off the list of filtered words? Or at least fix it so it doesn't turn "assign" into "*** ign." Thanks.

[Brimshack]

I'm really not trying to give you shit for treating the FF as a more social forum. I won't say I didn't think something similar to what Seven of Nine said when I saw your post, but of course I want you to get whatever you want out of being here. I enjoy having you here regardless of whether you are more interested in the FF for frivolous banter or serious debates.

I know your not trying to give me shit, but I want to be clear about why I am and am not saying. I am not suggesting that a forum should be either for serious discussion or frivolous discussion, not do I think FF is purely frivolous. Hence, my decision to respond at least partly to your own post and to try and explain why I think in pratice individuals may use a forum for one or the other.

With respect to Seven and Ex-Z, I have only to say that I haven't personally made any attempt whatsoever to compare the intellects of any individuals to those of others. Arguments about the quality of a forum or a discussion may often do that, but it has nothing whatsoever to do with my claims in this thread.

But I think you're off the mark when you say the bulk of us feel similarly, and when you say that it's appropriate that there would be more frivolous threads than serious ones (even if that were the case, which I honestly don't think it is). I think the bulk of the most active members here actually engage in just as many serious discussions/debates as social threads.

I'm not saying your impression is totally baseless though, either. I know there are a number of people here who are far more active in serious discussions and debates at IIDB (for example) than here. I think there are a number of reasons for that, but probably the biggest is the extremely high traffic there. It's a lot easier to get into a pretty deep, broad discussion there in near real-time. That's not always possible here.

I'm not sure that I said the bulk of the forum feels the same as me, and it wouldn't take a substantial majority. I look at this way, when you log-onto a site what is your expectation? What did you have in mind when you clicked the link? For me when I click the link to this forum it is for social interaction. When I click the link for CF it's for polemic arguments. And when I click the link at II it's for, well frankly for work at this point. This doesn't mean I'm only going to do the one thing I have in mind, but it does skew the probability of any particular interactions I will have while here.

The quantity of posters may be part of it as you suggest, and I would add that the likelihood of finding constructive disagreement is also a factor, as is the weight of opportunity costs against ones' other commitments. And there is also a trace of inertia as well, a tendancy to argue where one has argued before and joke where one has gone to joke before. But all of this goes to the issue of how you explain the difference, not whether or not the difference is there.

My impression is that the sociable threads move faster here than the discussion threads. Could also be that that in itself is a factor, and that debate will pick up as the likelihood of real-time exchanges in those threads increase. Or my impression could be wrong. I just don't think so.

Anyway I guess the point of this ramble is that I respect your right to view the FF as a purely social forum, but if there is anything in our structure, policies or general approach to dialogue here that leads anyone to feel like that's all we are and this isn't the place for serious discussions, we might need to change something.

I appreciate your respect. But seriously, I do not view this as a purely social forum, and I haven't said that it is. What I said was that there appears to be more socializing going on than theoretical discussion. I think this explains some of the current trends that AA was complaining about.

Then again it may be that we're just talking about different things. I don't expect there to be the quantity or intensity of ideological discussions or debates here that one would expect to find at CF or IIDB, but I don't see why anyone would see us as inherently ill-suited for non-religious discussions or debates.

But that's just it. What I was saying is I don't expect the level of intensity either. But I'm not suggesting that the site is il-suited to it either. I do think smileys, etc, can be a distraction when engaging in such debates, but that is largely a function of how people use them. I would hope that for a serious debate the quantity of smileys would come down from the average here. But my point was that if the general trend of the site is largely social, then the current quantity of smileys and so forth are not a problem.

Ugh. Well as I said it's past my bedtime as I'm sure is evident. Maybe I can articulate what I'm trying to say better tomorrow, or will conclude that I don't really have anything to say at all (the more likely).

No, I don't blame you for pressing. At the very least a point fo clarification from me was in order. And I'm sorry if my comments came accross as denegrating the site. I just don't think the more serious discussions have flourished like they could. That may or may not be a problem. For now it's just an observation.

[lisarea]

Is it just me or is there an overabundance of women in this forum? There was once a time when the Internet was a man-zone. Those were the days.

quoth dorian: "back then all the geeks were complaining about the sausage party"

I've always had the theory that there were a lot more women around than people realized. And I know that even when I had an obviously female username, people would call me a he. I don't know if they didn't recognize the girl name, or if they just assumed I was a faker or what.

Also: Why do I get this creepy feeling youse people are talking about 1993 or something?

[Brimshack]

[QUOTE=Seven of Nine][QUOTE=Brimshack]
However, I think it's lovely that you can find acceptance at a "real" board, unlike mental lightweights like myself, and then come slum with us lesser beings when it suits you. In case you think I'm joking now, Brim, I can assure you I'm not.

Fair enough, you are serious. You are also reading a great deal more into my post than I actually said or even implied. I have never referred to you as a lightweight, and I do not believe I have ever implied anything to that effect. You are responding to comments I haven't made and to a position which I haven't taken.



Nor have I suggested that this is not a "real" board either, merely that more time here seems to be devoted to social interaction than usual. I could be wrong, but I think the bulk of us are taking our regaular debates elsewhere, not because of the quality of intellect here, but because of the particular relationship that this site has to the others in which we participate.

No, you didn't say it wasn't a"real" board; you said it was your "social lounge", so the "frivolity" struck you as "quite appropriate", and that you have other fora to which you go to "throw down for serious discussions". .

This is how my dictionary defines "frivolous":

"frivolous 1 of little value or importance; trifling; trivial 2 not properly serious or sensible; silly and lightminded; giddy."
(Webster's New World College Dictionary, Third Edition).

I had what I think of as a "serious discussion" right here tonight, and I will be continuing to have them here, however valueless, unimportant, trivial, trifling, silly, giddy, and lightminded they may be compared to the ones folks have elsewhere.
I was, after all, tried and found wanting at one of those boards where "the bulk of you are taking your regular debates" because of some "particular relationship that this site has to the others in which you participate." (whatever that's supposed to mean).

Whatever FF is to you, Brim, it stands alone in my mind; I don't see it as the annex of any other board (if, indeed, that's what you meant by the phrase "particular relationship that this site has to the others in which you participate.", because, frankly, that just sounds like backing and filling to me).

What I do know is what the term "frivolity" means. If that's the term you intended to use, then I don't see what I could possibly have read into your post that the term doesn't clearly convey.

Had I suggested that the board as a whole was "frivolous," this argument would be reasonable. As it stands I was responding to comments about the proportion of frivolous threads and distracting bells and whistles. AA was saying that too much attention has been paid to them. My point was simply that if people are intent on socializing, which I take to be the norm here, there is nothing wrong with them.

I did not say that the discussion in which you participated was frivolous, nor did I make any other comment about your contribution to that discussion or any other thread, nor about those of anyone else on this board. I certainly did not assert that you or anyone else was a lightweight. Your have read both a personal attack into my posts and a categorical assertion that I did not make.

Nor have I said that the forum is unable to facilitate serious discussion. Since AA was also commenting on the shear quantity of time and attention paid to these things, my comments took into account the current level of attention paid to them. When I am engaged in a serious debate, I do find a lot of smileys and unecessary foul language a distraction. I would expect the quantity of such things, and of comments about them, to drop during serious discussions. I haven't suggested that isn't possible, or that it doesn't happen in a number of threads here. I have only said that the current level of attention to such things is fine given the degree to which the discussions here seem to be devoted to socializing.

I can understand that you disagree with the way I see the board and with the value of avatars and smileys, etc., but I will not continue a debate with someone who is actively misrepresenting my position. If you insist on responding to my posts as a direct personal attack, I can only suggest that you put me on ignore and be done with it.

[livius drusus]

Pardon my bleariness, please, but I actually kind of think you and Brim agree in practice, really, Seven. For example, when you're engaged in a serious discussion, you use far, far fewer smilies than usual. I noticed this before I went to bed in our discussion of beauty with Abe, and I've noticed it in myself before. Other people do similar things too: lady cop in the old death penalty thread, for example, was almost entirely smiley-free, and beyelzu cusses like a sailor, but in serious discussions his language becomes considerably more studied and formal.

I'm not sure it's always conscious, but even for the most unabashed enjoyers of color and sparkle on a site, I think the tendency is to tailor our approach to our context, and peppering a serious discussion with shiny things could lead to a kind of dissonance, or worse, a sense that we are not taking the other participants and their arguments seriously.

I also think Brim's right in that lighthearted threads move more rapidly here than the serious ones. To some degree, I think that's probably inherent to the thread type: posts on them tend to be much shorter than on serious threads, require much less (or no) research, and just generally speaking have a more rapid-fire, chat-like ethos. I think vm is right that for serious threads to seriously hop, you usually need a bunch more posters (although sometimes the interest alone -- usually controversy -- is sufficient).

I guess my basic point is that I think Brim is referring to a general dynamic, and to the extent that he's making any value judgement at all, he's actually making something of a positive one: ie, the preponderance of threads about smilies in Forum Admin suits a site where many of our interactions are of the kind that can bear a high smiley load.

Oy vey. I'm babbling, I know. It's okay. You can tell me. I'll weasel out of it with my usual lack of sleep excuse. Am I making any sense at all?

[livius drusus]

Can one of the admins please take "ass" off the list of filtered words? Or at least fix it so it doesn't turn "assign" into "*** ign." Thanks.
I can't for the life of me remember how to do it, Abe; I'm sorry. I'm sure vm will take care of it when he gets up.

[viscousmemories]

Can one of the admins please take "ass" off the list of filtered words? Or at least fix it so it doesn't turn "assign" into "*** ign." Thanks.
I can't for the life of me remember how to do it, Abe; I'm sorry. I'm sure vm will take care of it when he gets up.
I've gone ahead and removed it. I don't think we should've put it on to begin with, really.

[Dingfod]

Replace it with Abe. :D

[Seven of Nine]

Can one of the admins please take "ass" off the list of filtered words? Or at least fix it so it doesn't turn "assign" into "*** ign." Thanks.
I can't for the life of me remember how to do it, Abe; I'm sorry. I'm sure vm will take care of it when he gets up.
I've gone ahead and removed it. I don't think we should've put it on to begin with, really.

vm, I think a nanny program is a great thing to have available, but it's sad that they're mindless. For instance, there's no English word for domestic female canine but "bitch" ( a "dog" is always male), and there are when I'd like to be able to use it in it's non-slang sense on "G" and "PG" type sites.

CF's nanny program is interesting because it's geared to theology...and yet, it's not, because CF's nanny is no better at discerning word meaning by context than is yours.
The term "Hell" is perfectly acceptible, of course, but "ass" is not, so that members there are stuck with speaking of "Balaam's donkey". I find it ironic that the KJV is the Bible version most censored there.

[freemonkey]

Replace it with Abe. :D
:giggles:

[Seven of Nine]

<snip>
I can understand that you disagree with the way I see the board and with the value of avatars and smileys, etc.

I wasn't responding to any post of yours regarding the value of avatars or smilies, and have refrained from using emoticons in this discussion, in deference to your feeling that they're a distraction. I apologize for the confusion.

...but I will not continue a debate with someone who is actively misrepresenting my position. If you insist on responding to my posts as a direct personal attack, I can only suggest that you put me on ignore and be done with it.

I can't tell you how sorry I am that you feel that I'm actively misrepresenting you, and that you feel personally attacked, but since this is the first disagreement which we've had in two years of a friendship I value very much, I can't think of a single reason to put you on ignore, and the thought would never have occcured to me.
Anytime you tire of talking about any subject with me, then you have only to say so: I have no motivation whatsoever to persist in continuing a discussion with you against your will.
I'm your friend, Brimshack.

[viscousmemories]

I know your not trying to give me shit, but I want to be clear about why I am and am not saying. I am not suggesting that a forum should be either for serious discussion or frivolous discussion, not do I think FF is purely frivolous. Hence, my decision to respond at least partly to your own post and to try and explain why I think in pratice individuals may use a forum for one or the other.
I don't think you and I are talking about the same thing, Brim. I never meant to accuse you of saying the FF is or should be a purely frivolous forum. I've only been responding to your statement that that's all it is for you and "the bulk of us". Specifically, this comment to Seven of Nine:

I could be wrong, but I think the bulk of us are taking our regaular debates elsewhere, not because of the quality of intellect here, but because of the particular relationship that this site has to the others in which we participate.

I guess I don't see any difference between saying "the bulk of us take our regular debates elsewhere" and "the bulk of us view the FF as a place for non-serious discussions".

With respect to Seven and Ex-Z, I have only to say that I haven't personally made any attempt whatsoever to compare the intellects of any individuals to those of others. Arguments about the quality of a forum or a discussion may often do that, but it has nothing whatsoever to do with my claims in this thread.
I'm sure you haven't done that. I have no idea how you feel about Seven of Nine or Ex-Zombie, but I know you respect me and livius enough that you wouldn't make that kind of insinuation about people here as a whole.

I'm not sure that I said the bulk of the forum feels the same as me, and it wouldn't take a substantial majority. I look at this way, when you log-onto a site what is your expectation? What did you have in mind when you clicked the link? For me when I click the link to this forum it is for social interaction. When I click the link for CF it's for polemic arguments. And when I click the link at II it's for, well frankly for work at this point. This doesn't mean I'm only going to do the one thing I have in mind, but it does skew the probability of any particular interactions I will have while here.
You know now where I got "the bulk of us" from, and I know that all you've been trying to say all along is that when you personally click on the link to the FF, your aim is social interaction. As I said you're definitely not alone. I've noticed a number of members here do all of their serious discussing and debating elsewhere, and post primarily in the more social forums here. However there are also a number of people here who for various reasons engage in serious discussions and debates here exclusively.

The quantity of posters may be part of it as you suggest, and I would add that the likelihood of finding constructive disagreement is also a factor, as is the weight of opportunity costs against ones' other commitments. And there is also a trace of inertia as well, a tendancy to argue where one has argued before and joke where one has gone to joke before. But all of this goes to the issue of how you explain the difference, not whether or not the difference is there.
I agree. What I am disputing is that the difference is there for a majority of the active members here. Honestly I think you have a bit of a confirmation bias going on here. Since your intent when you come here is primarily social, I suspect you mostly stay in the more lighthearted forums and focus on the more frivolous threads. All I'm saying is that I really don't think that describes the majority of the interactions here.

My impression is that the sociable threads move faster here than the discussion threads. Could also be that that in itself is a factor, and that debate will pick up as the likelihood of real-time exchanges in those threads increase. Or my impression could be wrong. I just don't think so.
I think that's been true in every forum I've been a part of, for the reasons liv explained. It's easier and quicker to make frivolous posts than long, serious well-researched posts. That's why I mentioned the numbers of users earlier. When you have 500 users online at any given time, the chances of your getting more activity even on threads that require more long, thoughtful posts are greatly increased.

I appreciate your respect. But seriously, I do not view this as a purely social forum, and I haven't said that it is. What I said was that there appears to be more socializing going on than theoretical discussion. I think this explains some of the current trends that AA was complaining about.
Again I think this is just a miscommunication. I'm only addressing what you said the FF is for you, and what you seem to think it is for a majority of others.

Then again it may be that we're just talking about different things. I don't expect there to be the quantity or intensity of ideological discussions or debates here that one would expect to find at CF or IIDB, but I don't see why anyone would see us as inherently ill-suited for non-religious discussions or debates.

But that's just it. What I was saying is I don't expect the level of intensity either. But I'm not suggesting that the site is il-suited to it either. I do think smileys, etc, can be a distraction when engaging in such debates, but that is largely a function of how people use them. I would hope that for a serious debate the quantity of smileys would come down from the average here. But my point was that if the general trend of the site is largely social, then the current quantity of smileys and so forth are not a problem.
I'm really confused by what you're saying here. You say if the general trend of the site is largely social, then the current quantity of smilies and so forth are not a problem. Doesn't that imply that if the general trend of the site is to be largely serious then the current quantity of smilies and so forth are a problem?

No, I don't blame you for pressing. At the very least a point fo clarification from me was in order. And I'm sorry if my comments came accross as denegrating the site. I just don't think the more serious discussions have flourished like they could. That may or may not be a problem. For now it's just an observation.
I honestly never thought you were intentionally denigrating the site, I was just disappointed that you are primarily interested in frivolous interactions here. And this isn't just about you or this thread, either. I've been disappointed for a long time by the fact that a number of people seem to feel that way about the FF, since the only way we're going to maintain the quality and quantity of serious discussions we have had to date and avoid becoming Yet Another Chatroom is if the members here feed those discussions.

Again to be clear, I'm not saying that anyone should feel like they must participate in X number of serious threads here or X number of silly threads. But I would like to disabuse anyone who might have a misconception of our purpose here of the notion that the FF is intended as a place for non-serious discussions to supplement the more 'serious' forums.

We have exactly the same hopes for this site that we had for our last site, where this exact issue arose. The majority of the members there viewed the site as a frivolous adjunct to IIDB and treated it as such. So we let it remain as that and moved on to start a new site, open to everyone and with a better mix (so we hoped) of options for more serious and frivolous discussions to thrive.

[livius drusus]

Point of order: I really think the word "frivolous" is being persistently (and somewhat perniciously) misused here. Lighthearted interaction is not of "little weight or importance", nor are non-ponderous topics inherently silly or pointless. Social threads are keystones of any forum, imo, and in every thread about hot chicks a discussion of gender, society and biology lurks.

In fact, I think the serious/frivolous dichotomy is a false one which in particular does not seem applicable to a dynamic verbal medium like an online discussion board. Are food discussions frivolous? Are history games? Is a putatively profound philosophy discussion which is actually going in circles or a religious debate which reads like a self-reinforcing back-slapping session serious?

It seems to me that if people are learning something new, then the discussion is of rather considerable weight, no matter what the subject matter. Because honestly, when it comes to discursive depth, I'd put this very thread up against 3/4s of the sheisse in EoG any day.

[viscousmemories]

vm, I think a nanny program is a great thing to have available, but it's sad that they're mindless. For instance, there's no English word for domestic female canine but "bitch" ( a "dog" is always male), and there are when I'd like to be able to use it in it's non-slang sense on "G" and "PG" type sites.
I don't see any way that problem could be resolved, since the meaning of most words depends not only on context but on the speakers' intent. When there exists AI that can determine the latter, I'll be duly impressed.

CF's nanny program is interesting because it's geared to theology...and yet, it's not, because CF's nanny is no better at discerning word meaning by context than is yours.
The term "Hell" is perfectly acceptible, of course, but "ass" is not, so that members there are stuck with speaking of "Balaam's donkey". I find it ironic that the KJV is the Bible version most censored there.
We actually had to hack the board to make censorship optional, and we just put in the words that we expected to be the most common offenders. The default for this software is an all or nothing proposition. I would never post regularly at a place where any words are systematically filtered for all members because I prefer the freedom to choose what I say. By the same token I can't relate to the need to have others' comments filtered either. :shrug:

[Dingfod]

One way that filters can be more effective is to filter the word with a space before and after so that if it appears as part of a word, such as hello or assault, it doesn't get filtered. Of course that means words such as asshat, asshole, fuckwad, fuckhead, dipshit and so on would have to be added to the filter list.

[viscousmemories]

One way that filters can be more effective is to filter the word with a space before and after so that if it appears as part of a word, such as hello or assault, it doesn't get filtered. Of course that means words such as asshat, asshole, fuckwad, fuckhead, dipshit and so on would have to be added to the filter list.
Actually we used to have it configured that way, but for some reason since the upgrade the database is not accepting spaces after words anymore. I've posted on the hack thread at the vbulletin site to see if anyone has an idea why that might be.

[Seven of Nine]

One way that filters can be more effective is to filter the word with a space before and after so that if it appears as part of a word, such as hello or assault, it doesn't get filtered. Of course that means words such as asshat, asshole, fuckwad, fuckhead, dipshit and so on would have to be added to the filter list.

Don't forget dickwad!

At a PG-13 board at which I worked, we referring to Philip K. Dick as "Phil" because the nanny program filtered out that proper name.
At CF, a G site, theirs doesn't.
Erwin thinks it's wrong to deprive anyone of her/her name, and I agree with him.

[Seven of Nine]

[QUOTE=Seven of Nine]vm, I think a nanny program is a great thing to have available, but it's sad that they're mindless. For instance, there's no English word for domestic female canine but "bitch" ( a "dog" is always male), and there are when I'd like to be able to use it in it's non-slang sense on "G" and "PG" type sites.

I don't see any way that problem could be resolved, since the meaning of most words depends not only on context but on the speakers' intent. When there exists AI that can determine the latter, I'll be duly impressed.

So will I! ...supposing I live that long ;)

CF's nanny program is interesting because it's geared to theology...and yet, it's not, because CF's nanny is no better at discerning word meaning by context than is yours.
The term "Hell" is perfectly acceptible, of course, but "ass" is not, so that members there are stuck with speaking of "Balaam's donkey". I find it ironic that the KJV is the Bible version most censored there.

<snip>
I would never post regularly at a place where any words are systematically filtered for all members because I prefer the freedom to choose what I say. By the same token I can't relate to the need to have others' comments filtered either. :shrug:

I understand how you feel, vm, and making your nanny program a member option is nothing short of brilliant!

Where I see a need for one is at boards which have a great many younger people posting. I love posting with my young genius friends at an LOTR board, and would hate to see them barred from it by their parental units because of swearing, when there are other ways to adequately, if not pithily or perfectly, express myself without using them.

I also have internet friends who are offended by the practice, or who don't know the meaning of most swear words, just as I do in my so-called real life, and both sides of my family share a minimal swearing tradition: they are saved for when no other word is quite as effective. ;)

The result is that I have no philosophical objection to tempering my freedom of expression with a little courtesy here and there.
Sadly, I'm capable of an apalling degree rudeness without ever employing a single vulgar term, and this is what I usually worry most about. :(

Of course, it's far easier for me to temper my language at other boards now that I have FF to come to; I find it restful and relaxing not to have to watch my words every second of every post. Thank you, VM. :D

[lisarea]

At a PG-13 board at which I worked, we referring to Philip K. Dick as "Phil" because the nanny program filtered out that proper name.

I just have to tell this story I heard once: Apparently, someone was beta testing some kind of nanny program for Tivo or something that bowdlerized television listings from the feed, and it changed the Dick van Dyke Show to the Jerk van Lesbian Show.

It might not be true, but I still had to tell the story since the opportunity arose and all.

[John Carter]

I just have to tell this story I heard once: Apparently, someone was beta testing some kind of nanny program for Tivo or something that bowdlerized television listings from the feed, and it changed the Dick van Dyke Show to the Jerk van Lesbian Show.

It might not be true, but I still had to tell the story since the opportunity arose and all.

:hysteric: :roflmao: :hysteric: :roflmao: :hysteric: :roflmao: :haha: :biglaugh:

If that's not true, it should be!

[Ensign Steve]

At a PG-13 board at which I worked, we referring to Philip K. Dick as "Phil" because the nanny program filtered out that proper name.

I just have to tell this story I heard once: Apparently, someone was beta testing some kind of nanny program for Tivo or something that bowdlerized television listings from the feed, and it changed the Dick van Dyke Show to the Jerk van Lesbian Show.

It might not be true, but I still had to tell the story since the opportunity arose and all.

I heard it as Penis van Lesbian, and it is most definitely a joke! :)

[viscousmemories]

In fact, I think the serious/frivolous dichotomy is a false one which in particular does not seem applicable to a dynamic verbal medium like an online discussion board.
This point is a very good one, and I'm sorry if I've said anything that contributes to the idea that I think non-'serious' discussions are all frivolous. In fact we talked about that extensively when we set up the structure of the forums here, and it's precisely because we weren't happy with the fact that other boards (such as IIDB) differentiate between "upper fora" (for philosophical discussions and debates) and "lower fora" (for socializing) that we put the Watering Hole on top and intermingled the other 'serious' fora with the more 'social' fora. As far as we're concerned socializing is every bit as important as ideological debate, if they're not intrinsically entwined.

[Brimshack]

liv:

I am not married to the term "frivolous." It was meant as a paraphrase of what I took to be Abe's position. He used the term "pointless," as I recall, and I simply adopted his language for my one paragraph response. All of your points about the dichotomy are perfectly valid. Since I am not the least bit embarassed about participating in "frivolous" discussions, and since I devote a fair amount of my time to them, I would hope it is clear that I do value them.

Seven:

I am sorry for my impatience. I am simply shocked that you would think I was personally insulting you, and unable to think of any workable strategy for communicating with you about this issue. And I don't know how you and I can possibly get along if you think I think your a lightweight. That is as far off of my actual opinion about you as any statement could possibly be. I simply don't believe that I have said anything remotely near to the position you have attributed to me, and if I can't get that point through, then I don't know what else to say.

VM:

Can't decide whether or not to do a paragraph-by-paragraph response. Probably will.

General: I am sorry that my post has caused so much stress. It was made in haste, I collapsed several arguments into one, and its effect seems to have been nearly the exact opposite of its original intent. I do think I was making a valid point, but I also realize that, as worded it implied somethings I didn't intend. Even the worst possible construction of that post would not entail some of the ideas attributed to me in this thread, and I am still pretty pissed about that. But I have to admit that I could have worded things better to begin with. I am sorry to anyone who thought my intent was to denigrate the site. It was not.

[MonCapitan2002]

[deleted]

[godfry n. glad]

What an interesting thread.

I'm one of those folks who thinks of FF as "home". It's where I come for both serious and nonserious (yes, even frivolous) conversation. I have other boards to which I go, for various reasons. I was at one time an active moderator on a very serious board. My primary objective was keeping posters on topic and civil....rather like cat-wrangling. I found that II was a good place to go to relax and socialize, as well as find excellent intellectual exchange. The thing was, I couldn't express some very basic opinions without having some nanny prodding me....which, along with my short fuse, got me tossed permenantly. Here is much better. There are many of the same participants as at II and I can express my often bitter opinions openly.

Thus, it serves both purposes for me. JM is much more serious and focused, but doesn't wander into other intellectual fields that interest me. Hyperboreans is replete with ponderous philosophical pretensions that I'm not psychically prepared for at this point in my life, but served as a decent port in a very bad storm. HH is where I can blow off steam and chitchat about non-belief and its interface with theism. I suspect that Ebla will fulfill my needs in terms of serious discussion on a topic that interests me deeply, but it still doesn't address other intellectual interests of mine. Here, I like that I can engage with knowledgeable theists and socialize with all sorts on an open basis. And I love seeing all the wit...and occasionally using half mine.

As for profanity, I'm not above using it, but it's usually when I'm exceedingly frustrated and angry. Roland referred to me as "venomous" when I'm angry...yet, I don't use profanity to any real extent. I just use the other terminology available in the rich milieu of English. Profanity has a purpose. I think AA has set himself an impossible task and salute those who have, in this thread, tweaked him with their posts.

Smilies. Again, I'm not a big user, and I probably should use them more, as I tend to use sarcasm, entendre and allusion a lot and people misread me when I don't warn them with smilies. And, yes, I tend to not use smilies when I'm posting serious opinion.

Hey, Abe.... You've expressed your opinion. Good for you.

Y'know what? I. Don't. Care. :angrynana:

godfry

(I'll bet the filter doesn't get "liquor in the front, poker in the rear")

[MonCapitan2002]

Smilies. I HATE seeing them ALL THE TIME. You must think you are cool if you use smilies that are unique/funny/fitting, but you are not cool. You are lame. Especially you, livius. Smilies are for teens, pre-teens, and noobs of chatrooms, bloggers, and forums.
I happen to like smilies. I would prefer that they stay. While overuse of smilies can be annoying at times, I do happen to like them



Excess profanity. If you cuss like a high-school bitch all the goddamn time, then you are contributing to the overinflation of such words. Leave them out of your thread titles, for God's sake.
I see nothing wrong with the use of profanity. If the use of profanity bothers you so much, go join a more family oriented forum like the one over at RPGamer. They do not allow profanity to the extent this board and IIDB does. Maybe that community would suit you better.



Too much attention to avatars and usernames. Stupid, stupid, stupid. If someone else changed his or her avatar, it doesn't matter. You are better off picking a good avatar and sticking with it forever so that your posts are easily identified.
I happen to like avatars. One of the things that bugs me about the IIDB message forums is that they do not allow them. While I understand their concerns about bandwidth usage (which can be mitigated by not allowing avatar uploading), I would still wish if they allowed them. If you don't like avatars, then simply disable the option to view them. Since this board allows user choosable avatars, there are bound to be times when members choose to change their avatars.



Pointless threads. Yeah, let's have some more threads where we can show off our smily skills and make lots and lots of small talk.
What is wrong with "pointless threads"? In my opinion, such threads add to the community feel of a message board. While they can get out of hand (one of the things that turned my off from the RPGamer message boards for a while was the obscene overabundance of such threads) they do add the element of online conversation. So long as such threads are not created for the purpose of increasing one's post count, I don't see the problem with that.



Is it just me or is there an overabundance of women in this forum? There was once a time when the Internet was a man-zone. Those were the days.
This is a problem, why? Women are awesome! :D That comment seems more than a little misogynistic. I do not mind spending time in a thread populated by a large number of members of the fairer sex. Then again, I do enjoy the company of teh ladies, so I guess I could be a bit biased in that regard.

If you really want to see a forum that encompasses the problems you complained about, then go here (http://forums.ffgon.com/index.php?s=). Now that is a forum that at times was unnavigable. Allowing more than one sig image is just insane. When I was a member there were a lot of barely literate poster who posted using horrible English.

[Ex-zombie]

That's a pretty crazy site.

Although it did have this avatar which I could watch for hours:

http://img236.exs.cx/img236/9858/bouncyavatar6zy.gif



Just for the record I never thought Brim was talking about me nor did I feel he was insulting me in any part of his posts. I was responding only to what Seven posted about mental lightweights and frivolity.

[Crumb]

That's a pretty crazy site.

Although it did have this avatar which I could watch for hours:

http://img236.exs.cx/img236/9858/bouncyavatar6zy.gif

:eek: Wow, how do those things stay in there?!

[MonCapitan2002]

That's a pretty crazy site.

Although it did have this avatar which I could watch for hours:

http://img236.exs.cx/img236/9858/bouncyavatar6zy.gif (http://img236.exs.cx/img236/9858/bouncyavatar6zy.gif)



Just for the record I never thought Brim was talking about me nor did I feel he was insulting me in any part of his posts. I was responding only to what Seven posted about mental lightweights and frivolity.
Are you referring to the link I posted? If so, then yeah. The go overboard in several aspects.

[Crumb]

MC: You might want to edit the repeated post up there. Just leave the last paragraph in the second one, right?

[Brimshack]

Okay, there are enough specifics that still need answering, I'm going to go ahead and do it this way, but I'm going to try and bypass any points where we are close enough to seeing eye to eye to let it pass. Anyway...

I know your not trying to give me shit, but I want to be clear about why I am and am not saying. I am not suggesting that a forum should be either for serious discussion or frivolous discussion, not do I think FF is purely frivolous. Hence, my decision to respond at least partly to your own post and to try and explain why I think in pratice individuals may use a forum for one or the other.
I don't think you and I are talking about the same thing, Brim. I never meant to accuse you of saying the FF is or should be a purely frivolous forum. I've only been responding to your statement that that's all it is for you and "the bulk of us". Specifically, this comment to Seven of Nine:

I could be wrong, but I think the bulk of us are taking our regaular debates elsewhere, not because of the quality of intellect here, but because of the particular relationship that this site has to the others in which we participate.

I actually, I think you used the word "purely" or some comparable examples to paraphrase my position. Hence, my need for the disclaimer above. Your description of my position above is closer to my actual position, but I would delete "all." I expect that's a fair paraphrase of my statements thus far, but my intention was only describe a general pattern. Generally speaking I do look elsewhere for serious debates; that is not always the case.

I guess I don't see any difference between saying "the bulk of us take our regular debates elsewhere" and "the bulk of us view the FF as a place for non-serious discussions".

There isn't, except perhaps that the second sentence could convey normative values which the first doesn't. What I have been trying to describe is what I take to be the de facto state of affairs, and I would want to avoid suggesting anything to stronger than that.

With respect to Seven and Ex-Z, I have only to say that I haven't personally made any attempt whatsoever to compare the intellects of any individuals to those of others. Arguments about the quality of a forum or a discussion may often do that, but it has nothing whatsoever to do with my claims in this thread.
I'm sure you haven't done that. I have no idea how you feel about Seven of Nine or Ex-Zombie, but I know you respect me and livius enough that you wouldn't make that kind of insinuation about people here as a whole.

Thank you. The fact is the respect goes to the rest of the membership here as well.

I'm not sure that I said the bulk of the forum feels the same as me, and it wouldn't take a substantial majority. I look at this way, when you log-onto a site what is your expectation? What did you have in mind when you clicked the link? For me when I click the link to this forum it is for social interaction. When I click the link for CF it's for polemic arguments. And when I click the link at II it's for, well frankly for work at this point. This doesn't mean I'm only going to do the one thing I have in mind, but it does skew the probability of any particular interactions I will have while here.
You know now where I got "the bulk of us" from, and I know that all you've been trying to say all along is that when you personally click on the link to the FF, your aim is social interaction. As I said you're definitely not alone. I've noticed a number of members here do all of their serious discussing and debating elsewhere, and post primarily in the more social forums here. However there are also a number of people here who for various reasons engage in serious discussions and debates here exclusively.

No, I have said more than me do that as well, and I could be wrong, but note that you are describing the exact same thing that I have been describing in this paragraph. If I am definitely not alone, then my observation stands. We perceive the implications of this phenomenon differently, but if you take out the word "all" and replace it with most, then eally, this is the basis of my original comment, and everything that I have said since.

I am also aware of the fact that some engage in serious debates here exclusively, and my only regret in my current posting trends is that I do not engage you more often, because you are only posting here as far as I can tell, and I am mostly here to socialize. But again, this strikes me as a de facto state of affairs, not a point of principle.

The quantity of posters may be part of it as you suggest, and I would add that the likelihood of finding constructive disagreement is also a factor, as is the weight of opportunity costs against ones' other commitments. And there is also a trace of inertia as well, a tendancy to argue where one has argued before and joke where one has gone to joke before. But all of this goes to the issue of how you explain the difference, not whether or not the difference is there.
I agree. What I am disputing is that the difference is there for a majority of the active members here. Honestly I think you have a bit of a confirmation bias going on here. Since your intent when you come here is primarily social, I suspect you mostly stay in the more lighthearted forums and focus on the more frivolous threads. All I'm saying is that I really don't think that describes the majority of the interactions here.

I think it does describe the majority of interactions here, but not necessarily the majority of interactants. A brief scan of the site shows that the debate fora move much more slowly than the social fora, and many of the threads in the potential debate fora are also light in tone. This again could be due to the number of posters as much as anything else, but it doesn't require that the majority of teh posters take an attitude similar to mine. I think the fact that a number of us are, as conceded above, is sufficient to tilt the balance. I also think there you need to reach a certain critical mass for the debate threads to take off. I think that will happen when more people can log on and expect to get an answer to their views within a few hours of posting them. Until then, I suspect the majority of actual posts will continue to be directed towards socializing rather than theoretical discussion. I hope that happens, I really do, but I do not find the present state of affairs objectionable.

And I will add that you may be right that I am showing a confirmation bias; I just don't think so. I guess we could count up the posts, or we could accept the difference in perception and move on.

Final note: You might get more debate soon than in the past. For a long time the bulk of the membership here was essentially the crowd from HH, but now you have more Theists on the site now as well as people of different political outlooks. The crowd is less homogeneous than before, and in time that could spark more debate. The potential is there; I just don't see it happening yet.

My impression is that the sociable threads move faster here than the discussion threads. Could also be that that in itself is a factor, and that debate will pick up as the likelihood of real-time exchanges in those threads increase. Or my impression could be wrong. I just don't think so.
I think that's been true in every forum I've been a part of, for the reasons liv explained. It's easier and quicker to make frivolous posts than long, serious well-researched posts. That's why I mentioned the numbers of users earlier. When you have 500 users online at any given time, the chances of your getting more activity even on threads that require more long, thoughtful posts are greatly increased.

Yes, sociable threads do move faster in general, but I also think there is a kind of synergy effect to this. If you don't expect a thread to move in a short time, you are less likely to check it and less likely to post in it. The end result is that you need a critical mass to use the debate fora more often before people will start to log-on for that purpose. So long as an entire day may go by without any new posts in a forum, it isn't going to be the reason people actually come to the forum.

I appreciate your respect. But seriously, I do not view this as a purely social forum, and I haven't said that it is. What I said was that there appears to be more socializing going on than theoretical discussion. I think this explains some of the current trends that AA was complaining about.
Again I think this is just a miscommunication. I'm only addressing what you said the FF is for you, and what you seem to think it is for a majority of others.

I see now.

Then again it may be that we're just talking about different things. I don't expect there to be the quantity or intensity of ideological discussions or debates here that one would expect to find at CF or IIDB, but I don't see why anyone would see us as inherently ill-suited for non-religious discussions or debates.

But that's just it. What I was saying is I don't expect the level of intensity either. But I'm not suggesting that the site is il-suited to it either. I do think smileys, etc, can be a distraction when engaging in such debates, but that is largely a function of how people use them. I would hope that for a serious debate the quantity of smileys would come down from the average here. But my point was that if the general trend of the site is largely social, then the current quantity of smileys and so forth are not a problem.
I'm really confused by what you're saying here. You say if the general trend of the site is largely social, then the current quantity of smilies and so forth are not a problem. Doesn't that imply that if the general trend of the site is to be largely serious then the current quantity of smilies and so forth are a problem?

Yes it does, but that problem can take two forms:

1) The bells and whistles can be an inherent obstacle. I think there is an element of that, if for no other reason that that AA and some others find it problematic. I could also count off several debates I've had at CF where smileys and avatars were genuinely an obstacle to communication and/or an excuse to duck issues. In general, I think it's a legitimate concern, but not a decisive one. I like II's clean slate, and I like some of the bells and whistles here. It's a choice, one with mild consequences at worst, but a choice nonetheless.

2) Some of this is self-enforcing. In serious debates, I honestly don't want to see a lot of smileys. I especially hate it when posters add smiley faces to blunt or even insulting arguments and expect the smile to take the edge of the criticism. The end result is snideness, and I am amazed at the number of people I have seen who don't realize that. Some of the posters at CF with the worst reputation for rudeness appear to have genuinely thought their smileys were sufficient to make up for objectionable content. It can be a problem. But this is a problem that can be corrected by choice. Remember that I was responding to complaints about the current level of such things at FF, and my point was that such things are not objectionable given the current ratio of sociable to theoretical discussions. Were the latter ration to change, I would hope so would the former.

No, I don't blame you for pressing. At the very least a point fo clarification from me was in order. And I'm sorry if my comments came accross as denegrating the site. I just don't think the more serious discussions have flourished like they could. That may or may not be a problem. For now it's just an observation.
I honestly never thought you were intentionally denigrating the site, I was just disappointed that you are primarily interested in frivolous interactions here. And this isn't just about you or this thread, either. I've been disappointed for a long time by the fact that a number of people seem to feel that way about the FF, since the only way we're going to maintain the quality and quantity of serious discussions we have had to date and avoid becoming Yet Another Chatroom is if the members here feed those discussions.

Again to be clear, I'm not saying that anyone should feel like they must participate in X number of serious threads here or X number of silly threads. But I would like to disabuse anyone who might have a misconception of our purpose here of the notion that the FF is intended as a place for non-serious discussions to supplement the more 'serious' forums.

We have exactly the same hopes for this site that we had for our last site, where this exact issue arose. The majority of the members there viewed the site as a frivolous adjunct to IIDB and treated it as such. So we let it remain as that and moved on to start a new site, open to everyone and with a better mix (so we hoped) of options for more serious and frivolous discussions to thrive.

Fair enough, and I realize that my original comment potentially implies that the site is actually INTENDED as a social forum. It was not my intention to suggest such a thing, and I am sorry for the sloppy wording. I stand by my assertion that that seems to be the current state of affairs, but I would not want my views on the matter to provode an objection or an obstacle to any serious discussions taking place now or hoped for in the future.

[Dingfod]

I think it does describe the majority of interactions here, but not necessarily the majority of interactants. A brief scan of the site shows that the debate fora move much more slowly than the social fora, and many of the threads in the potential debate fora are also light in tone. I think it implies only that we'd rather make love than war.

1) The bells and whistles can be an inherent obstacle. I think there is an element of that, if for no other reason that that AA and some others find it problematic. I could also count off several debates I've had at CF where smileys and avatars were genuinely an obstacle to communication and/or an excuse to duck issues. You said the magic woid:
http://www.msu.edu/~daggy/cop/images/00000221.gif

[xorbie]

I think I agree with Brim, but I haven't read a lot of the thread.

[Dingfod]

It's all my fault. I make about half of all the posts here and I never ever post anything serious. Blame me.

[MonCapitan2002]

MC: You might want to edit the repeated post up there. Just leave the last paragraph in the second one, right?
Huh? How did that double post happen? ??? I meant to edit the post previous to that one. I'll edit the earlier one shortly.

[WinAce]

Is it just me or is there an overabundance of women in this forum? There was once a time when the Internet was a man-zone. Those were the days.

What do you have against those womanoids, anyway? :chin:

[viscousmemories]

Thanks for the detailed response, Brim. Just so you know this discussion really hasn't stressed me out at all. I haven't been deeply offended by anything you've said, and I really don't think we're very far apart in our perception of things. I hope you don't feel it's my intention to antagonize you at all. That said, I'll try to say just a few words, hopefully without being redundant...

No, I have said more than me do that as well, and I could be wrong, but note that you are describing the exact same thing that I have been describing in this paragraph. If I am definitely not alone, then my observation stands. We perceive the implications of this phenomenon differently, but if you take out the word "all" and replace it with most, then eally, this is the basis of my original comment, and everything that I have said since.
Right. We definitely agree that there are some people who view the FF as a place for social intercourse and post elsewhere when they want to have serious debates. But I think our disagreement is not so much about what we perceive as the implications of the phenomenon, but how widespread it is. If I understand you correctly you seem to think it applies to many or most of the members here, whereas I think it only applies to some. But I honestly have no idea which of us is right about this, btw, so I apologize if I've appeared to be saying you're definitely wrong.

I am also aware of the fact that some engage in serious debates here exclusively, and my only regret in my current posting trends is that I do not engage you more often, because you are only posting here as far as I can tell, and I am mostly here to socialize. But again, this strikes me as a de facto state of affairs, not a point of principle.
Thanks. You're right, I still post on other forums but very rarely. This is definitely the only place I would say I am an active, regular poster. The reasons for that are many (and some are probably obvious) but not least is because I think our software, format and administrative approach is superior to that of the other forums I've been a part of.

I think it does describe the majority of interactions here, but not necessarily the majority of interactants. A brief scan of the site shows that the debate fora move much more slowly than the social fora, and many of the threads in the potential debate fora are also light in tone.
Regarding liv's point I still think it's problematic to discuss social vs. debate fora as though there is a clear demarcation between them. Even so, I thought we were talking about the number of threads not the speed at which existing threads move. Since we have about a dozen fora here and only one of them is devoted to frivolous banter, I would expect to see a lot more action in that one forum than in any of the others by itself. But when you compare it with all the others combined, I think you get a different picture.

As for whether they are light in tone - I'm not sure how serious he was, but I think warrenly made a good point about us being more interested in love than war around here. But I'm not sure what you meant by that.

Final note: You might get more debate soon than in the past. For a long time the bulk of the membership here was essentially the crowd from HH, but now you have more Theists on the site now as well as people of different political outlooks. The crowd is less homogeneous than before, and in time that could spark more debate. The potential is there; I just don't see it happening yet.
I agree. We definitely have a more diverse crowd than just the IIDB'ers we started with (many of our most active members are primarily active here or at CF, SkepticalCommunity, or ForumGarden) and the potential for more serious debates than we've had yet exists. But honestly I think the main reason this hasn't happened yet isn't that most people view this as more of a social site, but because we don't have an ideological front (aside from 'freethought', which is fairly ambiguous) for people to align themselves with or attack. So it's kind of "every man for himself", which I think can be pretty intimidating to newcomers and old acquaintences alike.

1) The bells and whistles can be an inherent obstacle. I think there is an element of that, if for no other reason that that AA and some others find it problematic. I could also count off several debates I've had at CF where smileys and avatars were genuinely an obstacle to communication and/or an excuse to duck issues. In general, I think it's a legitimate concern, but not a decisive one. I like II's clean slate, and I like some of the bells and whistles here. It's a choice, one with mild consequences at worst, but a choice nonetheless.
I guess I just don't see how it continues to be a problem in light of the fact that it's possible to completely disable avatars, signatures, images, smilies, and censor 'profane' language. I honestly don't know what more we could do to enable people to have as sterile an environment as they want.

2) In serious debates, I honestly don't want to see a lot of smileys. I especially hate it when posters add smiley faces to blunt or even insulting arguments and expect the smile to take the edge of the criticism. The end result is snideness, and I am amazed at the number of people I have seen who don't realize that.
I completely agree with you. I find excessive smilies in serious discussions can be annoying, and incongruous smilies strike me as patently disingenuous and disrespectful.

Fair enough, and I realize that my original comment potentially implies that the site is actually INTENDED as a social forum. It was not my intention to suggest such a thing, and I am sorry for the sloppy wording. I stand by my assertion that that seems to be the current state of affairs, but I would not want my views on the matter to provode an objection or an obstacle to any serious discussions taking place now or hoped for in the future.
And I appreciate your clarification and stand by my assertion that you're wrong! Just kidding. I will say that I attribute our different perceptions to the fact that you are around here much less frequently than I am, you're used to the pace of CF and IIDB, and you post in predominantly frivolous threads when you are here. So for example while I might've been involved in 10 serious discussions here in a week (which is not unusual) you might not have even noticed that those threads moved. This isn't to say that your perception is inaccurate or invalid, I just think these may be why we see the activity here differently.

[Corona688]

:P Smilies :D Kick :chin: Fucking :giggle: Ass! :yup: Yay, it's the traditional gang-up-and-inflict-things-they-hate-on-people-who-don't-like-it game. Clue me in, why do people do this? Maybye abe should it to his list of FF customs that gnaw at his patience, I'm adding it to mine.

[livius drusus]

I doubt that syndrome is unique to FF, Corona. Unlike the custom filters which allow Abe to swat away such needling.

[beyelzu]

:P Smilies :D Kick :chin: Fucking :giggle: Ass! :yup: Yay, it's the traditional gang-up-and-inflict-things-they-hate-on-people-who-don't-like-it game. Clue me in, why do people do this? Maybye abe should it to his list of FF customs that gnaw at his patience, I'm adding it to mine.
maybe TomJoe thought abe was either not completely serious or trolling, and responded as such. I dont see the same petty vindictiveness that you do.

[lisarea]

It's usually some form of good-natured teasing. Like how everyone keeps little mental lists of liv's pet peeves to toss at her at opportune moments.

If anyone were actually taking smilies and naughty words and things like that so seriously that they'd actually be seriously bothered by them, well, then, um, welcome to the intarweb, n00b. (ESPECIALLY if that same person sees fit to pine for the good old days of the All-Man Internet in the next breath. Phbbbt!)

PS: I don't like smilies, either, but I barely die at all from looking at them.

PPS: :P

[viscousmemories]

I hope Brimshack doesn't catch on that I've tricked him into having a serious debate here.

[Brimshack]

Bastard!

[Soubrette]

Yay, it's the traditional gang-up-and-inflict-things-they-hate-on-people-who-don't-like-it game. Clue me in, why do people do this? Maybye abe should it to his list of FF customs that gnaw at his patience, I'm adding it to mine.

I can tell you why I did it but not anyone else :)

Basically Abe's response to someone else who didn't like his posts was "don't read it" a perfectly reasonable response imo.

So it seemed reasonable to tease him a bit about him posting his dislikes especially on a board which gives so much control over what you can choose and choose not to see.

Sou

[Brimshack]

Thanks for the detailed response, Brim. Just so you know this discussion really hasn't stressed me out at all. I haven't been deeply offended by anything you've said, and I really don't think we're very far apart in our perception of things. I hope you don't feel it's my intention to antagonize you at all. That said, I'll try to say just a few words, hopefully without being redundant...

I don't feel that's your intention. Everything is fine on this end.

No, I have said more than me do that as well, and I could be wrong, but note that you are describing the exact same thing that I have been describing in this paragraph. If I am definitely not alone, then my observation stands. We perceive the implications of this phenomenon differently, but if you take out the word "all" and replace it with most, then eally, this is the basis of my original comment, and everything that I have said since.
Right. We definitely agree that there are some people who view the FF as a place for social intercourse and post elsewhere when they want to have serious debates. But I think our disagreement is not so much about what we perceive as the implications of the phenomenon, but how widespread it is. If I understand you correctly you seem to think it applies to many or most of the members here, whereas I think it only applies to some. But I honestly have no idea which of us is right about this, btw, so I apologize if I've appeared to be saying you're definitely wrong.

There is perhaps also a disagreement over the potential impact that a few people with that inclination could have on the forum. But I'm not sure myself.

I am also aware of the fact that some engage in serious debates here exclusively, and my only regret in my current posting trends is that I do not engage you more often, because you are only posting here as far as I can tell, and I am mostly here to socialize. But again, this strikes me as a de facto state of affairs, not a point of principle.
Thanks. You're right, I still post on other forums but very rarely. This is definitely the only place I would say I am an active, regular poster. The reasons for that are many (and some are probably obvious) but not least is because I think our software, format and administrative approach is superior to that of the other forums I've been a part of.

Arguably, a sound evaluation. I don't really have a clear preference; it strikes me more as an art than a science. But I certainly enjoy the layout and the interactions.

I think it does describe the majority of interactions here, but not necessarily the majority of interactants. A brief scan of the site shows that the debate fora move much more slowly than the social fora, and many of the threads in the potential debate fora are also light in tone.
Regarding liv's point I still think it's problematic to discuss social vs. debate fora as though there is a clear demarcation between them. Even so, I thought we were talking about the number of threads not the speed at which existing threads move. Since we have about a dozen fora here and only one of them is devoted to frivolous banter, I would expect to see a lot more action in that one forum than in any of the others by itself. But when you compare it with all the others combined, I think you get a different picture.

As for whether they are light in tone - I'm not sure how serious he was, but I think warrenly made a good point about us being more interested in love than war around here. But I'm not sure what you meant by that.

Fair enough. Okay, so if we were to plot the socialization value versus intellectual exploration value on a cline, thus skipping the ned for a clear line of demarcation, I guess the question is whether or not the quantity of time put into the site leans more toward one end of the scale or the other. The quantity of posts leaning one way or the other would be effected by both the number of threads and the speed at which they are produced. Then we'd have to see how the cline for this site compares to those of others, and what might the balance be reasonably expected to come out to. Alternatively, the cline could be measured for individual participants and compared for their participation accros different boards. All in all, I think think this forum tends to fall more toward the socializing end of the spectrum, but perhaps I am wrong about that.

As for the lovers rather than fighters thig, I'm not entirely sure I buy it; most of us have drawn our share of blood on other forums and even in specific threads here. Some of us even look foreword to intellectual combat under the right circumstances. I think it would be more appropriate to say that we'd rather not fight each other, ...most of the time. But even then, this strikes me more as an explanation for the balance of social to theoretical discussions than an argument for or against my snese of what that balance is.

Final note: You might get more debate soon than in the past. For a long time the bulk of the membership here was essentially the crowd from HH, but now you have more Theists on the site now as well as people of different political outlooks. The crowd is less homogeneous than before, and in time that could spark more debate. The potential is there; I just don't see it happening yet.
I agree. We definitely have a more diverse crowd than just the IIDB'ers we started with (many of our most active members are primarily active here or at CF, SkepticalCommunity, or ForumGarden) and the potential for more serious debates than we've had yet exists. But honestly I think the main reason this hasn't happened yet isn't that most people view this as more of a social site, but because we don't have an ideological front (aside from 'freethought', which is fairly ambiguous) for people to align themselves with or attack. So it's kind of "every man for himself", which I think can be pretty intimidating to newcomers and old acquaintences alike.

Note that your explanation in this paragraph and mine are not mutually exlusive. It may very well be that without clear battle lines people are more apt to socialize than debate, precisely because it's harder to frame the debates and somewhat more intimidating when you can't clearly anticipate what the other side is going to argue.

1) The bells and whistles can be an inherent obstacle. I think there is an element of that, if for no other reason that that AA and some others find it problematic. I could also count off several debates I've had at CF where smileys and avatars were genuinely an obstacle to communication and/or an excuse to duck issues. In general, I think it's a legitimate concern, but not a decisive one. I like II's clean slate, and I like some of the bells and whistles here. It's a choice, one with mild consequences at worst, but a choice nonetheless.
I guess I just don't see how it continues to be a problem in light of the fact that it's possible to completely disable avatars, signatures, images, smilies, and censor 'profane' language. I honestly don't know what more we could do to enable people to have as sterile an environment as they want.

It would be a problem is some people don't have the maturity to ignore the features (manually or electronically), or if people are unaware of the features that enable them to ignore it. Like I said, I don't think this is a decisive concern. More is probably gained from the visuals than lost from this choice, but there does remain a residue of a down-side here.

2) In serious debates, I honestly don't want to see a lot of smileys. I especially hate it when posters add smiley faces to blunt or even insulting arguments and expect the smile to take the edge of the criticism. The end result is snideness, and I am amazed at the number of people I have seen who don't realize that.
I completely agree with you. I find excessive smilies in serious discussions can be annoying, and incongruous smilies strike me as patently disingenuous and disrespectful.

...and I think most would agree with this general impression, which is why I would hope the quantity of smileys would go down if the quantity of serious discussions went up. I still wouldn't want them gone entirely, just used more sparingly.

Fair enough, and I realize that my original comment potentially implies that the site is actually INTENDED as a social forum. It was not my intention to suggest such a thing, and I am sorry for the sloppy wording. I stand by my assertion that that seems to be the current state of affairs, but I would not want my views on the matter to provode an objection or an obstacle to any serious discussions taking place now or hoped for in the future.
And I appreciate your clarification and stand by my assertion that you're wrong! Just kidding. I will say that I attribute our different perceptions to the fact that you are around here much less frequently than I am, you're used to the pace of CF and IIDB, and you post in predominantly frivolous threads when you are here. So for example while I might've been involved in 10 serious discussions here in a week (which is not unusual) you might not have even noticed that those threads moved. This isn't to say that your perception is inaccurate or invalid, I just think these may be why we see the activity here differently.

A reasonable argument, and if the difference in perception is due solely to this than my statement about the forum itself is inaccurate. But I don't think the difference in participation completely accounts for the different perception in this instance.

[Brimshack]

Warrenly, you need to be careful. I hear they shoot Marxists out your way. And they may not know the difference.

[viscousmemories]

Well I'm glad that's settled. Now quit being part of the problem and start a deep thread.

[Brimshack]

Okay, so now if I start a thread, it'll automatically count as a claim that my OP counts as deep.

Setting me up for a fall, are you?

[Dingfod]

Warrenly, you need to be careful. I hear they shoot Marxists out your way. And they may not know the difference.Who you calling a commie? I'm a Groucho Marxist, not Karl. They'll have to shoot me in my pajamas. How they get into my pajamas I'll never know.

[kensloft]

Dear abe
fuck, shit, piss, cunt, twat, asshole, cocksucker, pussylicker, faggot, dickhead, vagina, how are you?

You are fuck, piss, shit, cunt, bitch, cocksucking, pussy-whipped, asshole, dickhead, faggot, twat, such a wonderful person.

I enjoy fuck, piss, shit, cunt, asshole, cocksucker, faggot, dickhead, vagina fucking, the way that you put these fucking, shitting, piss, bitch, cunt, dickhead, faggot, twat cocksucking, asshole peope all in their twat faggot place for their profanity. :popcorn:

I am looking forward to more of your fucking, bitch, cunt, piss, asshole, twat, cockheaded, shitting, cuntlapping, piece of shit, posts because they are so pure and astute.

kensloft.

Meanwhile, back at the ranch, the entertainment that I got from the thread is immense. I love to come here because you are all bright, intelligent, caring and filled with goodness. (except brimshack because he is a stoopid moron) Your humour is incredible and the repartee that you achieve bouncing off of each other is great and constitutes that there is something special that your community spirit has.

This is a fabulous site run and inhabited by the salt of the earth.

[viscousmemories]

Meanwhile, back at the ranch, the entertainment that I got from the thread is immense. I love to come here because you are all bright, intelligent, caring and filled with goodness. (except brimshack because he is a stoopid moron) Your humour is incredible and the repartee that you achieve bouncing off of each other is great and constitutes that there is something special that your community spirit has.
Thanks, kensloft. :yup:

This is a fabulous site run and inhabited by the salt of the earth.
I've never understood this saying. Don't you put salt in the Earth to stop things from growing? :chin:

[Seven of Nine]

[quote]...This is a fabulous site run and inhabited by the salt of the earth.

I've never understood this saying. Don't you put salt in the Earth to stop things from growing? :chin:

Yes, the site of Carthage was sown with salt to prevent it being settled again.

However, we and our livestock need salt to live, (the term "salary" is derived from the word for "salt"), salt was once our major food preservative, and was used as a medical treatment.

The saying itself is quoted from the words of Jesus (the Sermon on the Mount):
"You are the salt of the earth[world], but if salt becomes tasteless, how is its saltness to be restored?"
(Mt. 5:13)
There are various Old Testment references to offering salt as (or with) sacrifices, etc., and as an anology, eg. "It is a covenant of salt forever before the Lord" (Num. 8:19), and there are many American towns founded because of the presence of salt deposits, and therefore called "lick", like French Lick, Indiana.
Nowadays, with salt mined so easily, we tend to worry about having to much as a dietary suppliment, rather than to little, but salt was once a precious commodity, thus the analogy.

Too much information, vm? :D

[viscousmemories]

Too much information, vm? :D
There's no such thing as to much information.

Or too much information, for that matter. :D

Thanks for the info. I'm genuinely fascinated by the history of words and phrases. :)



Sorry, had to tease you for "to much as a dietary suppliment, rather than to little". It's a pet peeve.

[Crumb]

Too much information

Not for me 7of9, Great post! For those who need more check out Salt: A World History by I. Forget.

[Seven of Nine]

Too much information, vm? :D
There's no such thing as to much information.

Or too much information, for that matter. :D

Agreed, but I do bore some people and, online, I can't see my friends' eyes glazing over. ;)

Thanks for the info. I'm genuinely fascinated by the history of words and phrases. :)

Me, too! What fun! My dictionary gives thorough word derivations, and I have lots of books on the subject.

Many adages are taken from Biblical (the KJV) and Shakepeareian (help me!!) sources, but since words change their meaning over time, and such sayings are used outside of their cultural context, they're inadvertantly misquoted.

Sorry, had to tease you for "to much as a dietary suppliment, rather than to little". It's a pet peeve.

Horribly enough, it's a pet peeve of mine, too.
The neurological problems I now enjoy are great humblers.
I was so proud of my spelling skills... :sadcheer:
How the mighty spellers are fallen, eh, vm? :D

I post at one board which tells the world, not only that a member has edited, but how many times.
On bad days, a post of mine which says only "Happy Birthday!" may read below it "edited by Plan 9 five times"
and this is only when I can perceive that I'm making mistakes. :blush3:
What a tattletale that program is!

[Seven of Nine]

Too much information

Not for me 7of9, Great post! For those who need more check out Salt: A World History by I. Forget.

hmmm...
I've read a lot of books by that author.

[godfry n. glad]

I was so proud of my spelling skills... :sadcheer:
How the mighty spellers are fallen, eh, vm? :D


Bumpersticker:

Pore Spellurs UNTIE!

[pescifish]

This is a fabulous site run and inhabited by the salt of the earth.
I've never understood this saying. Don't you put salt in the Earth to stop things from growing? :chin:And the stuff for snails' tails and for rubbing into old wounds. Versatile it is, that ol' salt!

[kensloft]

Meanwhile, back at the ranch, the entertainment that I got from the thread is immense. I love to come here because you are all bright, intelligent, caring and filled with goodness. (except brimshack because he is a stoopid moron) Your humour is incredible and the repartee that you achieve bouncing off of each other is great and constitutes that there is something special that your community spirit has.
Thanks, kensloft. :yup:

This is a fabulous site run and inhabited by the salt of the earth.
I've never understood this saying. Don't you put salt in the Earth to stop things from growing? :chin:
Sodium chloride fer sure. Salt, an integral part of life, was often found in situ from eons past. No salt equalled death. Salt is therefore lifegiving. Uh? No! Maybe it's killing? No? Maybe it's life. Phooey, see what you've gone and dun. Yuh made me start thinking! Shit! Will it ever go away? Fuck more questions! Stop the world. Let me off goddammit!

Other salts work to enhance growth.

[viscousmemories]

Me, too! What fun! My dictionary gives thorough word derivations, and I have lots of books on the subject.
Cool. I don't have many books on the subject, but I do have What's the Good Word, a collection of NY Times "On Language" columns by William Safire. Really interesting stuff.


Horribly enough, it's a pet peeve of mine, too.
The neurological problems I now enjoy are great humblers.
I was so proud of my spelling skills... :sadcheer:
How the mighty spellers are fallen, eh, vm? :D
Yeah, I was a much better speller in 5th grade than I am now. :)

I post at one board which tells the world, not only that a member has edited, but how many times.
On bad days, a post of mine which says only "Happy Birthday!" may read below it "edited by Plan 9 five times"
and this is only when I can perceive that I'm making mistakes. :blush3:
What a tattletale that program is!
Ah yes, I hate that too. I try really hard not to get edit marks at all, which means all edits have to be done within 10 minutes. I actually fret quite a bit from time to time about whether its worse to leave an embarrassing typo I find or get an embarrassing edit mark. Yeah, I'm really that neurotic.

[godfry n. glad]

Too much information

Not for me 7of9, Great post! For those who need more check out Salt: A World History by I. Forget.

hmmm...
I've read a lot of books by that author.

Yeah, me too. But I thought that was by Mark Kurlanski. Salt, that is.

[Crumb]

Yeah, me too. But I thought that was by Mark Kurlanski. Salt, that is.

That's it godfry, though it is spelled with a 'y': 'Kurlansky.'

(I sure am having fun with punctuation these days.)

[JoeP]

Meanwhile, back at the ranch, the entertainment that I got from the thread is immense. I love to come here because you are all bright, intelligent, caring and filled with goodness. (except brimshack because he is a stoopid moron) Your humour is incredible and the repartee that you achieve bouncing off of each other is great and constitutes that there is something special that your community spirit has.
Thanks, kensloft. :yup:

This is a fabulous site run and inhabited by the salt of the earth.
I've never understood this saying. Don't you put salt in the Earth to stop things from growing? :chin:
Or even to make them shrink, in the case of slugs.

[viscousmemories]

That's it godfry, though it is spelled with a 'y': 'Kurlansky.'

(I sure am having fun with punctuation these days.)
I'm pretty sure your full stop is misplaced. As in, it should be:

That's it godfry, though it is spelled with a 'y': 'Kurlansky'.

[Seven of Nine]

That's it godfry, though it is spelled with a 'y': 'Kurlansky.'

(I sure am having fun with punctuation these days.)
I'm pretty sure your full stop is misplaced. As in, it should be:

That's it godfry, though it is spelled with a 'y': 'Kurlansky'.


erm..I can't perceive a difference between the two, vm. :crazy:

[Seven of Nine]

Meanwhile, back at the ranch, the entertainment that I got from the thread is immense. I love to come here because you are all bright, intelligent, caring and filled with goodness. (except brimshack because he is a stoopid moron) Your humour is incredible and the repartee that you achieve bouncing off of each other is great and constitutes that there is something special that your community spirit has.
Thanks, kensloft. :yup:

This is a fabulous site run and inhabited by the salt of the earth.
I've never understood this saying. Don't you put salt in the Earth to stop things from growing? :chin:
Or even to make them shrink, in the case of slugs.

I perfer to give them beer, myself, although many feel that if slugs want beer, they should have to come inside and get it from the refrigerator themselves, just like everyone else.

[viscousmemories]

erm..I can't perceive a difference between the two, vm. :crazy:
It's all about the placement of the last period. :)

[Seven of Nine]

erm..I can't perceive a difference between the two, vm. :crazy:
It's all about the placement of the last period. :)

YES! Now I see it! Thanks, vm!

Do you think there should be a comma between 'it' and 'godfry'?

Also, what about capitalizing user names when posting on the internet?
I can't get used to not capitalizing names. Am I screwing up when I do that, if the user name starts with a lower case letter?

[Crumb]

I don't know vm. BUt why'd you have to go and spoil all my fun?!

[Seven of Nine]

I don't know vm. BUt why'd you have to go and spoil all my fun?!

Someone has to do it, Crumb! :kickscan:

[Crumb]

Do you think there should be a comma between 'it' and 'godfry'?

Ok, this is the last time I mention punctuation. I have been trying to reduce my use of commas, because I am aware I often put them where they do not need to be.

Also, what about capitalizing user names when posting on the internet?
I can't get used to not capitalizing names. Am I screwing up when I do that, if the user name starts with a lower case letter?

I am absolutely certain I do not want to capitalize godfry's name. I have heard rumors. :wink:

[Seven of Nine]

[quote]Do you think there should be a comma between 'it' and 'godfry'?

Ok, this is the last time I mention punctuation. I have been trying to reduce my use of commas, because I am aware I often put them where they do not need to be.


Commas are a drag! Just when you think you know what you're doing, they go and change the Comma Rules! :whup:

[quote]Also, what about capitalizing user names when posting on the internet?
I can't get used to not capitalizing names. Am I screwing up when I do that, if the user name starts with a lower case letter?

I am absolutely certain I do not want to capitalize godfry's name. I have heard rumors. :wink:

uh oh :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek:

[lisarea]

That's it godfry, though it is spelled with a 'y': 'Kurlansky.'

(I sure am having fun with punctuation these days.)
I'm pretty sure your full stop is misplaced. As in, it should be:

That's it godfry, though it is spelled with a 'y': 'Kurlansky'.

No, that's a British thing still, I think.

American - Period inside the close quote.
British - Full stop outside the close quote.

It probably varies by style guide, but that's the general rule.

Exclamation points, question marks, and other things like em dashes go outside, though.

[viscousmemories]

Oh, wow. I was sure I was right about that.

That's just wrong, imo. I'll stop putting it outside when you start putting a space before ellipses.

7of9: As for capitalization of usernames, I know several people (livius drusus, godfry n. glad, etc.) who strongly prefer that their names not be capitalized, so as a general rule I reprint them as they are.

Oh, and I think the comma between 'it' and 'godfry' was appropriate. :yup:

[Crumb]

I know several people (livius drusus, godfry n. glad, etc.) who strongly prefer that their names not be capitalized,

heh heh, this must be why I always feel a strong urge to capitalize 'Liv'! :muahaha:

[Dingfod]

I saw the line about depending on the placement of the last period and all I could think of was calculating a due date.

[lisarea]

Oh, wow. I was sure I was right about that.

That's just wrong, imo. I'll stop putting it outside when you start putting a space before ellipses.

Well, isn't that just like you? You pick my pocket, break my leg, and just leave me lying there, hobbled and destitute, without the slightest expression of remorse! You beast! You insufferable BEAST!

But really. The only time someone has any authority to tell you you have to use some arbitrary standard like that is when they're paying you. I'm still roundly flummoxed when people turn over authority over the language to a buncha self-appointed control freaks and fourth grade teachers.

[Crumb]

The only time someone has any authority to tell you you have to use some arbitrary standard like that is when they're paying you.

Or grading you...

[SharonDee]

I saw the line about depending on the placement of the last period and all I could think of was calculating a due date.
:scared2:


American - Period inside the close quote.
British - Full stop outside the close quote.

It probably varies by style guide, but that's the general rule.
Hmm... I thought the American convention had an exception, i.e., the period goes inside the quote for phrases consisting of two words or more; it goes outside the rest of the time.

I'm not sure where I heard that. It's entirely possible that I pulled the whole idea out of my ass.

[viscousmemories]

:scared2:


Hmm... I thought the American convention had an exception, i.e., the period goes inside the quote for phrases consisting of two words or more; it goes outside the rest of the time.

I'm not sure where I heard that. It's entirely possible that I pulled the whole idea out of my ass.
There are no exceptions mentioned in Margaret Shertzer's The Elements of Grammar, from the same publisher as Strunk and White's The Elements of Style. She says the comma and period always go inside quotation marks, and offers these examples:

"We shall always remember you," said the speaker, "as a dedicated leader, a cheerful giver, and a hopeless tennis player."

I am going to read Tomlinson's "Gifts of Fortune."

Do not use such expressions as "Best on the market."

I dunno... them just don't look right to me.

[godfry n. glad]

:dddp:

[godfry n. glad]

:scared2:


Hmm... I thought the American convention had an exception, i.e., the period goes inside the quote for phrases consisting of two words or more; it goes outside the rest of the time.

I'm not sure where I heard that. It's entirely possible that I pulled the whole idea out of my ass.
There are no exceptions mentioned in Margaret Shertzer's The Elements of Grammar, from the same publisher as Strunk and White's The Elements of Style. She says the comma and period always go inside quotation marks, and offers these examples:

"We shall always remember you," said the speaker, "as a dedicated leader, a cheerful giver, and a hopeless tennis player."

I am going to read Tomlinson's "Gifts of Fortune."

Do not use such expressions as "Best on the market."

I dunno... them just don't look right to me.

I agree. I think Shertzer is a nazi. And, if those are her examples, she didn't even follow them, for the first one should have been:

"We shall always remember you," said the speaker ", as a dedicated leader, a cheerful giver, and a hopeless tennis player."

That's with all the commas and periods inside the quotation marks. The way it's stated, it's a stupid rule.

I think the first sentence in the group is correct. In the other two, I think the punctuation should fall outside the quotation marks, because quotation marks are there to set aside the phrase within and have nothing to do with the sentence structure. In my estimation the triad should be:

"We shall always remember you," said the speaker, "as a dedicated leader, a cheerful giver, and a hopeless tennis player."

I am going to read Tomlinson's "Gifts of Fortune".

Do not use such expressions as "Best on the market".

Ever seen the book Gifts of Fortune.? I have seen precious few book titles that include a period, but that's what including that punctuation inside the quotes means to me.

godfry

[Seven of Nine]

Oh, wow. I was sure I was right about that.

That's just wrong, imo. I'll stop putting it outside when you start putting a space before ellipses.

A space before ellipses? Now, you're freaking me out, vm!

Surely the period has to go outside anything enclosed in "s or 's which isn't dialogue!

7of9: As for capitalization of usernames, I know several people (livius drusus, godfry n. glad, etc.) who strongly prefer that their names [i]not be capitalized, so as a general rule I reprint them as they are.

Well, my feeling was that if people wanted their names capitalized, they would do it, so I try to remember, but it's an ingrained habit, especially when starting sentences.

Oh, and I think the comma between 'it' and 'godfry' was appropriate. :yup:

That's one comma right; one gazillion wrong.