Why Do the Shit Dippers Dip Shit?

[Johnny Pneumatic]

Why do people like Carlos and alphamale exist, well, a better question isn't why do they exist, but why do they feel the need to troll forums? Honestly, don't trolls have better things to spend their time on than pestering people? Carlos and alpha should get together for a round of mutual masturbation, it'd do them a world of good.

[Jesus Christ]

There is an empty cavity that exists. It is their life. It must be filled. Shit is far more plentiful than anything else.

[Carnivale Ed]

I have no idea why trolls do what they do, but I have related questions. As guilty as alphamale appears to be of what he's often accused of (abandoning threads, dubious logical leaps, refusing to answer simple questions put to him), does he still serve a useful purpose here? In a forum that (I think) could accurately be described as 'left-leaning', do stances like his, in fact, help to more fully illuminate the relative merits of any given position. Simply put, does he stop 'us' (whoever 'us' is) from becoming too complacent and full of ourselves?

I don't know the answers, but I'm interested to hear what everyone else thinks.

[D. Scarlatti]

In a forum that (I think) could accurately be described as 'left-leaning', do stances like his, in fact, help to more fully illuminate the relative merits of any given position.

Good question, but the answer is no. He doesn't know what the fuck he's talking about. He parrots bullshit he reads on conservative websites but is completely incapable of either understanding or defending it. One time he mentioned a state appeals court opinion that I went and read and it turned out he'd completely misrepresented it. Completely. He couldn't even get the party's name right.

I don't bother with his other posts but I can guarantee you that whenever he mentions the law or especially the U.S. Constitution he hasn't got a clue. I don't believe he's ever even read the Constitution, let alone given it any thought.

[Crumb]

What we need is an intelligent conservative to show up.

[ceptimus]

What we need is an intelligent conservative to show up.
xouper used to post here, but seems to be taking a break from forums. He is smart and I think (though I'm not certain) that his political leanings were towards the right.

[MonCapitan2002]

I wouldn't know about Alphamale. I don't read the posts of members on my ignore list.

[lisarea]

I have no idea why trolls do what they do, but I have related questions. As guilty as alphamale appears to be of what he's often accused of (abandoning threads, dubious logical leaps, refusing to answer simple questions put to him), does he still serve a useful purpose here? In a forum that (I think) could accurately be described as 'left-leaning', do stances like his, in fact, help to more fully illuminate the relative merits of any given position. Simply put, does he stop 'us' (whoever 'us' is) from becoming too complacent and full of ourselves?

But he's such a caricature that I can't see how his opinions would do anything but serve to solidify opposing opinions.

I mean, I don't understand what the point is. If he is trolling, it's not very good trolling. He's entertaining, but not sufficiently for the effort he seems to be expending, and he's not making other people do stupid things. It seems as though he's spending a whole lot of time on...what?

Reinforcing any existing ideas people might have about conservatives being stupid, hostile people? Establishing those ideas in those where they aren't preexisting?

Trying to start flamewars in every single forum, on as many subjects as he can think of? That's not working. More often than not, he's the only one who ends up acting hostile, anyway. I mean, who actually gets angry about organic fruit and vegetables or spicy food?

I honestly have no idea, but in some ways, it's pretty funny.

[viscousmemories]

In a forum that (I think) could accurately be described as 'left-leaning', do stances like his, in fact, help to more fully illuminate the relative merits of any given position.
Good question, but the answer is no. He doesn't know what the fuck he's talking about. He parrots bullshit he reads on conservative websites but is completely incapable of either understanding or defending it.
I agree in part. While it's true that many (if not most) of alphamale's posts consist of misinformation he was spoonfed through various conservative news outlets and blogs and on most issues he has demonstrated no willingness to modify his beliefs in light of new information, I do think his posts at least motivate others to more fully examine their views and take the time to illuminate the relative merits of any given position. Which is to say while I haven't learned much from reading alphamale's posts, I've learned quite a bit from researching his claims and reading other's rebuttals.

[JoeP]

Like MC, I don't read his posts (any more), but I get enough from the quoted parts to maintain a picture. I think he's a troll, but a weak one - he starts out trolling with his basic prejudices, but when they don't work or backfire, he gets sucked into a position of defending himself. I hesitated to use those last two words because he obviously doesn't defend himself at all - but the kneejerk behaviour of claiming victory 15m after he's utterly lost, laughing at his targets, etc looks like drawing on his meagre resources to "defend" his warped self-image and self-belief. "I know you are but what am I?"

[Carnivale Ed]

I do think his posts at least motivate others to more fully examine their views and take the time to illuminate the relative merits of any given position. Which is to say while I haven't learned much from reading alphamale's posts, I've learned quite a bit from researching his claims and reading other's rebuttals.
This is mostly what I was getting at.

[viscousmemories]

This is mostly what I was getting at.
That's what I thought. :)

[MooseIBe]

I know absolutely shit loads of intelligent conservatives and I would - well I will - invite them, but at the same time I will feel guilty if they show and then get stomped on for being conservative. I invited a cpl of conservative Christian friends - very nice people, not at all confrontational - to ii and they weren't very impressed. Maybe they would get on better here.

[MooseIBe]

I ran a classifieds ad :) http://europeforum.12.forumer.com/viewtopic.php?p=20159#20159

[beyelzu]

well, i am an economic conservative,

but on social issues I am pretty left leaning.

I do think that there are some little l libertarians like myself around here, but a full blown conservative, a righty mcrighty, the only one we have is alphamale.

I would like to see more conservatives post here, it could be fun, but sadly most of the ones I know in real life are limbaugh and hannity wannabes.

[D. Scarlatti]

A Conservative won't cut it, Moose. We're talking National Front.

[MooseIBe]

National front? I am not following :)

[Waluigi]

What we need is an intelligent conservative to show up.

That's me! :) I just don't have time to make lots of posts.

Of course, it's difficult to identify an intelligent conservative, because we're generally not Bush apologists. Which means, in any given thread, someone has already posted what would basically be my opinion.

Yes, the war is a mess and it's a mistake to just "stay the course" without any criticism of current policy.

Yes, federal spending is out of control, and the Republicans don't care about being fiscally responsible anymore.

Yes, separation of church and state exists for a reason, and it's not wise to tromp all over it.

What would I say that would add to the discussion?

[beyelzu]

and you call yourself a conservative :tmgrin:

[MooseIBe]

hey I reeled us one in already :D. I should work on commision.

Speaking of conservatives, where is Abdul?? Isn't he an intelligent conservative?

[JoeP]

and what about Cool Hand? Isn't he somewhat right-leaning and unapologetic?

[Corona688]

What we need is an intelligent conservative to show up.

That's me! :) I just don't have time to make lots of posts.

Of course, it's difficult to identify an intelligent conservative, because we're generally not Bush apologists. Which means, in any given thread, someone has already posted what would basically be my opinion.

Yes, the war is a mess and it's a mistake to just "stay the course" without any criticism of current policy.

Yes, federal spending is out of control, and the Republicans don't care about being fiscally responsible anymore.

Yes, separation of church and state exists for a reason, and it's not wise to tromp all over it.

What would I say that would add to the discussion? Ooh, conservative! Let's all jump on and destroy him like the liberal-brained group mind we all are. :borg:

Kidding. Just tired of the general insinuation(not by you) that we jump on people for being conservatives. You don't seem to think "conservative" means "license to be an asshole", so we ought to get along fine.

What's your personal definition of conservative, by the way?

[xouper]

Crumb: What we need is an intelligent conservative to show up.

ceptimus: xouper used to post here, but seems to be taking a break from forums. He is smart and I think (though I'm not certain) that his political leanings were towards the right.
Just to clarify, I am neither a conservative nor a liberal. Neither Democrat nor Republican. Neither right nor left. I am someone who is strongly in favor of all civil freedoms, and that includes both social and economic freedoms.

In America, more or less, Liberals want to take away economic freedoms and Conservatives want to take away social freedoms, which is why I am neither.

Both Cool Hand and I have stopped debating these issues on this forum because we are both tired of getting beat up by the liberals and socialists here who seem to prefer ridicule and bullying over honest discussion of the issues.

In other words, I strongly suspect that one of the reasons this is mostly a left leaning forum is because y'all have run off the opposition.

[livius drusus]

Both Cool Hand and I have stopped debating these issues on this forum because we are both tired of getting beat up by the liberals and socialists here who seem to prefer ridicule and bullying over honest discussion of the issues.

Cool Hand got hit lots, I agree, and vm and I (among others) stood up for him when it happened, but I don't think this is a fair characterization of your interactions here at all, xouper. You only participated on 2 political threads (here (http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=2531) and here (http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=2565)), the last threads you posted on before today, and your conflict was basically with one poster.

In other words, I strongly suspect that one of the reasons this is mostly a left leaning forum is because y'all have run off the opposition.

Y'all is a broad brush.

[Waluigi]

What's your personal definition of conservative, by the way?
Whoops, didn't see this until the thread was bumped.

I actually dislike the liberal/conservative labels (well, I dislike labels in general), because they force you into camps. If I had to go by traditional labels, I would say I'm an economic conservative (less government interference in the market), and a social liberal (less government interference in morality). Those are very broad statements, open to interpretation.

I'm not a libertarian. I think the LP is the illogical extreme of freedom. I don't mind that there exists an income tax, as long as there is responsible stewardship of public funds (which there is not). I don't think LP ideas can work, so I don't support the party.

I suppose that xouper and I would agree on a great many things, seeing his description above. However, I'm probably a little less idealistic than him (not a slam on xoup, BTW. I respect the hell out of him.)

I used to get in political debates, on JREF and SkepticalCommunity. The thing about politics is that very few people want to debate things issue-by-issue. You have to be in a camp, and I don't like that. I'd rather look at each issue independently, which puts me at odds with those who wish to label my opinions as liberal or conservative.

If you're a Republican, you Must Support Bush. If you like one thing about the LP's platform, you're a Raving Lunatic, or a Shanek Apologist, or some such thing. If you think the FCC is out of control, you're Anti-Family, etc.

Bleh. I get tired of it.

[michael1111]

He parrots bullshit he reads on conservative websites but is completely incapable of either understanding or defending it.
I agree in part. While it's true that many (if not most) of alphamale's posts consist of misinformation he was spoonfed through various conservative news outlets and blogs and on most issues he has demonstrated no willingness to modify his beliefs in light of new information...[/QUOTE]

(well ill just continue talking to myself...)

im wondering where you get your liberal information from? when he sends you off looking up points to debate his shit, what do you end up playing in? whos shit do you look up to prove YOUR point? silliness...

if you believe in this whole dem vs rep thing...god or whatever help you. its just a means of ruling people and keeping them weak and unsure of themselves through all the arguing they do. i mean- isnt it sad that most of the debate is done by pointing out the bad things each side does? instead of changing that all around, people end up defining themselves using whichever mistake they think does less harm.

this is all sheep behaviour, left or right. jimmy carter and bill clinton have blood on their hands. in fact, butcher bill has way more than bush jr...in fact...im going to go post about that.

all the men who rule you, are fucking you all in the asshole. i guess its a matter of which is less painful to take in...

michael :)

[xouper]

xouper: Both Cool Hand and I have stopped debating these issues on this forum because we are both tired of getting beat up by the liberals and socialists here who seem to prefer ridicule and bullying over honest discussion of the issues.

livius drusus: Cool Hand got hit lots, I agree, and vm and I (among others) stood up for him when it happened, but I don't think this is a fair characterization of your interactions here at all, xouper. You only participated on 2 political threads (here (http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=2531) and here (http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=2565)), the last threads you posted on before today, and your conflict was basically with one poster.Not true. Sauron was not the only one who ganged up on me. And it only took those two threads -- and observing how Cool Hand was treated in his threads -- to figure out which way the wind blows on this forum. To continue participating in any such 'discussions' beyond that would have been an exercise in masochism. Also, when too many people start arguing against you all at once, that all by itself gets a little overwhelming, especially since I got almost no help from anyone else on this forum.


xouper: In other words, I strongly suspect that one of the reasons this is mostly a left leaning forum is because y'all have run off the opposition.

livius drusus: Y'all is a broad brush.Agreed. I am guilty of hyperbole. It was an unfair comment and I retract it.

However, the point I wanted to make still stands. Ask yourself why there are few people here willing to debate against liberal or socialist points of view? I see it as similar to the kind of treatment that woowoos get on the JREF forum. You may disagree with my characterization, but that's how it seems to me and is why I do not wish to engage in any political discussions here. It kind of feels like being a Ford guy on an all Chevy forum. That just isn't any fun for me.


In any case, now that you, livius, one of the major players on this forum has decided to argue against my position, someone whom I have a great deal of respect for, I am wondering whether posting in this thread was such a good idea. Perhaps I should have just kept my opinions to myself.

[D. Scarlatti]

im wondering where you get your liberal information from?

I wasn't aware information itself was either liberal or conservative. I think vm was talking about sources of information.

[livius drusus]

Not true. Sauron was not the only one who ganged up on me.

Well, ganged up is a little different from ridiculed and bullied, I think, because all it takes is multiple people opposing one person. I would be far more inclined to agree with that descriptor than the other two.

And it only took those two threads -- and observing how Cool Hand was treated in his threads -- to figure out which way the wind blows on this forum. To continue participating in any such 'discussions' beyond that would have been an exercise in masochism.

It's a reasonable choice, although you did mention when you first began posting on those threads that you had decided to avoid such political discussions long before you registered here based on your experiences on other boards, so I think the basic problem predates FF.

Also, when too many people start arguing against you all at once, that all by itself gets a little overwhelming, especially since I got almost no help from anyone else on this forum.

Fair enough. I can definitely understand that, having been the sole arguer for a position more than once in my day. Like screaming into a sandstorm, I once described it.

In any case, now that you, livius, one of the major players on this forum has decided to argue against my position, someone whom I have a great deal of respect for, I am wondering whether posting in this thread was such a good idea. Perhaps I should have just kept my opinions to myself.

Actually, I was arguing with your characterization more than your position. I do think as a group we're too quick to ire and defensiveness on political issues, and I do what I can personally to counter this kind of Coriolis Effect.

[michael1111]

im wondering where you get your liberal information from?

I wasn't aware information itself was either liberal or conservative. I think vm was talking about sources of information.

well then how do you know his is? what makes yours just information? thats more to my point. you can find anything you want on the internet to support your side. when its in support of your position, its just facts. when its against it, its total bullshit, yadda yadda...

although i shouldnt assume, its pretty easy to, judging by how many times its pointed out that there is a lack of SMART conservatives in here and how it would be nice to have some around. that leads me to conclude thats its mostly people from the left posting and judging alphamales (who is a dick, make no mistake) facts as being bogus, while presenting theirs as being irrefutable and common sense. am i wrong?

michael :)

[D. Scarlatti]

well then how do you know his is?

I think it's safe to say that worldnetdaily.com represents what's popularly known down here as a "conservative view." As I said, vm was talking about sources of information, not whether the information itself is liberal or conservative.

[viscousmemories]

that leads me to conclude thats its mostly people from the left posting and judging alphamales (who is a dick, make no mistake) facts as being bogus, while presenting theirs as being irrefutable and common sense. am i wrong?
In my opinion yes, you're wrong. Alphamale is a propagandist. He has made it clear that his primary purpose here is to "spread his ideas to the lurkers" and just yesterday assured livius that he would have no problem whatsoever with being put on global ignore here, so that none of the members can see or need respond to his posts. This is true, of course, because contrary to his claims he has no real interest in "debate" or even discussion. He is proselytizing for his (in my opinion repugnant and hateful) views.

As just one example, after demonstrating his utter lack of understanding of tort law in this thread (http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=5185), he proceeded to start yet another thread (http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=5263) three days later, parroting exactly the same right-wing appeals for tort reform he had blathered about before, and has since made at least 10 other posts with unsubstantiated digs at tort law and lawyers. It's his posting of uninformed, unargued propaganda I oppose, not any alleged "arguments" or "facts". He rarely bothers with either.

And as I said, that's just one example. Alphamale has made over a thousand posts and started over 170 threads here in 60 days. That's 3 new threads and approximately 20 posts a day. Then, just yesterday, he complained that he "doesn't have time" to adequately substantiate and defend his claims. Of course he doesn't. He's too busy starting new threads and making posts to reassert propaganda that was already thoroughly debunked.

[viscousmemories]

Incidentally, Scarlatti is correct. I would guesstimate that about 90% of the citations alphamale has made here are from WorldNetDaily, Fox News, The National Review or Rush Limbaugh. Of course this doesn't automatically disqualify those views, but I think it's safe to call those sources "conservative".

[D. Scarlatti]

Incidentally, Scarlatti is correct.

:cheer: :cheer: :cheer: :cheer: :cheer: :cheer:




:P

[Crumb]

It is true that being of a minority viewpoint on an internet forum is not aa great way to spend ones free time. This is why I don't hang out at CF. Being constantly on the defensive does not lead to positive discourse and warm friendly relationships.

It may be that a capacity for restricted threads could help with this. Discussions/debates could be held in a thread where participation is limited to as little as two members so that the ganging up phenomenon is eliminated. If this is a possible solution that would lead to a greter diversity of ideas here, I would support it. It need not be technological either, we could be "gentleman" and honor a thread with restricted participation, couldn't we?

Would anyone be interested in such a thing?

[ceptimus]

Crumb: What we need is an intelligent conservative to show up.

ceptimus: xouper used to post here, but seems to be taking a break from forums. He is smart and I think (though I'm not certain) that his political leanings were towards the right.
Just to clarify, I am neither a conservative nor a liberal. Neither Democrat nor Republican. Neither right nor left. I am someone who is strongly in favor of all civil freedoms, and that includes both social and economic freedoms.

In America, more or less, Liberals want to take away economic freedoms and Conservatives want to take away social freedoms, which is why I am neither.

Both Cool Hand and I have stopped debating these issues on this forum because we are both tired of getting beat up by the liberals and socialists here who seem to prefer ridicule and bullying over honest discussion of the issues.

In other words, I strongly suspect that one of the reasons this is mostly a left leaning forum is because y'all have run off the opposition.

I apologise for mischaracterizing your political views. I like reading your posts, so if staying out of political threads makes you less likely to leave, then I'd prefer you to do that. Of course, it's your decision, and you'll do whatever you feel is best.

[michael1111]

so? why dont you just ignore him? who are you to decide whats right for others?

(im using 'you' in general terms...its addressed to those who think as i perceive it :P)

see...this is where good people are the worst people going. theres more of you and its you who do lots of wrong and promote lots of crap ideas, while thinking youre enlightened and beyond everybody, even if its just a little bit. a little enlightenment is way too much when theres no such thing. you think youre doing everybody a favour, but you just keep the world exactly the same because youre the majoiry.

its like your own little patriot act you enforce- adhere to our freedom...our else! thats bullshit. im sure most of you rant against the patriotic act cuz you seem smart, but being good people you run off and do the things you hate anyhow. next thing youre relying on tools to ignore people. instead of your own constitution, you really on somebody elses. ;)

ive seen WAY worse than alphamale. none of them win. you just need to learn to ignore what bothers you and apply the golden rule. taking away somebodys right to speak on a forum that claims to be a proponet of free speech and thought, is bullshit. how would you feel if somebody came in here and shut you down? think youre so special cuz youre an admin or owner? you dont own the net. this is a gift and it should be shared. it should be used to bring together differences, so we can learn to tolerate what we cant stand in an environment we control ourselves. that is freedom. this is not that.

you are a propagandist for free speech. theres something not so trusting about propagandists, as you pointed out in alphamale. its how they so rabidly promote concepts and ideas that arent their own. if you ban or silence somebody on a forum of free thinking, then youve got a dodgy sign above the door. like most propagandists, you are hiding something in what you put forth. theres sure to be a catch. and there is. people who live in glass houses should not throw stones. old advice, like the golden rule, is usually sound advice. alphamale is nothing without his army of followers who keep stats on him, preach his name, say the words he loves to hear, all while claiming its for the good of all to hate and cast out! ah, good people, always promoting the things they hate.

speaking of promoting, thats what i try to do. i promote free speech and encourage it to grow. i practice it and push the boundaries and i dont give a fuck if you dont like me. im online and this is my experience. dont like me? then i will turn you into something pathetic i can pity, so i can tolerate your idiocy...ive got the power to do that. or maybe ill just ignore you. who knows? lots more choices when youre really free. put that dude on ignore and its not what youve got here. it would be more like wishful thinking.

still, some good posts...i supose ill stick around a while. unless im banned :)

vive le free speech! (the real deal)

michael :)

[michael1111]

but crumb, if you feel youre right on a medium you are in complete control of, why should you ever feel youre on the defensive. me, im just shouting out my truths. im not scared. im not protecting something that doesnt need it. you cant steal my truth ;)

michael :)

[viscousmemories]

That's an awful lot of sweeping generalizations to make about a general 'you'. I'm glad I don't recognize myself in any of them.

[michael1111]

haha...well you should. youre the inspiration. i see you running around, chasing the things you hate. why? why bother? who are you to decide whats right for people? i dont see a huge uproar. i see some people complaining, but they are the fuel for the whole problem to even be. it just feeds on itself as you tumble around the forum like a whirlwind of fists. but there are also people i have read who defend his right to speak. who are you to say your way is more correct? why do you get to make that call? cuz youre the admin?? well then this is not a real free forum. its not. dont pretend it is cuz its just a weak facsimile. you cant ban in a free forum, especially things like that. if you do, its really just a forum with your version of freedom. well thats not real freedom cuz if it was, it would have room for freedom of everybody else.

its not that hard you know...to just ignore something that bothers you, or just adapt to it so it amuses you. youd be a better person for it. and maybe i am generalizing and havent been here long, but ive been reading. there are some good folks here.

michael :)

[viscousmemories]

its not that hard you know...to just ignore something that bothers you, or just adapt to it so it amuses you. youd be a better person for it.
I look forward to the day when you practice what you preach.

[livius drusus]

Would anyone be interested in such a thing?

I would, most definitely.

[michael1111]

its not that hard you know...to just ignore something that bothers you, or just adapt to it so it amuses you. youd be a better person for it.
I look forward to the day when you practice what you preach.

touche! i will remain silent on the subject now. its a touchy subject for me...im intolerant of intolerance...however...at least i have an understanding of it. i used to be that way too :)

michael :)

[Sock Puppet]

haha...well you should. youre the inspiration. i see you running around, chasing the things you hate. why? why bother? who are you to decide whats right for people? i dont see a huge uproar. i see some people complaining, but they are the fuel for the whole problem to even be. it just feeds on itself as you tumble around the forum like a whirlwind of fists. but there are also people i have read who defend his right to speak.
Actually, vm has been defending his right to speak as well. It's about more speech, not less. Nobody is threatening to ban alphamale. Plenty of people have been pointing out that he's full of shit, but that's not restriction of speech. In fact, you can't seem to make up your mind whether you're promoting more speech, or less.

who are you to say your way is more correct? why do you get to make that call? cuz youre the admin?? well then this is not a real free forum. its not. dont pretend it is cuz its just a weak facsimile. you cant ban in a free forum, especially things like that. if you do, its really just a forum with your version of freedom. well thats not real freedom cuz if it was, it would have room for freedom of everybody else.
"Things like that"? What are you on about now? Or are you still pissed about the no-spam rule? I suggest you read Carlos' threads, so you can see that the "hypocritical dictator" dead horse has been whipped into a fine paste here already.

[Crumb]

I would, most definitely.
Hmm cool. Well maybe we need to work to set some up so that people can see it work and get the idea so that they have the chance of becoming a normal part of the :ff:. I'm not a big debater so I don't know that I would be a frequent participant. But I can think of a few issues that I might like to tackle with someone that way.
but crumb, if you feel youre right on a medium you are in complete control of, why should you ever feel youre on the defensive. me, im just shouting out my truths. im not scared. im not protecting something that doesnt need it. you cant steal my truth ;)
I hardly have complete control at CF. I certainly have the power to ignore or just not show up. I have chosen to exercise the latter option. I feel very discouraged participating in a forum where almost anything I say will immediately be attacked by four or five nut cases. Especially when I know that most lurkers will be likely to discount any argument in my favor I try to offer simply because it is coming from me. I can be right all I want, but if everyone says I'm wrong everytime I post I'm not going to hang around much. It feels to much like trying to swim up a waterfall.

[Crumb]

I suggest you read Carlos' threads, so you can see that the "hypocritical dictator" dead horse has been whipped into a fine paste here already.
Actually he should read all the threads by and about latinjral. Then maybe he would understand that vm is far from a dictator here.

[viscousmemories]

touche! i will remain silent on the subject now. its a touchy subject for me...im intolerant of intolerance...however...at least i have an understanding of it. i used to be that way too :)
Well believe it or not, I'm a bit touchy on the subject too. I am also intolerant of intolerance. I am of course intolerant of racial discrimination, for example, because racial discrimination is antithetical to my understanding of tolerance. Being intolerant of racial intolerance does not contradict my values, because the value in question is not a belief in generic 'tolerance', it's a belief in racial equality.

As for whether my expressing my opinion of other's posts stifles their "free speech", we might have to agree to disagree. In my view I have as much right to express my repugnance at someone else's views as they have to express their repugnant views.

[michael1111]

well my hackles were raised by the issue of a global ignore. just the fact that people use that option is totally lame and mean in my eyes. im not all that irritated about the no-spam rule anymore, but thats just one more thing that steals some of the beauty from the title over the board. i have been reading some of the threads involving this guy, but perhaps i jumped the gun. i have a habit of doing that. stepping down...

and crumb, then just leave, but dont get defensive. im saying there is nothing to defend if youre already the winner. lol...how lame was that!?

michael :)

[viscousmemories]

Hmm cool. Well maybe we need to work to set some up so that people can see it work and get the idea so that they have the chance of becoming a normal part of the :ff:. I'm not a big debater so I don't know that I would be a frequent participant. But I can think of a few issues that I might like to tackle with someone that way.
I like that idea too, but I'm skeptical about whether the "gentleman's agreement" angle is workable, both because it would be difficult to ensure that everyone knows only these two posters are supposed to be posting on that thread, and because, well, not everyone who posts here is what I would call a "gentleman". :wink:

Maybe we could have a separate "semi-formal debate forum" or something? :shrug:

[Crumb]

Maybe we could have a separate "semi-formal debate forum" or something?
What a brilliant idea. Why didn't I think of that...? :chin:
and crumb, then just leave, but dont get defensive. im saying there is nothing to defend if youre already the winner. lol...how lame was that!?
I did leave. I don't have that feeling at this forum. I am trying to change the atmosphere for those who do.

[michael1111]

so youre going to add more rules and restrictions, as per crumbs request? see what im saying? and its all in the name of good and making people feel better and more comfortable. well why do you think they are murdering people in iraq..thats for you and i. enjoy that comfort :)

michael :)

[viscousmemories]

well my hackles were raised by the issue of a global ignore. just the fact that people use that option is totally lame and mean in my eyes.
That's cool, Michael. Just so you know we've never used such a feature, and we're not likely too unless maybe if for some reason someone were to request that we do. Even then, though, I'd much rather it if someone who is only interested in promoting their personal views and doesn't care to interact with people here would just go start a blog somewhere. I suppose the only reason they don't is because they know they probably wouldn't get the same audience they get here. :shrug:

[Crumb]

so youre going to add more rules and restrictions, as per crumbs request? see what im saying? and its all in the name of good and making people feel better and more comfortable. well why do you think they are murdering people in iraq..thats for you and i. enjoy that comfort :)

Not more rules and restrictions. More options for how members can choose to interact with one another. A forum where such threads can exist separate from the normal threads.

[michael1111]

i demand my right to gang up on people! some really deserve it!! :D

michael :)

(gang of one)

[viscousmemories]

What a brilliant idea. Why didn't I think of that...? :chin:
You suggested having restricted threads, I expanded that idea to a restricted forum.

Unless you suggested a restricted forum somewhere else and I forgot. It's been known to happen.

[Crumb]

i demand my right to gang up on people! some really deserve it!!
Knock yourself out. :shrug:

[Crumb]

Unless you suggested a restricted forum somewhere else and I forgot. It's been known to happen.
I suggested it in the thread about self-moderated threads. :ptht:

[viscousmemories]

I suggested it in the thread about self-moderated threads. :ptht:
See? I told you it's been known to happen.

[michael1111]

why keep adding forums though? why not just a few? why do some decide the catalyst for this? i dont see the inspiration for all of this making any requests...did i miss something? seems its just another ignore option to me...

[fragment]

Maybe we could have a separate "semi-formal debate forum" or something? :shrug:I think it's worth a try.

[Leesifer]

why keep adding forums though? why not just a few? why do some decide the catalyst for this? i dont see the inspiration for all of this making any requests...did i miss something? seems its just another ignore option to me...

Why not. If some people here want that then why not? It's certainly not restricting anybody is it?

[michael1111]

now i see why youre only a pseudo-intellectual ;)

why dont you make a forum for those lame-ass threads that keep making it look like somebody has posted something that might be interesting? the little game posts. why not make a forum for those?

perhaps? why cant debate happen anywhere? your freedom seems to come with a lot of fences. let rule-crazy crumb have his way and youll have two pages of forums! youre listening to a guy who is disturbed by 5 posts i made in a row. im surprised he didnt suggest a forum for that! :D

michael :)

[michael1111]

but what if those people youre making it for, and dont pretend like you dont have people in mind when discussing all of this, what if they dont want to be forced to debate in a specific forum? what about the right to argue in the watering hole? whats going to happen to those that want to? its apartheid, when you think about it.

that forum wont fly...youll see.

michael :)

[xouper]

xouper: Sauron was not the only one who ganged up on me.

livius drusus: Well, ganged up is a little different from ridiculed and bullied, I think, ...Perhaps I used the wrong word. What do you call it when godfry n. glad says to me, "You're just standing there with a bag of shit in one hand and a silly look on your face." That's not a discussion, that's ridicule. When more than one person does that, I called it "ganging up". Pardon my lack of verbal skills, what would you call it?

[viscousmemories]

Michael, are you arguing that two people should not have a right to willingly engage in an uninterrupted debate with each other on this forum?

[michael1111]

no, im arguing that they dont need to do that apart from the whole.

[Leesifer]

Well, I doubt it would be hidden from everyone else. There could be a peanut gallery thead started for the rest of us.

[michael1111]

but why? see how its all you good people that want to do something that is totally counter to the reason you are here? you can sugar-coat it and gloss it up all you want, but this is to seperate. thats all this idea promotes. whats wrong with debate? i love to fight with people. if you dont, just ignore it and allow me the right to. is that really so difficult? and dont pretend you somehow know more and are protecting others from having to read bullshit. thats more adding to a problem youre trying to fix. its more of good people doing good and fucking the whole thing up.

good is just a word. the most corrupt people in the world are always telling you to be good. so maybe its time to take a good hard look at just whats going for good these days...this is a place you could do it.

michael :)

[viscousmemories]

Xouper, I'm hesitant to say anything because I really don't want you to feel ganged up on again, but I'm going to risk it anyway. Throughout our interactions on at least three forums I have never ridiculed or attacked you. On the contrary, we have almost always been in agreement in the debates we were undertaking and I have always respected your clear-thinking, rational approach.

However in that second thread livius linked you to, you (from my perspective) repeatedly blew off my sincere and direct questions to you here. In fact I was pretty stunned by how you treated me in that thread, and I'm equally surprised that you would now (by implication) lump me in with those who opted to ridicule and attack you instead of engage in "real discussion". I was more than willing, and very interested, in having a real discussion with you on that topic.

Anyway I hope you decide to stick around if that's what you want to do. You're always welcome here.

[Sock Puppet]

perhaps? why cant debate happen anywhere? your freedom seems to come with a lot of fences. let rule-crazy crumb have his way and youll have two pages of forums! youre listening to a guy who is disturbed by 5 posts i made in a row. im surprised he didnt suggest a forum for that!
Once again, you seem to want to limit people's options rather than expand them. Why is it less free to have fences, when anybody can switch to another enclosure any time they want? "Rule-crazy Crumb" is not asking for a restriction on existing forums; what the hell is wrong with new forums with different rules? I swear, you sound like the rabid numbnuts I dealt with in San Francisco's Libertarian Party, with views on "freedom" that are so absolutist they have no practical use.

[Crumb]

Wow michael I think you need to learn to suspend judgement 'til you get a little more evidence. You don't seem to know what you're arguing about here.

[livius drusus]

Perhaps I used the wrong word. What do you call it when godfry n. glad says to me, "You're just standing there with a bag of shit in one hand and a silly look on your face." That's not a discussion, that's ridicule. When more than one person does that, I called it "ganging up". Pardon my lack of verbal skills, what would you call it?

I'm sorry I came across as nit-picking you. It wasn't my intent and I don't really think either of us are interested in a discussion of semantics. I take your overall point and I'm sorry you had such a negative experience discussing politics here.

[viscousmemories]

Okay Michael, so I take it you are opposed to the idea of one-on-one debate in principle, not just here. Do you believe that all debates everywhere should be open to the general public, and whomever can yell the loudest should have the floor?

[Leesifer]

but why? see how its all you good people that want to do something that is totally counter to the reason you are here? you can sugar-coat it and gloss it up all you want, but this is to seperate. thats all this idea promotes. whats wrong with debate? i love to fight with people. if you dont, just ignore it and allow me the right to. is that really so difficult? and dont pretend you somehow know more and are protecting others from having to read bullshit. thats more adding to a problem youre trying to fix. its more of good people doing good and fucking the whole thing up.

good is just a word. the most corrupt people in the world are always telling you to be good. so maybe its time to take a good hard look at just whats going for good these days...this is a place you could do it.

michael :)

Firstly, you have no idea why I'm here at all.

Secondly, why would creating another forum stop you from arguing with people?

[fragment]

no, im arguing that they dont need to do that apart from the whole.Why don't you leave that up to the judgement of the people who choose whether to participate in the proposed forum or not?

[michael1111]

its more to do with the inspiration and reason behind it. it promotes a bad ideal- it says that the way to fix things is to just keep creating labels and dividing over them. you cn pretend there is freedom in that, but im not sure what dictionary youre using :)

tell ya what...ill agree with you, sock, that its just as much a freedom to create different rooms, if somebody will explain to me what will happen to those who choose to debate outside of their little den they didnt ask for. if the answer is nothing, then you are totally right, even if the inspiration for it all remains bogus and rooted in fear.

michael :)

[michael1111]

no, im arguing that they dont need to do that apart from the whole.Why don't you leave that up to the judgement of the people who choose whether to participate in the proposed forum or not?

well i kinda like it here and i love to debate and get into really heated punch-ups sometimes. seems tailor-made for me, but i dont like the fit. i may have just gotten here, but i vote no. it seems the whole inspiration for this is alphamale and carlos. how much you wanna bet they say no?

what will happen if they start shit in the watering hole, not in the debating dungeon?

michael :)

[Leesifer]

Are you actually reading this thread, Mick?

[Crumb]

its more to do with the inspiration and reason behind it. it promotes a bad ideal- it says that the way to fix things is to just keep creating labels and dividing over them. you cn pretend there is freedom in that, but im not sure what dictionary youre using :)
There is freedom in being able to debate in a controlled format if one wishes. There will be no restrictions against commenting about it in another thread.
tell ya what...ill agree with you, sock, that its just as much a freedom to create different rooms, if somebody will explain to me what will happen to those who choose to debate outside of their little den they didnt ask for. if the answer is nothing, then you are totally right, even if the inspiration for it all remains bogus and rooted in fear.
No one has proposed any restrictions as to where people can argue and I doubt anyone would support it. This suggestion has nothing to do with restricting the freedom of posters and everything to do with improving interactions by adding another option that many may choose to use to create a more positive and productive debate. If it doesn't get used it will go away.

Why is it wrong for us to try things out and see if they improve :ff: ? I see this place as a community and I think it is great that the admins are responsive and encourage members to give input and are willing to try things to improve user's experience here.

If you think I am "rule-crazy" I seriously doubt your judgement.

[michael1111]

am i missing something?

[michael1111]

look...i just got here and im not gonna win this debate.

look at how this thread started, who was mentioned and what was born out of it. i think im reading it ok, but what do i know? ...not much, yeah yeah :P

michael :)

[Leesifer]

No one has proposed any restrictions as to where people can argue and I doubt anyone would support it. This suggestion has nothing to do with restricting the freedom of posters and everything to do with improving interactions by adding another option that many may choose to use to create a more positive and productive debate. If it doesn't get used it will go away.

Why is it wrong for us to try things out and see if they improve :ff: ? I see this place as a community and I think it is great that the admins are responsive and encourage members to give input and are willing to try things to improve user's experience here.

If you think I am "rule-crazy" I seriously doubt your judgement.

There you go, this is exactly what you've missed.

[livius drusus]

I think so, michael. The suggestion was that we create a formalish debate forum for people to do a one-on-one thing. This would be in addition to all the regular forum debates and discussions, not a replacement for them. Only the people who wished to discuss in the manner would do so.

[Crumb]

it seems the whole inspiration for this is alphamale and carlos. how much you wanna bet they say no?
When I suggested it I was not thinking at all about alphamale and Carlos. I ignore both of them and care not where or what they post. I was really thinking of posters like xouper. Who want to participate but shy away from debate because they know or fear that they will be ganged-up on by many detractors and flamers that can degrade the level of debate. This way they can remove their debate from the other crap and hopefully have a more fruitful discussion with a smaller "opposition".

[michael1111]

There is freedom in being able to debate in a controlled format

ummm...no theres not. lol...more of my point about good people. take those rosey glasses off that sentence doesnt work...

michael :)

[michael1111]

so you create a forum for this person to pounced on alone in? lol...or so you can ignore when youre not on their side? are you listening to what youre saying? this is good intentions, right? ;)

michael :)

[Crumb]

There is freedom in being able to CHOOSE to debate in a controlled format.

Is that better? That's what I really meant.

[michael1111]

lol...well its not better, it just got you out of a pickle. ;)

michael :)

[Crumb]

so you create a forum for this person to pounced on alone in? lol...or so you can ignore when youre not on their side? are you listening to what youre saying? this is good intentions, right?
I am saying that everyone at :ff: will have the freedom of being able to create a thread in this special forum with restricted access. A freedom that you would deny them. :snooty:

[viscousmemories]

Part of the confusion might stem from the fact that the OP of this thread (which was actually started some time ago - and just bumped today) was about why some people (like alphamale and Carlos) seem to prefer trolling to honest engagement. I don't think the moderated debate forum is more than tangentially related to that topic.

[fragment]

I don't think the intent or the effect of the proposed forum is to shut down debate anywhere else on FF... I would oppose it if I thought that was the case. I really don't know if it will fly or not, but it could be an interesting experiment.

[Crumb]

lol...well its not better, it just got you out of a pickle. ;)
I wasn't in a pickle silly. Though I would go for a pickle. :pickle:

[michael1111]

so you create a forum for this person to pounced on alone in? lol...or so you can ignore when youre not on their side? are you listening to what youre saying? this is good intentions, right?
I am saying that everyone at :ff: will have the freedom of being able to create a thread in this special forum with restricted access. A freedom that you would deny them. :snooty:

LOL! oh that last sentence is priceless :D

crumb, my hats off to you and your master politicking! you spun that wonderfully and i dont even think you know you did it!! now thats the power of tv news :)

trust me, i hear it all time :)

michael :)

[viscousmemories]

I think Michael might be missing the fact that the new forum would be for two people to voluntarily engage in a debate. Nobody would be "thrown into it" and nobody's freedom to express their opinion of the debate on this forum (albeit in a "peanut gallery" thread) would be curtailed.

[michael1111]

who wants to hear moderate debate? ;)

i like the hot stuff! well nothings hot where everything is...

oh well, i just got here...

michael :)

[Leesifer]

OK, michael, what the blinking flip are you going on about?

Sounds to me like you don't like the thought of a one on one debate. It's OK, you wouldn't have to join in unless you started a thread, if that particular forum were created.

[Crumb]

I don't think the intent or the effect of the proposed forum is to shut down debate anywhere else on FF... I would oppose it if I thought that was the case. I really don't know if it will fly or not, but it could be an interesting experiment.
That's all I am saying fragment. I can imagine it going over like a lead ballon, but I can also seeing it get going and being a very cool part of :ff:. It just depends on how people use it and whether or not they get anything from it. I think it is worth a shot.

[Crumb]

crumb, my hats off to you and your master politicking! you spun that wonderfully and i dont even think you know you did it!! now thats the power of tv news :)
I intentionaly used your freedom rhetoric against you. Apparently I am not as dumb as my fluffy posts imply, eh?

[Leesifer]

Crumb, everyone else got that, except for michael111111111111 and I'm sure he got that really.

[michael1111]

only for two? what if i want to debate alphamale and you do too- do i take a number? can i debate him in one forum while you debate him in the dungeon? i might lose inspiration and anger...i just think its a bad idea. who am i? i think youve got too many forums, but thats just my opinion. i think this site is pretty decent overall and its why im still here. nice features too...except ignore, of course.

michael :)

[Crumb]

No one will prevent you from engaging in heated debates, so why are you arguing against a facility for civil debates if others want them?

[viscousmemories]

Michael, the idea is that if you and I wanted to debate "free speech", say, just one-on-one and without interference from other forum members, we would have a subforum to do it in. Other people could read along and offer their own arguments and such in a separate thread in the same subforum, they just wouldn't be able to post on the same thread. Do you understand that and still oppose it? Because if so I really don't understand what it is that you're opposing. One-on-one debate in general?

[michael1111]

i know what you were doing crumb...i was commenting on it. it was good spin and the way you worded it reminded me of something a politician would say. i was commenting of your style of reply being second nature after hearing the same thing so often on tv...oh nevermind. i knew you knew what you were doing...

michael :)

[Leesifer]

only for two? what if i want to debate alphamale and you do too- do i take a number? can i debate him in one forum while you debate him in the dungeon? i might lose inspiration and anger...i just think its a bad idea. who am i? i think youve got too many forums, but thats just my opinion. i think this site is pretty decent overall and its why im still here. nice features too...except ignore, of course.


michael :)


Of course you could, if you could keep two debates going at once - how hard could it be?

The ignore feature is up to the individual user. I never use it. It's not forced upon you, you know?

[Crumb]

It wouldn't have to be one on one though. It could be restricted to 3 or 4 or whatever the participants wanted right vm?

[Sock Puppet]

its more to do with the inspiration and reason behind it. it promotes a bad ideal- it says that the way to fix things is to just keep creating labels and dividing over them. you cn pretend there is freedom in that, but im not sure what dictionary youre using :)

tell ya what...ill agree with you, sock, that its just as much a freedom to create different rooms, if somebody will explain to me what will happen to those who choose to debate outside of their little den they didnt ask for. if the answer is nothing, then you are totally right, even if the inspiration for it all remains bogus and rooted in fear.

michael :)
What will happen to those who debate outside the proposed "little den"? Why, they'll be rounded up and summarily executed, of course. Really, you don't understand the proposal if you think ANYTHING would "happen" to members who choose not to use the debate forum.

You seem not to understand the value of voluntarily-imposed limits. Should spectators run out onto a baseball field and start breakdancing, since the "bogus" rules against that are just rooted in fear? Sensible limits provide structure for creative efforts. The sonnet form, full of arbitrary, "bogus" rules, enabled the creation of excellent poetry that couldn't have existed without the limitations. Does all poetry have to be "free" verse?

[michael1111]

i understand and i still oppose it. it doesnt make sense to me. and im serious when i say you should examine where this idea was born. you can give any excuse you want, but i dont think youre being honest if you say this isnt a way to solve a problem...when im saying the problem is you (the general you)...

michael :)

[viscousmemories]

Damn this thread is going too fast and hard to follow. I wish we could just discuss this one-on-one.

[Crumb]

You are also not listening very well. Apparently the only freedoms you champion are the ones you are interested in exercising.

[michael1111]

hey i write excellent poetry and use no rules. neither did charles bukowski and i bet we tell a better truth than shakepeare (not that im as good as bukowski..but i admire his style). im not govt approved, after all :)

well you all see where i stand, for what its worth. i guess i will just you my freedom to choose not to post in this new forum.

michael :)

[Leesifer]

Hey, I know vm, why don't you create a new forum ....

no, bad idea.

[michael1111]

Damn this thread is going too fast and hard to follow. I wish we could just discuss this one-on-one.

haha, but then how would i know what crumb is thinking? on second thought... :P

michael :)

[Leesifer]

hey i write excellent poetry and use no rules. neither did charles bukowski and i bet i tell a better truth than shakepeare. im not govt approved, after all :)

well you all see where i stand, for what its worth. i guess i will just you my freedom to choose not to post in this new forum.

michael :)


You'd be an even better poet and truth speaker than Shakespeare if you could use punctuation and grammar. [edited for speeeling :blush: ]

[Sock Puppet]

i understand and i still oppose it. it doesnt make sense to me. and im serious when i say you should examine where this idea was born. you can give any excuse you want, but i dont think youre being honest if you say this isnt a way to solve a problem...when im saying the problem is you (the general you)...

michael :)
I understand your penchant for rhetorical nonsense, but this is completely incoherent. You may have said "isn't" when you meant "is," I'm not sure. And the last bit about the "problem" makes no sense without further explanation. I could probably guess what you think you mean, but I'd rather go have lunch than clarify your arguments for you.

[michael1111]

You are also not listening very well. Apparently the only freedoms you champion are the ones you are interested in exercising.

why is it some of you keep thinking im not hearing or understanding? see how smug and condident you are that you know better than i do? im a smart guy, so obviously i must not be hearing your great ideas? lol...whatever! :D

michael :)

[viscousmemories]

I'm not opposed to you sharing your point of view Michael, I just don't understand the principle you're fighting for here. I don't understand why you believe that two people voluntarily engaging in a moderated debate is a violation of other's rights. This might sound facetious, but seriously do you also believe that use of the private message system deprives other's of their "right" to put their two cents into a discussion?

[Crumb]

why is it some of you keep thinking im not hearing or understanding?
You don't often seem to respond to what is actually said.

[michael1111]

yeah i meant is...hey im trying to keep up! the problem is you- meaning that they let others get to them so much that they allow it to inspire ideas like the one im opposing. so they may think its a way to solve a problem, but im saying the problem is in the people who allowed crap to inspire an equally crappy idea. and yeah...poorly written. my fingersare sore. for all i know, this was also poorly written. is that all ya got? :P

michael :)

[michael1111]

i dont think its a violation of rights, but i think this was inspired for the wrong reasons. at first i thought the idea was more militiant, but even when you explain it and how nobody will get banned, i still cant help but see the reason the idea was inspired. are you listening to what im saying (when im making sense)?

anyhow...my fingers are sore. i understand where you are coming from with this idea. and no- its not really outwardly impeding on somebodys freedom, but i think the inspiration comes in wanting to silence debate, rather than promote it. but thats me and my opinion...

michael :)

[Crumb]

Did you miss the part where me and vm came up with the idea and it had zippo to do with Carlos or alphamale? Yeah I thought you must have...

[Leesifer]

i dont think its a violation of rights, but i think this was inspired for the wrong reasons. at first i thought the idea was more militiant, but even when you explain it and how nobody will get banned, i still cant help but see the reason the idea was inspired. are you listening to what im saying (when im making sense)?

anyhow...my fingers are sore. i understand where you are coming from with this idea. and no- its not really outwardly impeding on somebodys freedom, but i think the inspiration comes in wanting to silence debate, rather than promote it. but thats me and my opinion...

michael :)

:yawn:

[Crumb]

but i think the inspiration comes in wanting to silence debate, rather than promote it.
Debate is silenced by flamers. This helps the nonflame retardent posters stay out of the fire if they so choose.

[michael1111]

and where was the idea born? i think youre fooling yourself. you wont get me to change my mind. im going to quit cuz the same can be said for you.

why do the shit dippers dip shit? and out of that came a forum...but i know...you SAID its got nothing to do with....

michael :)

[viscousmemories]

i dont think its a violation of rights, but i think this was inspired for the wrong reasons. at first i thought the idea was more militiant, but even when you explain it and how nobody will get banned, i still cant help but see the reason the idea was inspired. are you listening to what im saying (when im making sense)?
I'm listening! It just doesn't follow logically that an idea inspired by bad reasons (even if that's arguable) is a bad idea. I wouldn't care if the inspiration for the idea was a way to maximize cheese production for Mickey Mouse, as far as I'm concerned the idea itself either stands or falls on its own merits.

[michael1111]

your debate is silenced by flamers. im already flame resistant and ill thank you for not assuming i need your help in putting out fires. :)

internet flames are the best...they dont REALLY burn...

michael :)

[michael1111]

we arent going to agree vm. isnt a forum already about debate? why, in any form, try and take that away? yes yes....youve told me. i just dont get it...but i do hear it ;)

michael :)

[Crumb]

why do the shit dippers dip shit? and out of that came a forum...but i know...you SAID its got nothing to do with....
Did you happen to notice where I joined the conversation? I don't remember what this thread started out about. I'm guessing it was about alphamale since you insist that this idea is about him. I think anyone who believes this will affect alphamale at all is an idiot.

But I am done banging my head against this one too. I look forward to more discussion of this idea though. I'm guessing we need an FA thread about it.

[Leesifer]

Unfortunately for you Crumb, michael11111111111111 only seems to like replying to your posts. I think you've made a friend.

[Crumb]

I think you've made a friend.
:sarclap:

[cappuccino]

I'm curious about the general attitude by some of the posters here that a forum is only for debating. Where did they get that idea from? :confused: At a minimum, a forum is a place for open discussion and exchange of ideas. Debates are only a subcategory of what forums are about.

I get the sense that some people think there's something wrong if a forum isn't going up in flames everyday...don't get me wrong, I love a good debate, but I think it's absurd to expect every thread to be confrontational about something.

[Leesifer]

I'm sorry Crumb but it's not my fault you're so lovable. Now get back over to the answer with a question thread so I can get to MM.

[viscousmemories]

we arent going to agree vm. isnt a forum already about debate? why, in any form, try and take that away? yes yes....youve told me. i just dont get it...but i do hear it ;)
You're right, we probably aren't going to agree. You and I seem to have very different ideas about what "debate" is. In my opinion it's where two people take opposing positions on an issue, provide reasons to support their position and then offer rebuttals of their opponent's reasons. You seem to think debate means just shouting your opinion louder and louder in response to every request that you provide reasons to support your position.

[michael1111]

no i just happen to think debate includes more than two people at a time. you may not have agreed with my pov, but i was happy with most of what i wrote and felt inspired. that was within a debate of more than two people. i dont see much chance of that happening with just two...in fact, i think thats the point.

and i didnt say a forum was only for debate, but thats one of the things a forum is for.

crumb, i totally think youre lying when you say you just came into this thread half-way through without knowing what it was all about. most people skip post, but usually all read the first one to at least see whats being talked about.

and just cuz im addressing people by name, doesnt mean im not talking to everybody here. in fact, im really just talking to myself :)

surprise surprise! :D

michael :)

[Crumb]

crumb, i totally think youre lying when you say you just came into this thread half-way through without knowing what it was all about. most people skip post, but usually all read the first one to at least see whats being talked about.
Don't take my word for it or anything, especially if it will require you to rethink any hasty judgements.

[michael1111]

oh...and im also not saying i think youre doing any of this intentionally. thats my point about good people and their intentions...i do think you mean well. you seem like nice people :)

but thats also part of the problem :?

michael :)

[viscousmemories]

I don't have any reason to believe Crumb is lying. I'm sure he read this thread when it was originally active (between 11/26 and 11/28) and then like most of us who had read it previously just jumped in when xouper bumped it with this post (http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showthread.php?p=147360#post147360) today.

Anyway, Crumb is right. We should have a more "official" discussion of this suggestion in the Forum Administration forum. Not because I'm a horrible tyrant who wants to flex his dictatorial power by starting a new thread, but because the most effective way to ensure that everyone will see a discussion of a forum administration issue that will affect all the members here is to have it in a location where people have come to expect to find such discussions.

[michael1111]

fucking tyrant ;)

michael :)

[michael1111]

and i dont think crumb is lying in a bad way...more in the style im sure makes you all think hes cute. :)

michael :)

[Crumb]

Oh well that's almost an endearing way to call me a liar. :rolleyes:

[viscousmemories]

and i dont think crumb is lying in a bad way...more in the style im sure makes you all think hes cute. :)
Does it get lonely being the only one who sees the Truth? ;)

[michael1111]

no...thers only my truth. just like theres only yours for you.

its not lonely...it just is :)

michael :)

[michael1111]

Oh well that's almost an endearing way to call me a liar. :rolleyes:

lol! see...you are endearing!! :P

michael :)

[Crumb]

no...thers only my truth. just like theres only yours for you.
Why do you bother to argue at all then?

[michael1111]

cuz i like to challenge myself. i like to get to know people. i like reading all the different pov. i love to argue and debate. i love to joke. why not?

michael :)

[michael1111]

i find it teaches me tolerance. there is a great therapy in using a free speech forum, if you want that. i do. im not hurting you, youre not hurting me....its just a way to learn to tolerate all the things i dont understand and that infuriate me. a safe way to meet it all head on, no holds barred.

but thats me :D

michael :)

[viscousmemories]

I started a new thread for a discussion of the restricted access forum idea here (http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=5712). Please read the OP and try to respond to the substance of the suggestion, don't just carry the fight here over there.

[xouper]

viscousmemories: ... when xouper bumped it with this post (http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showthread.php?p=147360#post147360) today.Sorry. I should have known better.