39
   

To stay or not to stay ---That is the question.

 
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Oct, 2009 07:35 am
@rosborne979,
I actually find myself collapsing trivia and Collostimal "stinkers" every morning. If Im gone a few days, the trivia makes the inbox of new posts look like a telephone book.
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Oct, 2009 08:07 am
@farmerman,
farmerman wrote:

I actually find myself collapsing trivia and Collostimal "stinkers" every morning. If Im gone a few days, the trivia makes the inbox of new posts look like a telephone book.

I was doing that as well, but now I've started putting anyone who starts a "lovats" thread on ignore, that way it collapses all their threads at once. I'm also ignoring people who just want things translated into latin, or who just ask about rainsoft water softeners.

It's an experiment. I'm not sure how it'll work yet. If all the new lovats posts come from newly generated users, then I suppose won't help to ignore them and will be easier to vote the thread down. I'll just have to try it for a while and see how it works.

Letty
 
  2  
Reply Sun 18 Oct, 2009 09:21 am
Finn, I recall when you and I had a "war of the words". You responded, "those that can do; those that can't teach."

My answer was: Those that can do because they CAN'T teach.

The most difficult job that I ever had was raising children, but being a good teacher runs a close second.
0 Replies
 
maporsche
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Oct, 2009 09:37 am
@rosborne979,
I've done the same thing.

And then I realized that there are posters who post in the political forum that caused me displeasure even more than the Lovatts people, and I've placed them on ignore as well.

The last few days have been blissfully happy for me in A2K land.
0 Replies
 
CalamityJane
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Oct, 2009 09:45 am
@rosborne979,
rosborne979 wrote:
With the previous format I would only browse certain categories, so I never saw any trivia posts and I rarely got involved in any political threads. But now I see those things all the time and sometimes get involved.


I think this was the intent to throw all subjects out in the open for everyone
to read and possibly engage in. However, just like with a newspaper where I
don't read the sports section and can do away with it very easily, I like to
have things categorized and don't want to scam through topic after topic to
find something of interest to me.

I also noticed that many good topics are left without any other posts as they
simply drift onto page two too fast and are forgotten before they even get
a chance to be discussed.

Collapsing threads isn't really the answer either, as sometimes I like to
play the trivia games too.

roger
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Oct, 2009 12:13 pm
@maporsche,
Agree. Once I identify someone as a consistant cause of headaches, and I mean literal headaches, I generally let them go. Some headache inducers do have useful things to say. They last a little longer.

I don't worry about the Lovett's and other crossword puzzle people. Usually, there is a question followed by an answer, and then the question quickly moves to page 10 and beyond. Never Ending Word Games keep coming back.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  2  
Reply Sun 18 Oct, 2009 12:38 pm
@CalamityJane,
CalamityJane wrote:

I also noticed that many good topics are left without any other posts as they
simply drift onto page two too fast and are forgotten before they even get
a chance to be discussed.



Interesting observation Calamity. That may well also be a factor in the apparent reduction in the appearance of new posters.

I believe the central issue here is the apparent decline in participation, both by newbies and once familiar posters. It appears to exempt the loonies who thus end up becoming a relatively larger presence. (I don't have the stats on site visits & posts, but have the strong impression that things are in decline.)

I don't think that putting folks on "ignore" or mass movements to ignore some are useful remedies - their side effects are likely as bad as, or worse than, the "problem" they propose to solve. I don't use the 'ignore' feature, though there are some posts I ignore.

For me at least the central attraction of the site is the potential for a conversation. In a conversation one naturally first connects with his interlocutor - whatever he/she said or expressed, and either adds to it; suggests a modification; or expresses disagreement or an alternate view. The connection should, to some degree at least, involve both the ideas expressed and the person or character of those you are conversing with. We're all human beings with unique perspectives and personalities - acknowledging that is an essential component of any dialogue: ignoring it is boorish, self-centered, and offensive.

With respect to the political threads, I don't think that it is so much the content of one's ideas as it is the manner of expressing them and the way one deals with disagreement that counts. Political passions are high and the subject matter itself makes bad behavior more likely for us all - myself included. However, in my view at least, it is the behavior of some - not their ideas - that I find disagreeable.

Some of you likely recall Blatham, who sadly rarely posts here any more. He and I have profoundly different views on political, economic and many social issues. However, I almost always enjoyed our many exchanges, and, though I probably exasperated him a few times, I think he enjoyed mine as well. From my perspective, I liked him - though we are very different people; found his perspective always interesting, and found that to easily trump his otherwise dopey ideas (he thought mine were dopey too). I doubt that either of us ever seriously dented the other's point of view, though we both occasionally found ourselves having to think through familiar beliefs from another perspective. I also acquired a sense of how he developed his perspectives and beliefs and found it human and understandable - like mine. No one was keeping score or hurling insults. Winning was not the object of the conversation.

These qualities of conversation, plus a little fun, irony and humor are what make it all worthwhile.

I hope they, and the site, survive.
maporsche
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Oct, 2009 12:39 pm
Diest TKO and I were having a forum etiquite discussion on another thread. It is more appropriate over here.

Here is where we left off.


http://able2know.org/topic/113196-872#post-3787777
maporsche wrote:

Diest TKO wrote:

It is not the sole reason why I am here map, but don't be obtuse, agreeing on basic facts is requisite in discussion. If people aren't willing to admit to these things when placed in front of them, we can't get to our real destination in debate.

If Fox says she didn't say something, and someone quotes her to prove it, should Fox pretend she didn't say it? Do you not believe people should have to defend or retract their statements? Do you find it acceptable to simply ignore this kind of thing?


I often ignore those kind of things. I don't think it adds to the debate. If you think she's wrong, and you post evidence/proof that she's wrong, then your job is done. There is no need to convince her that you've won, or to keep going on and on and on trying to convince her that you've won.

And surely, these instances shouldn't carry across multiple un-related threads (as they tend to do now).

Diest TKO wrote:

I see you challenge plenty of people on their points and you ask plenty of questions. You do this more than you are admitting, and you're inflating what I'm saying I want. I just what someone to honestly admit when they are wrong and presented with the proof. I want that, not for a trivial reason, but because how else con we proceed past that point?


I do challenge people. And I ask questions. I even prove people wrong. What I don't (at least, very rarely) do is ask them to admit they are wrong (really, I don't care). And I've never spent pages and pages and pages trying to do so.

Once you've proven someone to be wrong you can proceed from there. Silence is agreement. If they thought your proof was incorrect, they would challenge you on it. If that person posts the same garbage again, you can prove them wrong again. All the wile, you can do this in a respectful way.

Diest TKO wrote:

It isn't arrogant or disrespectful to call someone out when they double talk, lie, misrepresent something, make something up, or are being stubborn in light of being proven wrong. It's not uncommon for someone here to request proof of something. If I say something, and someone challenges it, then I go and fetch the proof, damn straight they should recognize that.


Nobody has any obligation to recognize that. Nor is recognition of proof required in a debate. If you present proof, and it goes unrebutted, you win. You don't need the challenger to admit you've won, and you damn sure don't need to spend pages and pages telling them to admit you won.

Quote:

I'll make it simple for you. If you challenged someone, and they provided proof you where wrong, what would you think is the mature thing to do. In your words, describe how you would address this (if you would) and your reasoning. I think you care more than you admit on this.


I would generally admit I was wrong (and have done so). I have also left someone's rebuttal go un-rebutted which, as I've mentioned, is generally regarded as an admission that the argument is over, and that I'd lost.


And yes, I plan to, and hope I do live up to these standards. I have little doubt that I won't and I've finally figured out a good use for the 'ignore' button. Those posters who tend to drag conversations into this realm of discourse (and sometimes me along with them) will be added to the ignore list and forgotten.



Diest TKO wrote:

maporsche wrote:
Once you've proven someone to be wrong you can proceed from there. Silence is agreement. If they thought your proof was incorrect, they would challenge you on it. If that person posts the same garbage again, you can prove them wrong again. All the wile, you can do this in a respectful way.


Map, if this actually played out, we wouldn't be having this conversation. This IS how it should be, but it is not. How many times is it reasonable to have to prove something?

T
K
Neutral
0 Replies
 
CalamityJane
 
  2  
Reply Sun 18 Oct, 2009 01:01 pm
@georgeob1,
George, I agree with you on many points. It's especially frustrating when
an interesting thread is ruined by people who write five posts in a row that
have essentially very little to do with the topic per se and/or nitpick
on a few phrases of others where common sense should tell them that phrases
taken out of context change the subject matter. It's hard to go back to
the original discussion when someone like (insert your favorite poster) has invaded a topic and repetitively disrupts the conversation.

That's where games like "Where am I?" come in - no disruption there! Very Happy



DrewDad
 
  4  
Reply Sun 18 Oct, 2009 01:05 pm
One issue for me is that I'm finding more threads with a deja vu feel.

Even this thread has that feel.
Francis
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Oct, 2009 01:13 pm
@DrewDad,
Which is not a reason not to talk about....
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Oct, 2009 01:15 pm
@roger,
roger wrote:
Well, if you toss enough pebbles into a pond, you are entitled to an occasional ripple. If you never get one, you eventually quit tossing pebbles. I'm nowhere close to that point. I hope you are not, either.

Roger, please keep tossing those pebbles!
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Oct, 2009 03:05 pm
@CalamityJane,
OK Calamity, tell me, where do you guys find all the pictures? I have travelled a good deal, but I am daunted by your ability and that of Francis, Walter and all the other habituees of the "Where am I ..." thread to so quickly find and research them.
CalamityJane
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Oct, 2009 03:20 pm
@georgeob1,
I give you a hint, George, go to google images and type "interesting places"
into it and you'll find so many great places.
0 Replies
 
engineer
 
  3  
Reply Sun 18 Oct, 2009 03:37 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
Finn dAbuzz wrote:

I've been wondering of late whether or not to stay engaged in A2K.

It's pretty clear that it has become an overwhelmingly left-wing forum, but I don't think that's, necessarily, a reason to opt out.

It's also clear that there are a handful of jackasses who prowl this forum and who prefer to engage in personal attacks rather than debate ideas. Again, not, necessarily, a reason to opt out.

I admit that a great many of my posts serve no purpose other than to focus my view on a subject, but I do enjoy it when there is a serious response (kudos to Robert Gentel, engineer, freeduck, Diest and even ebrown. I'm sure there are others I'm not acknowledging and so apologize to them)

I've tried to refrain from the back and forth with A2K snot-noses, but admit I've not been anything approaching perfect in this resolve. Sometimes these wankers just push me over the edge.

Thanks for the shout-out and I for one would like you to stay engaged. When I first started here, I quickly got flamed and didn't know how to respond. Then I saw a post (by BPB I think) saying something like "if you post online, you're going to get flamed, so thicken up." That's not to say you are thin skinned (I think the opposite), but you can expect that if you take a minority position, you will be flamed by the occasional ass.

As to the shift in the left in the board, I think what you are really seeing is that some of your far right buddies have left post election and some moderate voices have been driven more left by the Bush administration. (Wasn't here then but I'll bet Clinton generated a lot of posters on the right.) To leave now would be to miss the Obama backlash when it occurs. You know you can expect to find a lot more supporters as we ramp up to the 2010 election and there will be blood in the streets before 2012. How could you miss that?

I for one would miss your antlers. I always gravitate to your topics for a good discussion.
panzade
 
  5  
Reply Sun 18 Oct, 2009 03:38 pm
I haven't been here as long as Phoenix, but I've been around long enough to have seen this type of thread come up every so often.

The right is dominating. The left is taking over.
People are mean. I'm not appreciated. The cliques are taking over.

Bottom line is: I guess the less things change
The more they never seem the same.

I know I count on posters like Finn and georgeob to give me interesting counter-views and they help me get out of the comfortable zone that houses my presumptions.
0 Replies
 
Tryagain
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Oct, 2009 03:48 pm
Dear Finn, just reading your post made me so sad; as one of the longest serving members stretching back to dear old Abuzz and with proven credentials of supporting your country, constitution, family friends and neighbors; I am dismayed that you should consider leaving.

Leaving that is, without your cohort of Liberal supporters!!!

I have long suspected you cared for your fellow man, love children and little animals. Be gone I say and take your legion of fans with you so there may be more talk of how the South will rise again.

Issued on Behalf of: Bush for a Third Term Campaign
0 Replies
 
msolga
 
  2  
Reply Sun 18 Oct, 2009 04:14 pm
@Phoenix32890,
Quote:

I've been around since "the flood". I have seen some major changes in the way people relate to one another. Yeah, there were always hotheads who spewed invective, but I think that I am perceiving the taking of sides, "ours" and "yours".

In politics, I think that anyone who spews any party line, chapter and verse, is a fool. No one but an unthinking automation could possibly agree 100% with a party, or a politician's agenda. In my case, I have some strong positive beliefs with the right on some issues, and the left with others.

I think that some of the political ideas proffered here are not dissimilar to the mindset of fundamentalist religions.


Yes, I know what you mean, Phoenix: "ours & yours".
That's pretty much how I see it, too, rather than "left" & "right" perspectives.
(And not being American, & this being a predominantly US board, participation-wise .... ) I find the blow-by-blow (what-ever's been reported in the news in the last 5 minutes) pro & anti Obama "gotcha!" threads pretty boring, a lot of the time, & don't learn much new from them really. Often the "debate" seems to boil down to "Did so!", "Did not!", "Did so ...!" "arguments", with the same folk continuing their interaction across a number of threads. Then, with a bit of luck, someone will come along & post 6 lengthy, quote-within-quote posts & kill the thread. Our eyes will glaze over & the whole debacle will be over for the day. Till tomorrow! Wink
I've come to see these threads as some some of group loyalty exercise, a tribal ritual thing. Tells me more about the folk involved & their fixed positions & group affiliations, as anything else, really.
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  4  
Reply Sun 18 Oct, 2009 06:05 pm
Quote:
I freely admit that whether or not I remain engaged in A2K has virtually nothing to do with its sustainability and the question of whether or not I do, is meaningful to myself alone.


True dat.

0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  2  
Reply Sun 18 Oct, 2009 06:07 pm
as Gabby Hayes would say "what goes around, comes around."
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

The first lady of Jacobean Sex Comedy - Discussion by izzythepush
Horror movie from '90 to '00 - Question by DraganaT
Movie Fans: Any TCM FANS???? - Discussion by glitterbag
Did I overreact? - Question by downunder1234
Signal! - Question by chirchri
Is my ex a psychopathic nutcase? - Question by misstormented25
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 07/31/2021 at 08:35:22