@Pangloss,
Robert's goal was to create a completely open marketplace for ideas, without censorship or stringency. And he's done so. You acknowledge some prefer it that way, and that's really the jist of it.
@Intrepid,
Honest assessments can still be low-blows
That said, based on this thread, you were right on the money. The craziness that ensued doesn't exactly make the future group inviting.
@Zetherin,
Youtube beat him to it, and the discussions over there should be a warning for those who support that supposed goal of this forum.
@Zetherin,
I'm glad I wont be moderating.
@Caroline,
Caroline wrote:I'm glad I wont be moderating.
Yearh, and I'm sure the rest of us are too.
Christ, and here I used to think that the A2Kers were a bunch of whiny bitches...
Cycloptichorn
@Caroline,
Caroline wrote:Do you think I care what you think.
1) yes, else you would have me on ignore.
2) why do you reply to something that you don't care about?
3) another blatant proof of you lack of rationallity.
4) I will save your climate whine thread for teaching people how some lack rationallity.
Hi!
I believe only four here on this thread have the ability, experience and the attitude it takes to moderate the new group, and two of them have no interest in doing so.
We are left with John and Zetherin.
Is there anyone else that any of us would respect enough to be in such roles?
Mark...
@HexHammer,
I will be ignoring you in the future hex because I don't care for you. Yes save this thread and let people see that you attacked me in something that had nothing to do with you, you attack all the time for no reason, why? Dont bother I dont care have a pleasant life, goodybye.
@Butrflynet,
Hi BF!
Who is this 'Greg Swanson', Please?
Kind regards!
Mark...
I also want to note something else, that may indeed be interesting to some.
Some from the old philosophy forum, as odd as this may be, didn't even have much of an interest in philosophy. Some simply stayed for the community and rarely ever engaged in philosophical discussion (in fact, some members only contributed by way of PM's and blogs). Not to mention, the vast majority didn't have philosophy degrees, nor were they philosophically inclined, even if they were interested in philosophy. A good number were just people yearning for an intellectual discussion, about whatever, that they normally couldn't find in their everyday lives.
Because of this, when people, including myself, refer to the old forum as the "philosophy forum", I always feel as though there is a misnomer present. And when people hear that one has come from the "philosophy forum", they justifiably believe they are a philosopher, or are philosophically versed on some level. But this, as funny as it may be, isn't always (and after closer examination, isn't usually) the case.
@Zetherin,
I think people are on this philforum kick so they can tell their friends etc they go on a philosophy forum on the Internet hoping some of the intellectual
cachet of philosophy will rub off on them and they will be thought of a s "brainy".
There's is not one shred of philosophy involved. Whoever is chosen to moderate should start by explaining what philosophy is to the participants and keep on explaining until they get the general drift. Pangloss, for example, has used one crass circularity, been told about it and in his next post has gone and done it again. Someone used the old excluded middle trick with the body builders. Caroline has well proved that women are unfit for the job assuming she is a typical woman which she sounds like to me.
@spendius,
Hi Spendius!
You must writhe in laughter when the gullible respond.
You can fool some of the people.....
Leave the girl alone. The rest won't bite!
Mark...
@sozobe,
sozobe wrote:
Or, people could start using the ignore function.
Imagine if all the people sputtering at Spendius and Mark Noble just ignored them already?
With or without the Ignore Function.
Me, I'm amused at all the philforum folk letting Spendius toy with them while thread ballooning, and, then, their own lack of previously vaunted personal posting control - and now! wait! They're blaming A2k! Not all of them, though, thank goodness.
@ossobuco,
I have not blamed a2k. spendi is a Brit gas that smells like one; he's harmless - even though his posts stinks.
@Zetherin,
Zetherin wrote:
I also want to note something else, that may indeed be interesting to some.
Some from the old philosophy forum, as odd as this may be, didn't even have much of an interest in philosophy. Some simply stayed for the community and rarely ever engaged in philosophical discussion (in fact, some members only contributed by way of PM's and blogs). Not to mention, the vast majority didn't have philosophy degrees, nor were they philosophically inclined, even if they were interested in philosophy. A good number were just people yearning for an intellectual discussion, about whatever, that they normally couldn't find in their everyday lives.
Because of this, when people, including myself, refer to the old forum as the "philosophy forum", I always feel as though there is a misnomer present. And when people hear that one has come from the "philosophy forum", they justifiably believe they are a philosopher, or are philosophically versed on some level. But this, as funny as it may be, isn't always (and after closer examination, isn't usually) the case.
Thanks for the update, Zetherin. I do think, however, that this was very evident. Even to some of us A2K bottom feeders.