Setanta wrote:spendius wrote:One of my considered posts this very afternoon was greeted with the assertion that it was "very silly" without the slightest attempt to justify the remark nor, seemingly, any sense that there was a need to justify it.
Considering the amount of drivel you post which has absolutely no relation to the topics being discussed, it is small wonder that people don't feel the need to justify calling your efforts silly.
Got up on the wrong side of the bed, did we? You should know that many people have a great deal of negative stuff to say about you.
I don't think A2K is representative of anything but A2K.
The anonymity that comes from getting to say almost whatever without having to face your audience adds something to the collective temperament that IMO is different from any group or individual discussion in the real world.
Oops.
Didn't mean to stop the discussion....
timberlandko wrote:Perhaps, POM - and cj, too - the circle within which you confine your intellectual travels is unrepresentative of The Nation's mood and attitude as a whole, and similarly unrepresentative of the overall mood and attitude of the aggregate membership of this website.
I recently suggested to someone on another thread -- it might have been MM -- who was lashing out against the majority that so very often the right here on a2k considers itself the majority.
The majority is actually without a coherent body of thought. There is the right, which is largely anti-science among other things, and the left. There are those who claim to be hybrid philosophers and I suggest they are simply confused.
Anyway, Timber, it is rather egotistical of you to suppose this is a predominately right wing nation.
snood -- I wonder whether the anonymity doesn't allow some people to bully; others to play a sort of devil's advocate; others to vent aggressions they carry in from their daily lives for which there is no other outlet. I have even wondered whether some of the more extreme members weren't from the CIA and are here on a govt. mission.
Although it's not my kind of thing, I usually like to read the malevolence people put in their posts...(obviously it has nothing to do with them representing the nation).
Francis -- Why do you enjoy the malevolence? Because some of it so over the top or because it has the same effect that bad news sometimes has: gives the listener a sense of relief that it did not happen to them?
No, POM, it's because it's telling about the one who posts....I almost can hear them sing "I'm bad"...
That's funny, Francis.
And I think it supports my assertion that the lack of necessary accountability from being able to not face whoever we talk to, obscures
any attempts to try to accurately quantify demographics here - majority, minority, right, left, intellectual or loony. I think we'd relate differently if we knew we'd have to explain face to face. And I very much include myself in that assessment. I don't think I'd be nearly as bold and definitely not as irreverent or profane sometimes if I had to face the other posters.
There's fifty thousand members of A2k. That's a sizable village, but the number of people that I come in contact with here is probably less the a hundred, maybe less than fifty if the criterion is raised to 'contact equals one post in the same thread in seven days'. That's about the same number I can interact with at a crowded bar. (And the conversation is sometimes just as deep or shallow depending on the night and the libations.)
So, no, A2k is not the nation, because 1)nation limits the discussion to the egocentric USA and 2) there are far too few of us to reflect the world at large.
What we are is a kind of bar room, a descendant of the salons and saloons of the 1400's, a coffee house for the nations of the world. None of those rooms were filled with particularly responsible people and neither is A2k. When in contact with those who are irresponsible, irresponsive or just dense, we have the liberty to ignore them. (or better, don't even expend the energy it takes to ignore them as someone once said about critics.)
I like it here. Yes, there are times when I look at all the time spent and wonder what could I have accomplished instead in adding three words to 'Let's write a novel', and I promise myself I will quit when I hit 6,000 or 7,000 posts, but then someone makes an actual cogent point or points me to a really interesting website regarding the {fill in any of the more recent political or social or writing items} and makes me glad I stayed.
There is always that chance that something someone says here will help change things for the better. I believe that. I hope that.
Joe(but I'm still leaving when I hit 8,000 posts.)Nation
plainoldme wrote:Setanta wrote:spendius wrote:One of my considered posts this very afternoon was greeted with the assertion that it was "very silly" without the slightest attempt to justify the remark nor, seemingly, any sense that there was a need to justify it.
Considering the amount of drivel you post which has absolutely no relation to the topics being discussed, it is small wonder that people don't feel the need to justify calling your efforts silly.
Got up on the wrong side of the bed, did we?
What's this "we" ****--you got a mouse in your pocket?
Quote:You should know that many people have a great deal of negative stuff to say about you.
No . . . you're kiddin' . . . really?
Here's a quarter . . . go call someone who gives a ****.
Joe Nation -- Your point about the numbers we encounter here dovetails with conversations I have with members that I know personally. I am asked if I know such-and-such poster or this-poster. I almost never do. I have had many coversations about the method used by one poster with whom my phone caller disagrees politically and religiously but whose writing style he admires. I haven't run across her.
But, we probably are a bar room. Unfortunately, since I have to use public computers, I am always sober. Darn!
snood wrote: I don't think I'd be nearly as bold and definitely not as irreverent or profane sometimes if I had to face the other posters.
On the other hand I would be the same, just ask those who met me...
Francis wrote:snood wrote: I don't think I'd be nearly as bold and definitely not as irreverent or profane sometimes if I had to face the other posters.
On the other hand I would be the same, just ask those who met me...
...I'll get right on that...
Quote:No . . . you're kiddin' . . . really?
Here's a quarter . . . go call someone who gives a ****.
See? Just like in a bar.
Joe(one closer to 8000)Nation
Francis wrote:snood wrote: I don't think I'd be nearly as bold and definitely not as irreverent or profane sometimes if I had to face the other posters.
On the other hand I would be the same, ...
Me too!! As I am very outspoken, I can be as bold here
as I am face to face with people. I have absolutely no problem there.
You mean we could have words if we meet, CJ? No way!
snood wrote:I don't think A2K is representative of anything but A2K.
The anonymity that comes from getting to say almost whatever without having to face your audience adds something to the collective temperament that IMO is different from any group or individual discussion in the real world.
I think A2K is representative of the world in that we all have different opinions, lives, experiences and voices. And we use them.
I don't think it's necessarily a representaion of the beliefs of a country or a state or a city.
I do agree however, that discussion on A2K is different than that of converstion in real life. I really try to be as real as I can but sometimes, you just can't help yourself.
No offense, but I think that if you really believe that it makes no difference whether or not you're face to face, you might need to consider that a little more carefully.
