Yet another phony intellectual badass seems to think that himself and a few select others (including myself) need to be banned from this forum for the greater good.

So, what are the perfect characteristics of a perfect forum from your POV?

We are all unique, just like everyone else.

The internet is open to the public, just like the airwaves. Some people like to stick their fingers in their ears and hum really loud so they don't have to hear what they don't agree with. I think it's foolish.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Sawdust,

The reason I ask, is I hear endlessly about the “Good old Days” and what were those dynamics? I have visited hundreds of forums and have found none that have this level of activity and spread of ideological differences. Overall this forum is surprisingly civil all things considered.

Chris for whatever his reasons, thinks I and others need to be banned. While I would certainly question what bur resides up Chris ass for this forum, Thom, everyone he doesn’t like and why he even bothers logging in here.

While I view some of my counterparts here as severely lacking any coherent backing of their beliefs, I think my existence here provides the necessary balance and challenge to those beliefs. I can not imagine even wanting an environment that all we did was sit around and agreed on every topic and every issue and the only contention between people was not whether or not Bush was an ass, but to what degree Bush is an ass.

So, ironic that a Con was the first to post to this thread, I am really interested in progressive POV on this forum.

quote:

Free Slabmaster

WOW.. Miles finally got one right

I was pretty disappoined when Chris called Slabmaster a "piece of shit". After people talk like that, there is no hope of a reasonable discussion.

perfect characteristics of a perfect forum.



I don't believe there is such a thing. As was posted, we are all unique.

quote:

I was pretty disappoined when Chris called Slabmaster a "piece of shit". After people talk like that, there is no hope of a reasonable discussion.

I saw that and I have to wonder what his endgame was. He talks about the "good old days" and I have to wonder if this is how they dealt in those days.

I think you’re wrong that reasonable debate is without hope even after being attacked. The only reactions you can control are your own. If your not bothered by it and see it for what it really is, it makes continuing much easier.

quote:

I don't believe there is such a thing. As was posted, we are all unique.

Fair enough..

But Thom site is markedly different from Democratic underground or Randi Rhodes forum. Why is that? Is there in fact a better forum then Thoms?

quote:

Is there in fact a better forum then Thoms?

I haven't found any.

Radically different from what I read.
The same point of view rehashed and never challenged does nothing to stretch our knowledge.
In my life, I have learned more from those that have presented a foreign POV.
Other progressive sites have closed that door and remain stagnant viewing people as enemies.

I think everyone has a different idea of what the perfect message board would be, just as different as the people here.

It is a very odd forum, when you think about it, being able to interact daily, with other people from all over the country (and suppose world to a lesser extent).

I wish I could say I have learned anything from the conservative view, other than I find it odd, and difficult to understand how people can think in such a restrictive manner, but to each his/her own. I have learned a few economic terms from Ron (although I don't know that I will ever need to use them).

What's with the, 'Free Slabmaster', he hasn't been banned, has he?

quote:

I think everyone has a different idea of what the perfect message board would be, just as different as the people here.

Really? I would not have guessed, could be why I framed it "Your POV"

quote:

I wish I could say I have learned anything from the conservative view, other than I find it odd, and difficult to understand how people can think in such a restrictive manner, but to each his/her own.

What is learned from opposing view points is entirely up to you and you alone. Certainly I do not learn that much from reading arguments opposing mine as much as I learn how to articulate and lay my arguments out. What I generally hope to gain is better perspective on the complete issue, with the off chance I might be persuaded from my original stance a few degrees. Something that generally can not be achieved solo.

If you have the notion that your ideas alone will be able to persuade a person to switch sides, you end up like Captain. Frustrated, depressed and gone.

Correct.

We can make a better arguments by testing our own belief system when challenged. Will it stand?
Who knows, maybe our beliefs need evaluation.
I have changed my opinions and beliefs on occasion due to a counter points of view that when examined, made more sense than my own.

I hope to keep an open mind.

Loganthor,

You crack me up.

Kate,

I guess I am not the only one.

quote:

Loganthor,

You crack me up.

quote:

humor is the path of least resistance
&
'HUMOR IS THE PATH TO UNIVERSAL WISDOM'

I see.

quote:

I see.

Did you care to opine upon the topic?

Duh. I think I started a thread on the topic, just before you started yours. lol

quote:

Duh. I think I started a thread on the topic, just before you started yours. lol

I was unaware. Link it.

lol

quote:

lol

Or, just laugh, whichever you prefer.

should I ASSume "lol" is YOUR POV of this forum or just this thread.

Kate,

quote:

Originally posted by --Kate:
Loganthor,

You crack me up.

Loganthor,

Let me ass you a question: what in Slabmaster's 'final solution' did you feel was in any way a form of acceptable discourse, paying special attention to the fact that after the warning that if anybody would ever say anything like that again they would get booted, ol' Faithful there decided that 'that don't concern me' and just kept right on going?

Cat asked for it (I'm assuming that this is why he got banned; don't know for sure, of course.) And THAT, incidentally, is the real meaning of 'karma'.

Don't worry, though, I'm sure he'll be allowed to return, if he asks nicely (hm. oh, well.) All anybody asked him was please do not propose any genocide, thank you very much. That', as far as I'm concerned, is not an unreasonable request, I'm sure that if he tries real hard, he'll be able to live by that one little guideline.

quote:

Don't worry, though, I'm sure he'll be allowed to return, if he asks nicely (hm. oh, well.) All anybody asked him was please do not propose any genocide, thank you very much. That', as far as I'm concerned, is not an unreasonable request, I'm sure that if he tries real hard, he'll be able to live by that one little guideline.

Why would anyone ask to return on the condition that they don't speak their mind? Did Slab appear to you to be the kind of person who would compromise?

Interesting post Loki, seems to be a classic derailment post of my thread. We all know what that means.

I do not feel qualified at the moment to comment on Slabmaster since I do not know (YET) the who, what, why or when or the most important Context to which his statements were construed. (cough, cough, waiting). If he was in fact removed for advocating genocide. Then I would think that would be an extremely piss poor reason. I myself can think of several million people in this world we can do without if I was King of the world. I find nothing wrong with thinking there are several countries in this world we could do without. Because in the end, there is nothing wrong with thinking it, regardless of offending your moral sensibilities, Unlike the numerous comments advocating the death or torture of the President of the United States, Which IS a felony crime.

I would have to agree with Sawdust, Unlikely Slab will change his interaction. I was not required to pledge or promise changes in order to be re-instated, to my knowledge neither have Ron or Ren.

Gee Kate I was really hoping you would choose to participate in this thread, I have been saving a compliment for you for another facet of this thread.

Is abiding by a specific rule of thought mandatory here?

quote:

Is abiding by a specific rule of thought mandatory here?

That would depend of course on the thought.

I have no problem with Thom wanting to regulate the content on HIS forum. Regardless of his “stated principles” that everyone feels they have to throw in his face every chance they get. I believe their goal is to provided an environment that even Newbies feel comfortable in participating without being blown away by the overpowering, skilled, battle hardened, extreme element here.

I drive’s me crazy the way they treat their host here on this board. In any other environment on earth there would be consequences for that type of behavior. Yet the biggest, the most outrageous complainers of Thom probably do not notice that they still have a forum to which to complain, where in any other environment they would have they’re ass handed to them.

quote:

Is abiding by a specific rule of thought mandatory here?

Evidently.

quote:

Originally posted by Loganthor:
Yet another phony intellectual badass seems to think that himself and a few select others (including myself) need to be banned from this forum for the greater good.

So, what are the perfect characteristics of a perfect forum from your POV?

Presuming by "forum" you are referring to this board, I'd have to design the software for such a board/forum to suit my tastes. I can find no board on the internet that would allow the individual the choice and flexibility of starting a discussion and by invitation, selecting who gets to be involved based on their willingness to comply with what could be a group's decision about the parameters of a given discussion. There is no perfect design for any given discussion. Discussions vary in all the infinitely possible ways human beings can make things vary. The way the boards are now, and in particular this one, collective decision making is nil, and everyone must rely on an authority to arbitrate and eventually enforce the board "rules" which are obviously not always levied with exactly the same equanimity according to each member's perspective, nor is that likely ever to happen if one were to give it a moment's thought.

Ideally I'd like to see a situation where a group of participants interested in a given topic, having a discussion amongst themselves, could have the option of barring offensive members from their discussion by their own choice, and that would occur by using features in the software. I have some ideas for this now that I know something about how this software works, but I'm not that much into designing it, so I probably won't. This could even have options of making it possible for people to request being allowed another chance if they've been run off by the group for, shall we say, adolescent behavior.

As a whole, I've seen that most of the people who were on this board in the past were quite lenient to the trolls, where even the Bringemon/poppingturtle/risingtide reincarnating troll (I've no idea how many other sock puppets went with that troll) got a thumbs up on one occasion, where the notion of banning such a troll was discussed as a group. No matter how much the current conservative voices like to trash the progressives on this site, as a whole, when as a group, they do tend to be lenient. Those are what a few from that era now fondly call "the good old days." We now cannot even bring up such a topic on this board since it's been reorganized, and that's just one of the ways the "community" cannot be a community.

People are going to team up. I'd venture that it's in human DNA to do so. So why not take advantage of the tendency to do that instead of pretending it doesn't happen and shouldn't? People will modify their own behavior, depending on what they want to get out of something, if others are having an interesting discussion and they can't just torpedo it without getting shunned. Let them be on the board and just make the board software in some way correspond to what people can actually do in real life to limit intrusive behavior, whether it be a ADHD 12 year old interrupting a group discussion, or a consciously designed effort by a paid correspondent. We cam figure these things out for ourselves. If I got banned for anything it was for saying something along those lines.

Of course, another reality that puts this thread in perspective is that getting a board together and drawing a crowd has certain criteria that at least some of us have some peripheral awareness of now. Thom is a national figure and for internet savvy people, his name is a draw. Anyone can start a message board for free. There are a number of servers out there willing to allow people to use their software to start a message board. The problem is, to get enough people interested in "visiting" the site in order to generate a discussion, let alone enough of them to create some sense of community. So, this is Thom's board, and he controls the software, and we know that most of us don't have the draw Thom has. So we have the option of going off, starting our own message board and talking to ourselves.

I see there are 16436 registered names on this, how many are duplicates, who knows. Compare the activity on this board to, say, Randi Rhodes (last time I visited, some time ago now) and there's virtually no one here, ever.

I have never grasped why posters feel the right to dictate to the board owner what content is answered and how it is presented.
The board owner should be given the respect to guide the content. Thom's choice to answer questions is Thom's choice, not the posters on a thread.
In my opinion, it is poor behavior.
I have not seen that on any board either.

Hopefully, the discourse is not dictated by the few with an ax to grind and free flowing respectful thoughts can flourish. Even if they differ.

Thanks for you input Ren,

I also do not know of any perfect software that would emulate real life nor any perfect combination of personalities and interaction that would be construed as perfect. Which brings me to my thread question.

In all my travels in cyberspace I have not found a more conducive place then Thoms to engage with opposing viewpoints. I have found Anarchist hiding behind a fortress, I just viewed Randi Rhodes and although there are more active member out of the 24 threads I viewed I was unable to find a single conservative opinion, she has massive rules (to which all of us violate here), plus probation status on new people. What right wing sites I have visited are no less forgiving. ET is nice but much too Euro centric for me to participate.

Which brings me to my problem. Thom’s is slowly dieing on the vein. I can barely remember the last time I had a decent, involved discussion regarding any topic. But I am sure it was with Jason or Captain. I can sense the frustration mounting with the higher up’s and I see the wolf’s turning on their own. So for me to get what I want, I have a vested interest in seeing Thom’s forum survive. So what is the perfect forum, if it even exist.


We obviously have a different view on how trolls were handled. I saw the paranoia, the finger pointing, the lists, the hunting, the scorn.

quote:

We obviously have a different view on how trolls were handled. I saw the paranoia, the finger pointing, the lists, the hunting, the scorn.

You've been here at Thom's for just over two years. The first year you were here, I'd already begun to experience a degradation in the quality of the discussions I was having, and I began to change my own posting behavior in response. Despite that, I saw what was happening more as a natural community response that, itself, indicates what I might be willing to consider normal behavior from people with a range of civil practices responding to change. From my experience, people will tend to be exclusionary, and they will tend to instill some sense of group enforced rules on each other in their patterns of behavior. Those are important features that create a social context. You can cite them for it, call it group think, yes, but it is a kind of collective arrangement that differs from something enforced by a set of outside rules and behavior that uses some sort of enforcing agency as a monitor, rather than the individuals themselves. I would argue that change does occur in such collective arrangements, but it's not likely to be as obvious, because everyone sort of changes together, often, as if it were each individual's idea. Some of the behavior will tend to be high schoolish, at best, and perhaps that's the best we can hope for here in the US at this point.

The EuroTrib board is self monitoring, for the most part, and there is an obvious consciousness there about a degree of politeness expected in their correspondence. Maybe it has to do with Europe's own complex mixture of cultures and languages that they would be conscious of that as they seem to be.

ren,

would you consider this forum to open to new and different views, or closed and standoffish?

quote:

Originally posted by Sako:
ren,

would you consider this forum to open to new and different views, or closed and standoffish?

That's not really a question I've thought much about. I guess what I'd consider a problem would be of a different kind.

I don't consider it closed and standoffish board. The clear policy is to welcome divergent views for discussion.

I cannot say with any degree of confidence how the rules are actually enforced and why anyone is banned. My sense if it is, no on is banned for their views, but rather for their behavior. There is no public explanation when anyone is banned, so no way to know unless one is personal friends with the one who was banned. It used to be public knowledge. It seems to take a lot for that to occur now.

Sawdust,

quote:

Did Slab appear to you to be the kind of person who would compromise?

He acted like a real asshole; please don't confuse NOT considering your surroundings with any kind of decisiveness.

Also, many people seem to confuse the consistent call for mass murder for an 'opinion'. I assure you that these are not the same (for one thing, an opinion is backed up; he was too much of a chickenshit to do so. In that sense, Sawdust, yes - he compromised all the time.)


Loganthor,

quote:

Interesting post Loki, seems to be a classic derailment post of my thread. We all know what that means.

I for one don't. But if you feel 'derailed', all you have to do is put it back on track. And you can always ignore me, huh

quote:

I find nothing wrong with thinking there are several countries in this world we could do without.

Yes, there is.

quote:

Unlike the numerous comments advocating the death or torture of the President of the United States, Which IS a felony crime.

Crime? I was under the impression that we were talking about the bannng of an unpleasant and mostly character on a message board? Is it your opinion that Thom should only ban when an actual law has been broken? Or would you say, that we all know what that classic derailment of my post means? (Karma, gotta love it, huh?)

quote:

Which brings me to my problem. Thom’s is slowly dieing on the vein. I can barely remember the last time I had a decent, involved discussion regarding any topic. But I am sure it was with Jason or Captain. I can sense the frustration mounting with the higher up’s and I see the wolf’s turning on their own. So for me to get what I want, I have a vested interest in seeing Thom’s forum survive. So what is the perfect forum, if it even exist.

Well, your vested interest might be sort of an hour glass, where if you achieve your goal, the reason for your activity ceases to exist.

Strange problem, don't you think?

If all the big fish get fried, either through your own efforts, or through a complex of reasons you have no control over, there are no fish left in the pond.

In a sense, it's a win; but in another sense it's a loss, if the vested interest is in frying fish.

Hmmm.

To answer your question directly, Loganthor, a perfect forum is one where the fish don't fry, but (I think I'm speaking from your perspective now), they are kept in perpetual fear of frying with a glimmer of hope they won't have to fry after all. It is hope, for engagement, and for an ability to have a say, that fish don't fry. Hope fuels a discussion. Without hope, the vested interests have no forum for discussion, because they are one of the causes for the discussion to cease to exist.

quote:

He acted like a real asshole; please don't confuse NOT considering your surroundings with any kind of decisiveness.

I've been a participant on this board since 2001. Although Slab and I never personally met, we were members of a different board several years before that and have communicated since the late 90's. I know what he was doing. He was playing you like a fiddle. He was hoping that you would be sitting at your key board with your cheeks puffed out in righteous indignation with snot blowing on to the backs of your hands.

You tried to back him down, he wouldn't, you were the entertainment.

Frankly, I read your conversation and I found it amusing.

Morning, Sawdust-

Was it the Nuge forum where you met, Slab? If so, (as I recall you stating in one of these chats), Nuge routinely gives correspondents the boot.

Club Nuge was the board. I left that board years ago because I didn't like the way liberals were treated. I don't recall any of them being banned unless they were really disruptive but one in particular who I respected and liked was threatened by another member of having his internet time reported to his employer. He was a chemist who worked at a university in California. That kind of petty shit didn't sit well with me. In addition, it seemed like lots of the members were kids and the level of the conversation seemed pretty juvenile at times.

One exception was a poster who called himself USSgoblin. He was an adolescent cancer patient who was active in fund raising and I believe started a Foundation for pediatric cancer. He was an inspiration.

quote:

I know what he was doing. He was playing you like a fiddle. He was hoping that you would be sitting at your key board with your cheeks puffed out in righteous indignation with snot blowing on to the backs of your hands.

Apparently he missed his target.

Maybe he wasn't cut out to be a fiddle player.

quote:

Originally posted by --Kate:

quote:

Which brings me to my problem. Thom’s is slowly dieing on the vein. I can barely remember the last time I had a decent, involved discussion regarding any topic. But I am sure it was with Jason or Captain. I can sense the frustration mounting with the higher up’s and I see the wolf’s turning on their own. So for me to get what I want, I have a vested interest in seeing Thom’s forum survive. So what is the perfect forum, if it even exist.

Well, your vested interest might be sort of an hour glass, where if you achieve your goal, the reason for your activity ceases to exist.

Strange problem, don't you think?

If all the big fish get fried, either through your own efforts, or through a complex of reasons you have no control over, there are no fish left in the pond.

In a sense, it's a win; but in another sense it's a loss, if the vested interest is in frying fish.

Hmmm.

Fish get fried and the ducks get plucked.

So where do the sportsmen go when all the game leaves the preserve? Especially when civilization takes up everything else.

All this talk of banning makes me second guess entering into a conversation.
Are the banning rules posted somewhere?

quote:

I for one don't. But if you feel 'derailed', all you have to do is put it back on track. And you can always ignore me, huh

Way ahead of you.

quote:

Yes, there is.

No, there is not.

quote:

Crime?

18 U.S.C. 871 (a).

quote:

Is it your opinion that Thom should only ban when an actual law has been broken?

It is of my opinion that Thom can Ban for any reason he deems. It is HIS house after all.

I'm perplexed as to why anyone would want to come back to a board which banned them? Seems strange, but then I guess we all have different reasons for being here.

I seem to recall, that Thom isn't the one who decides who is banned, it is the moderators, and I suspect they have their reasons.

quote:

To answer your question directly, Loganthor, a perfect forum is one where the fish don't fry, but (I think I'm speaking from your perspective now), they are kept in perpetual fear of frying with a glimmer of hope they won't have to fry after all. It is hope, for engagement, and for an ability to have a say, that fish don't fry. Hope fuels a discussion. Without hope, the vested interests have no forum for discussion, because they are one of the causes for the discussion to cease to exist.

You bring an interesting conundrum to the mix.

First you appear to imply the perfect forum is one absent of contrarian opinion or perhaps the removal of passion from dialog. This would seem to be a strictly divergent forum to which there are no wrong answers.

Second, Interesting fish analogy. What makes you believe that I represent the Fisherman and not just another fish? My fish is just as capable of being fried as the next guy. Using your analogy, would not the fisherman Darwinian life in general. Your fish gets fried if the arguments are weak, your not strong of mind, not strong of body to fight once your hooked by the fisherman. I personally have lost many fish because of the fight they put up.

Dont we all hope to one day get to the head waters of the stream and frolic in a roman orgy till we die

quote:

I'm perplexed as to why anyone would want to come back to a board which banned them? Seems strange, but then I guess we all have different reasons for being here.

Since I count at least 4 (maybe 5) people here that have been banned in the past and returned. Myself included. You never quite think the banning was justified.

Moderators come and go and rarely understand the context of what was said or done. Sometimes, like in my case, they needed alittle help in seeing the context of the event that unfolded prior to the standoff.

I do not know why Slab was banned, nobody I talk to knows either. If it was for the Genocide comment. That was wrong. If it was because he went against the Admin was being expressly warn. Well that lends a bit more weight. I however know clever his opponent was and would side with Slab.

quote:

This would seem to be a strictly divergent forum to which there are no wrong answers.

"Wrong" according to who, you? And just how does "right" and "wrong" get set up in your mind?

You've completely failed on another thread in your proposal that some mythical "ancient" and pervasive binary opposition goes on between convergent and divergent thought in anyone's mind but your own, but here you are, trying to hunt that dog some more.

Meanwhile the smart game stays away. The smart fish don't want to bite at your bait.

Hmmm.

quote:

Second, Interesting fish analogy. What makes you believe that I represent the Fisherman and not just another fish? My fish is just as capable of being fried as the next guy. Using your analogy, would not the fisherman Darwinian life in general. Your fish gets fried if the arguments are weak, your not strong of mind, not strong of body to fight once your hooked by the fisherman. I personally have lost many fish because of the fight they put up.

Dont we all hope to one day get to the head waters of the stream and frolic in a roman orgy till we die (missing "?"?)

The problem you offer with your proposal is the monochromatic view of conversations being of the fishing variety, or to use another metaphor, a struggle to win, to get to the head of the stream to have a well earned orgy. More than anything you describe your own view of what discussion on this board is about -- for you. Ironically you ask others for their point of view, then argue with them about it. Ok, irony isn't your favorite form of humor, I get that. What you are essentially dismissing is what Kate may be implying. You fried your fish with what she said, and now the conversation ends. And then you point out that:

quote:

Thom’s is slowly dieing on the vein (vine?).

Well, maybe it's dying for you. The idea of being in combat all the time may not appeal to everyone as it does you. Maybe what's happening is you are having difficulty finding fellow combatants. Maybe you might want to try a different "vein" of thought, with a different mining technique, and see if you can find some different minerals to mine. Just a thought.

quote:

Originally posted by Loki:
He acted like a real asshole; please don't confuse NOT considering your surroundings with any kind of decisiveness.

Also, many people seem to confuse the consistent call for mass murder for an 'opinion'. I assure you that these are not the same (for one thing, an opinion is backed up; he was too much of a chickenshit to do so.

People are consistantly calling for mass murder here?

My goodness.

quote:

"Wrong" according to who, you? And just how does "right" and "wrong" get set up in your mind?

Me, you, everyone of a contray opinion?

George Bush is the greatest President in History.

Right or Wrong?

quote:

You've completely failed on another thread in your proposal that some mythical "ancient" and pervasive binary opposition goes on between convergent and divergent thought in anyone's mind but your own, but here you are, trying to hunt that dog some more.

Yet we are still here talking, exploring. So who is the failure now?

quote:

Meanwhile the smart game stays away. The smart fish don't want to bite at your bait.

And yet you and Kate are actively here. Poor self imagine?

quote:

The problem you offer with your proposal is the monochromatic view of conversations being of the fishing variety, or to use another metaphor, a struggle to win, to get to the head of the stream to have a well earned orgy. More than anything you describe your own view of what discussion on this board is about -- for you. Ironically you ask others for their point of view, then argue with them about it. Ok, irony isn't your favorite form of humor, I get that. What you are essentially dismissing is what Kate may be implying. You fried your fish with what she said, and now the conversation ends. And then you point out that:

It is a fish analogy. It is a fairly limited analogy. Fish have very narrow goals in life. If you do not like the spawning reference, replace it with enlightenment, illumination, knowledge or any end result of why you exist here.

The only irony I find is how hard it is to get people to express their opinions on an opinion forum. Contrary to your opinion, I am very interested in Kate statement and have not dismissed it in any fashion. You both seem to be of the like mind that “I” as a person or as the “contrary opinion” represent the fisherman in your analogy. Please explain how I represent an external uber presence here. With your added comments on the analogy are you of the opinion that “I” for whatever I represent is merely a consumer, a taker of “fish”, Destroyer of the fish population?

Loganthor,

My inspiration for the fish analogy was from something you said awhile back.

quote:

Artlo-
No worries, I had bigger fish to fry with this post, you just lit the match. Your still discussing issues with opposing views on a discussion Board. Nothing wrong with that.

link

If frying fish is your game, you need fish in the pond.

If it's not your game, then we move to a different possibility for your angst about your perception that you have lost comrades/competitors at Thom's.

quote:

Originally posted by Sako:
All this talk of banning makes me second guess entering into a conversation.
Are the banning rules posted somewhere?

Hi, Sako,

They're implicit in the "Terms of Service" that appear at the bottom of your screen.

I say, jump in; offer some opinions; engage in some dialogue; clip in some news articles to feed the discussion; and see how it goes. You never know; you might be one of those enduring spirits who has great insights on the news, and on interpersonal dynamics.

quote:

My inspiration for the fish analogy was from something you said awhile back.

Fair enough.

And THANK YOU for your response. Ren seems to think ill of me.

But agian, in your analogy, however inspired by my comments, do you think of my presence here as external (outside the water), hunter of fish (progressive Idea), to which I consume (destroy or make them leave) ?

I have no idea why you're here, Loganthor, but you seem to enjoy yourself.

Ren seems, to me, to be responding to your words.

If your words are ill intended, that's in your control to correct. If they are not, that's in your control to correct the perception they are.

As for Ren's analysis, I'll leave that to Ren to explain.

Boy oh boy. All this talk of fish is making me hungry. Maybe I will have to have a healthy granola bar and a hot cup of coffee today...

There was once a pond that was stocked with hearty and robust fish. These fish swam around with divergent thoughts all the time and all was happy. Then one day (cue the leitmotif ) a group of (I will call) convergent fish happened along this happy pond and decided to join.

In all their grandiose thoughts, the Divergent fish could not understand or even try to understand the new fish coming into their pond. Well the fisherman allowed it and such with open and inviting invitation the convergent fish thought hell maybe we can have a Roman Orgy here.

Well it was not long before some divergent fish became overcome with Paranoid Logic (PL). I can not say if the PL is ingrained in the DNA or if it was the raising of them in an environment of PL but in either case the PL came out. One feisty one in particular tried and tried to get fish cornered and pushed up onto the shore. Ultimately that PL fish only would corner himself and end up on the shore or caught by the fisherman and 'fried'. Well not actually since the PL fish just came back with a different disguise.

There was one highly intellectual PL fish that because of innate abilities became the authority figure partially due to these set of skills. Of course with more understanding/skills becomes more responsibility. This intellectual fish would trap himself in conversations where to defend one position he had to abandon others. For a divergent thinker the Intellectual fish could not handle this and then became an ID (intellectually dishonest) fish in the minds of others. The ID fish would even devise great plans on how the pond should be divided and how the gates would be controlled. Ultimately that PL fish showed his true authoritarianism.

And of course the ID fish would congregate cheerleader fish since he was the 'authority'.

Many fish came. Many fish left. Some divergent fish and some convergent fish. The divergent fish lost their cohesion as a group since their group thinking made hypothesis testing unnecessary. At one time the stock of great thinking divergent fish dwindled...

But that is the story for another time and place.
And now off to eat my healthy granola bar and hot cup of coffee...

One last thing here and the leitmotif to close with.

quote:

have no idea why you're here, Loganthor, but you seem to enjoy yourself.

I have explained it more times then I care to and yes I do generally enjoy myself. If I didn’t enjoy being here that would be a fine case of masochistic behavior.

Do you not enjoy yourself here?

quote:

Ren seems, to me, to be responding to your words.

Could be because he thinks I am wrong

quote:

If your words are ill intended, that's in your control to correct. If they are not, that's in your control to correct the perception they are

quote:

Originally posted by --Kate:


I say, jump in; offer some opinions; engage in some dialogue; clip in some news articles to feed the discussion; and see how it goes. You never know; you might be one of those enduring spirits who has great insights on the news, and on interpersonal dynamics.

Thank you Kate.
I was reading further up the page that opinions need to be backed up.
I don't understand this.
To my limited understanding, stating facts should be backed up or proven, but opinions are opinions and belong to the owner of them.

Ha, Sako,

Sometimes it's difficult to separate fact from opinion. Like, every day, for example. lol

Have some fun, eh?

***

I liked the fish analogy too, Ronald. Glad to see you found something to play with.

***

Loganthor,

I thoroughly enjoy myself here. It's the cheapest pastime I've discovered yet, and I usually learn something in the process.

quote:

Loganthor,

I thoroughly enjoy myself here. It's the cheapest pastime I've discovered yet, and I usually learn something in the process.

Good.

In line with your previous statement:

quote:

If your words are ill intended, that's in your control to correct. If they are not, that's in your control to correct the perception they are

Would you care to clarify the use of the Fisherman Analogy? Instead of me take swings at it.

quote:

Glad to see you found something to play with.

Glad you had something to play with also, Kate.

Glad I'm not participating in this discussion.

quote:

Glad I'm not participating in this discussion

Not to nit pick, but you just did.

So you might as well jump in with both feet. What is you POV of this forum?

quote:

Originally posted by Loganthor:

Would you care to clarify the use of the Fisherman Analogy? Instead of me take swings at it.

I don't know if it makes sense, because to clarify the analogy would limit the options.

I often wondered as a child growing up, listening to parables, why the parables were never explained, at least right there in the text. It made little sense to me then, but a lot more sense now. And, of course, we have lots of examples of preachers who wouldn't have much to say if they didn't have a challenging parable (er, analogy) to work with.

With a parable, the person who reads the story has the choice about which character that person most identifies with.

If you identify with the fish, then you're the fish. If you identify with the fisherman, then you're the fisherman.

You might delude yourself, by imagining yourself in a role that doesn't fit what you actually are, or do, but that's really your choice. Or you may be fully aware, and then the story works to give you insight into what you are about.

I dunno. It's all just words on a screen.

quote:

Originally posted by Loganthor:
What is you POV of this forum?

See my signature...

My POV is that there are many with different points of view.

Sawdust,

quote:

He was hoping that you would be sitting at your key board with your cheeks puffed out in righteous indignation with snot blowing on to the backs of your hands.

Strange. Not my take on what constitutes a 'discussion'. Had more to say about this, but alas: too lazy. Sorry.

[edit]

However, Sawdust, I would like to say that I did appreciate your discourse here. You started out on that thread as just another rodeo clown, but you showed yourself to be more than a cheer leader, and I appreciate and respect that. Sometimes you appear to me to be just another right wing one-liner knuckle head, but I think underneath the antgonism you are a good guy, and you miss the old days as much as I (and some others) do. I hope I'm right about that.
What I'm trying to say, rather clumsily, is that you impressed me, and you re-earned some of my respect. If that means anything to you

I did say it:

HUMOR IS THE PATH TO UNIVERSAL WISDOM

So in identifying with your analogy I have a choice to which aspect I relate but if I choose unwisely I am most likely deluding myself.

So while I ponder my navel over sushi. Can you help me come to terms with this sentence?

quote:

To answer your question directly, Loganthor, a perfect forum is one where the fish don't fry

Are you implying that the perfect forum is a forum without consequence? No challenges, No accountability, No punishment. No simple question like: "How did you justify that statement"

quote:

Are you implying that the perfect forum is a forum without consequence? No challenges, No accountability, No punishment.

Well, not exactly. A forum that functions democratically has group consensus about consequences, as Ren discussed nicely somewhere on the forums. Sometimes this forum works that way, even now.

quote:

The only irony I find is how hard it is to get people to express their opinions on an opinion forum. Contrary to your opinion, I am very interested in Kate statement and have not dismissed it in any fashion. You both seem to be of the like mind that “I” as a person or as the “contrary opinion” represent the fisherman in your analogy. Please explain how I represent an external uber presence here. With your added comments on the analogy are you of the opinion that “I” for whatever I represent is merely a consumer, a taker of “fish”, Destroyer of the fish population?

Huh? Where is the neon sign that says this is an "opinion forum"?

You seem inclined to make unwarranted assumptions about what I think of you, and I see that inclination extends to your conversation with Kate:

quote:

Ren seems to think ill of me.

Honestly, you don't really even exist as a someone to think about one way or another for me. I look at the word puzzles here in this environment, that's all there really is for me. I've taken the trouble to get to know a few people off the board, but for the most part, the less I think about what's going on with the person who generates the words the better.

What I see your word puzzles doing is mostly creating a perpetual oppositional framework for discussion. The result of that perception is I doubt that the maker of those words is interested in the possibility that convergent and divergent thinking are different analytical tools that anyone can use to do different kinds of mental activities, and also can be used quite often together to create a perspective on things that only one tool alone wouldn't be able to accomplish. It's like binocular vision, we use two eyes instead of one because together they give us another kind of vision, a three dimensional view with a spacial perspective that can help us to evaluate distances of perceived objects. To conclude the thought, I'll just say I'm generally not stimulated by what I see in your posts to do much with them.

My entire post was aimed at your thread here, as a whole, which for once seems to show an interest in another's point of view, and your apparent concern that you are running out of participants for your "debates." I quote:

quote:

Thom’s is slowly dieing on the vein (vine?).

So the controversial environment you seem to prefer might be explained by this:

quote:

/rén: Well, maybe it's dying for you. The idea of being in combat all the time may not appeal to everyone as it does you. Maybe what's happening is you are having difficulty finding fellow combatants.

And so that's what this was about:

quote:

/rén: Meanwhile the smart game stays away. The smart fish don't want to bite at your bait.

Now, if you think this here little post is evidence of a debate between us, and that I'm responding to you because you have thrown out some bait for debate, then you just won your little self subscribed debate, kind of like winning at solitaire.

quote:

I can no longer stand your smug, demeaning, sneering attitudes towards your fellow human beings.

Yup. That's the point.

quote:

Well, not exactly. A forum that functions democratically has group consensus about consequences, as Ren discussed nicely somewhere on the forums. Sometimes this forum works that way, even now.

Even in Group consensus, Fish fry.

Slab Fried.

I have never been brought in on a democratic group meeting to discuss consequences and to my knowledge nobody has. Chris felt that for the greater good of the forum Chris and myself and a few others should be banned. I can only assume, Since he is nowhere to be found, he held a similar notion that contrarian viewpoint were not in his formula for the perfect forum. I can also attempt to assume by the “fish fry” comment, that “fish fry” is the analogy for challenge, lose, wrong, defeated. A effect that ultimately lead to less people wanting to participate.

Is this accurate?

MELISSA!!!!
This is the second time you have stretched the screen with your cute division lines or something.
Please just use the quote function or just a few dashes to separate ideas. Also maybe try italics or the list function to get your separators. You messed up my other thread. If you do this again I will have to report it.

Thanks Mel,

Captian was very good, avid reader who could defend his opinion vigorously. But like so many people that I have seen fall from this site, (myself included) Captain got too personally involved in his word and felt he that what he was saying was adequate enough to sway an opposing opinion and he imploded. I took a 2 month rest shortly after I joined here because I imploded after a grueling, bloody beat down I received from Anti / Common tag team over some Bush scandal and my only point was “we do not know any details”. I literally got spanked, called every nasty name in the book.

I actually thought that last post was one of his best.

And I am still right regarding waterboarding.

quote:

Originally posted by Ronald Rutherford:
MELISSA!!!!
This is the second time you have stretched the screen with your cute division lines or something.
Please just use the quote function or just a few dashes to separate ideas. Also maybe try italics or the list function to get your separators. You messed up my other thread. If you do this again I will have to report it.

Oh for god sake's Ron, get a wider computer screen, I am sure you can afford it.

Please stick to giving economic advice and not the structure of one's post, of course now that I know it messes you up...