 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Opening threads - a debate.
|
|
|
Subject: BS: Opening threads - a debate. From: The Shambles Date: 30 Aug 05 - 11:46 AM As far as I am aware – no poster on our forum has ever been forced to open a thread. Thread title changes are now imposed to ensure that it is clear to our forum's readers what the content of the thread may be – so a poster should have no real excuse for opening any thread with a title that may not be of interest them. And if they are still unsure – a quick scan will quickly indicate if the thread is of interest to them - or not. Can anyone explain the apparent need now - for so many posters - to not only open a thread with a title indicating a subject that does not interest them – but to repeatedly open such threads? And not only to do this – but to post (often many times) - only to make personal judgements upon the hread and upon some of the thread's active participants? Posters to our forum - may judge these threads and some of their active participants to be boring – repetitious – long-winded – convoluted – mentally unstable – delusional – manipulative and post only to make other equally pointless personal judgements – but could these judgements be far more positively made - by simply ignoring such threads and letting the thread die a natural death? For to post repeatedly to a thread that does not interest you – complain about the fact that other posters are still posting to the thread and expressing a view that the thread is too long or has run its course. Or to post only some indication of frustration like AAAAAAAGGGGG – will quite logically and counter-productively for these posters - only serve to refresh and prolong the thread's active life. In addition to displaying this lack of control over their own postings - some posters having repeatedly opened a thread that is not to their taste - seem to think that - in addition to only posting personal judgements of their fellow posters - they also have some right to control the postings of others. By instructing others to stop posting - and post requests for editing actions like deletion and closure – be imposed upon the posts of other posters - who are actively involved in posting - to address the thread's subject. Can any one explain the logic of why any poster on our forum would wish to repeatedly open, post and refresh a thread that they state to be of no interest to them and also feel they have some right to prevent others from contributing to it? Is this practice - and the current encouragement of the posting of only personal judgements of fellow posters by example – a really desirable example to now on our forum and if it is thought not to be – what (if anything) can be done by posters to our forum - to address it? This is posted in the hope of a reasoned debate. However, I suspect and fear that - (always assuming that this thread is not first subject to any imposed editing action) - it will not be too long before posts containing only personal judgements will appear in this thread. I will ignore these, not respond in kind and try to debate the issue – hopefully other posters may also.
The issue is not up for debate. Basaed on his repetitious postings The Shambles cannot seem to understand this. joe-clone |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate. From: Donuel Date: 30 Aug 05 - 11:50 AM I suggest that a can of spray paint and a warehouse wall facing the tracks will give you much more satisfaction than posting here. Paint may in fact last longer although it may fade in which case you should contact the manufacturer. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate. From: Bill D Date: 30 Aug 05 - 11:53 AM *grin*....I wonder if they make spray-paint cans which are pre-set to "perhaps" and "impose personal judgements" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate. From: John MacKenzie Date: 30 Aug 05 - 11:54 AM I would like to see another column added to the list of threads saying who started that thread. I know this would have prevented me from opening this thread! G.. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate. From: GUEST Date: 30 Aug 05 - 11:56 AM Good for the opera, ballet, or even evening of Shakespeare. Great idea, Shambles. Good work. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate. From: GUEST Date: 30 Aug 05 - 11:57 AM OPENING THREADS, TA-DA! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate. From: GUEST Date: 30 Aug 05 - 11:58 AM FOR THOSE WISHING TO PRESENT A MORE CASUAL LOOK . . . WE HAVE THE ENCLOSED! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate. From: The Shambles Date: 30 Aug 05 - 12:17 PM You may have missed this editing comment (or perhaps my posting of it will now make it big enough for you to be able to read it) as it was inserted into an existing post by an anonymous volunteer fellow poster and did not refresh this thread. The issue is not up for debate. Basaed on his repetitious postings The Shambles cannot seem to understand this. joe-clone |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate. From: Clinton Hammond Date: 30 Aug 05 - 12:27 PM "The issue is not up for debate. Basaed on his repetitious postings The Shambles cannot seem to understand this. joe-clone" Then lock this... and if Sham starts another one, ban his stupid ass for being an idiot spammer like any message borad staff worth their salt would do.... "I would like to see another column added to the list of threads saying who started that thread. I know this would have prevented me from opening this thread!" That John is one of the BEST f**king ideas ever suggested to this place... wanna bet 10 bucks it'll NEVER happen? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate. From: GUEST Date: 30 Aug 05 - 12:38 PM I repeat Why do you all keep coming back for more? Why do you keep the thread going by adding to it all the time? just like I am doing now Why do you all have to get so personal? Why dont you leave it to Joe Offer and clones He is not causing any harm, just ignore him if you dont like his views and go to threads that please you, he is doing a very good job of fishing and you are all taking the bait |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate. From: Cluin Date: 30 Aug 05 - 12:43 PM Be quiet! You're scaring the fish away! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate. From: GUEST,Yawn Date: 30 Aug 05 - 02:01 PM Ah but Shambles, I LIKE to open your threads because they give me a good laugh. Trouble for you is that I am not laughing with you, I am laughing AT you! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate. From: Ebbie Date: 30 Aug 05 - 04:03 PM You forgot the 'Tech' designation, Roger. What will be your next one? Rubbish? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate. From: artbrooks Date: 30 Aug 05 - 06:45 PM Just on the off chance that this is indeed a serious question...especially since (although the grammar is very difficult to parse) it seems to have been asked about five times in the initial post, using slightly different words each time...I shall attempt to answer it from my own perspective: Actually, I do not open threads which clearly have no interest to me. For example, I cannot recall ever opening one which contained the word "Hull" in the title. However, I do open threads which have interesting or puzzling titles; such as, for example, Opening threads - a debate. I generally ignore prefixes such as BS or TECH, since they are often misunderstood or misused by the poster. Once I have opened a thread for the first time, and I have figured out what the actual topic of the thread is (as opposed to what is stated in the title), I may leave never to return, return from time to time to see how the discussion is progressing, or make a post myself if the topic is of interest to me after all. My own interest is history, and specifically historical accuracy, so many of my posts involve historical issues or events. Occasionally, and against my better judgement, I may respond to a troll or participate in an exchange of snide comments. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate. From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 30 Aug 05 - 08:31 PM 'I would like to see another column added to the list of threads saying who started that thread.' "New Messages Since Your Last Visit" page at http://www.mudcat.org/NewMessages.cfm & "Messages By Date" page at http://www.mudcat.org/messagesbyday.cfm both have the headings Mudcat Name Subject Date Once you have navigated via the drop down list at the top of this page to those pages, add the shortcuts to your PC. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate. From: Little Hawk Date: 30 Aug 05 - 08:35 PM Roger.... You post to threads that push your buttons. Or you launch such threads. That's normal. Use it to understand yourself. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate. From: Manitas_at_home Date: 31 Aug 05 - 02:04 AM While we're about it why do we have to scroll down the thread to add our comments? Why not top post like every other bugger? No-one seems to read the whole thread anyway. Why is the translator so limited? Why no English to Urdu or Hindi? Why blue clickies? What's wrong with green? Why are there still some days when there are no new whinging threads? Couldn't we have a mechanism to refresh an old thread of The Shambles when this happens? Why haven't the above questions been answered yet? I'm still waiting for a reply... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate. From: Manitas_at_home Date: 31 Aug 05 - 02:07 AM PS. Try translating the thread to Spanish and see the name of the orginal poster. Food for thought, eh? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate. From: GUEST,Jon Date: 31 Aug 05 - 04:29 AM You can have green clickies. And red ones... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate. From: The Shambles Date: 31 Aug 05 - 08:19 AM Occasionally, and against my better judgement, I may respond to a troll or participate in an exchange of snide comments. Why would you do this? Why not simply ignore it? Why deliberatly choose to post something against your better judgement? Which would I hope - tell you that responding in kind - will only result in yet more of the same personal judgements being posted? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate. From: Cluin Date: 31 Aug 05 - 08:36 AM Because sometimes, dude, ya just gotta do something against your better judgement. Of course posting in an internet forum is a pretty wimpy way to feed the rebel inside. But whatever floats yer boat... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate. From: The Shambles Date: 31 Aug 05 - 09:45 AM If decide to do something against your better judgement - do you have any right then to - pass any judgement upon others? Is there any real point in having better judgement if you decide better - and go against it? How can anyone else ever know if you have better judgement - if you never use it and if they never see it? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate. From: Wolfgang Date: 31 Aug 05 - 09:46 AM I like these threads for the comic in them as Yawn does. Shambles posting Shambles passing judgement on others' reading ability by copying clone messages inserted in posts and sometimes in the very same post using a serious tone admonishing us not to pass judgement on others has me rolling on the floor laughing. Wolfgang |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate. From: jeffp Date: 31 Aug 05 - 10:15 AM It's our very own theater of the absurd, isn't it? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate. From: Bill D Date: 31 Aug 05 - 11:28 AM Perhaps passing judgement should be limited to those who have taken and passed "Judgement Passing 201" from the Shambles College of Rhetorical Obfuscation. And perhaps each 'passing of judgement' should be posted in a special forum, debated for 3 weeks, then voted on by a quorum of all those whom Shambles has ascertained are not 'anonymous volunteers', with the voting results being posted along with the judgement being passed, followed by a 6 month period during which recounts of votes could be challenged by, or in the name of, any poster who might have been judged, whether he is aware of it or not. ...perhaps.... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate. From: The Shambles Date: 31 Aug 05 - 04:10 PM If against your better judgement you just carried on urinating in a shared swimming pool - it would hardly be very just - if you then expressed your public concern about the quality of the water and judged that others should not also urinate in the pool. And any attempt by you to sit in judgement and hold on to the moral-high ground - perhaps should then feel a little hollow - as the end result of all this going against one's better judgement - would still be dirty water in the shared swimming pool? It appears that some - who in deciding to recently post here - but perhaps against their better judgement - would have been perhaps the best able to shed light on this debate - but chose not to in their posts - may not have been able to read the following - in the original post to this thread. Their posts may perhaps demonstrate very well the problem detailed in the thread's original post - but perhaps do not add much to the debate or perhaps present much hope of a solution? Posters to our forum - may judge these threads and some of their active participants to be boring – repetitious – long-winded – convoluted – mentally unstable – delusional – manipulative and post only to make other equally pointless personal judgements – but could these judgements be far more positively made - by simply ignoring such threads and letting the thread die a natural death? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate. From: Clinton Hammond Date: 31 Aug 05 - 04:12 PM All water was piss at some point... and it all will be again some day too.... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate. From: Wolfgang Date: 01 Sep 05 - 10:57 AM And then there are those who are completely unable or unwilling to debate in any meaningful sense of the word and call others to seriously debate. That's too funny. Wolfgang |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate. From: The Shambles Date: 01 Sep 05 - 12:26 PM As far as I am aware – no poster on our forum has ever been forced to open a thread. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate. From: John MacKenzie Date: 01 Sep 05 - 12:37 PM Some people have this terrible compulsion to start threads though Roger, and on the same subject every time!! G.. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate. From: The Shambles Date: 01 Sep 05 - 12:45 PM Can anyone explain the apparent need now - for so many posters - to not only open a thread with a title indicating a subject that does not interest them – but to repeatedly open such threads? And not only to do this – but to post (often many times) - only to make personal judgements upon the thread and upon some of the thread's active participants? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate. From: Joe Offer Date: 01 Sep 05 - 12:49 PM Can you diagram that sentence, Shambles? -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate. From: Bee-dubya-ell Date: 01 Sep 05 - 12:56 PM There are certain clues that are immediate tip offs that I would find a thread boring and uninteresting. Like having the person who started the thread be Shambles. Nothing against Shambles, but I rarely find much commonality between his concerns and mine. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate. From: The Shambles Date: 01 Sep 05 - 01:00 PM Posters to our forum - may judge these threads and some of their active participants to be boring – repetitious – long-winded – convoluted – mentally unstable – delusional – manipulative and post only to make other equally pointless personal judgements – but could these judgements be far more positively made - by simply ignoring such threads and letting the thread die a natural death? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate. From: catspaw49 Date: 01 Sep 05 - 01:21 PM While being a master myself at the misuse of the ellipsis, may I ask anyway, what the hell is with the hyphens? Since we're on the more humorous elements of Sham's posts as opposed to the simply non-sensical elements, I can't figure for the life of me what he's trying to do with the damn hyphens. I can't figure if he's trying to use them as substitutes for commas or semi-colons or what? Am I supposed to pause there and allow it to delineate that word or phrase from the others? The best laughs seem to come from the way he often connects three or four incomplete sentences with them, ending up with one long incomplete sentence. I can't make sense out of most of his shit. I gather I am not alone in that problem. Like Bill, I think in a former life Roger was a certain Danish philosopher but in this life he's just an ass. Maybe we could have a contest! I'll post a quote by Sham and everyone gets a chance to interpret what the fuck it means! The problem there is that only Sham knows what it means and the little dude's explanation of the quote might be even more mysterious than the quote itself!!! I can go get a thousand others, but let's take a look at this one. Okay now folks, we need entries. Take your best shot and see if you can make sense of this: -If all posters were now to be encouraged - by example - to try to resist the temptation to post publicly - only to pass their personal judgement upon any fellow poster. And were encouraged - by example - not to post and request that any imposition to be imposed upon the contributions of others – and our our volunteer fellow posters did not insist on firing the first shots at our forum - there is real danger that peace could well break out. Lots of weird hyphenization and I am completely enamored of the phrase "imposition to be imposed." I have no idea what the hell he really means AND if I go back and retrieve the entire post to put it in context, it gets even worse. That is the real beauty of Sham's postings. The longer they are, the more confusing and convoluted they become. Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate. From: Cluin Date: 01 Sep 05 - 01:23 PM They stand for dramatic pauses. He thinks he's Shatner. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate. From: jeffp Date: 01 Sep 05 - 01:24 PM "If nobody but me posts, there will be no arguments." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate. From: The Shambles Date: 01 Sep 05 - 01:28 PM This is posted in the hope of a reasoned debate. However, I suspect and fear that - (always assuming that this thread is not first subject to any imposed editing action) - it will not be too long before posts containing only personal judgements will appear in this thread. I will ignore these, not respond in kind and try to debate the issue – hopefully other posters may also. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate. From: John MacKenzie Date: 01 Sep 05 - 01:29 PM Should that be Shitner? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate. From: Cluin Date: 01 Sep 05 - 01:30 PM He loves italics too. Half the time I can't figure out what he's cut & pasted and what's new. But then even what's new is the S.O.S. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate. From: The Shambles Date: 01 Sep 05 - 01:34 PM Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal From: Big Mick - PM Date: 02 Apr 05 - 08:31 PM The alteration it needs must occur in the minds of the folks that respond to this stuff. Roger is entitled to his opinion, and in virtually every posters response they have indicated they are tired of his restating the same thing over and over; they are tired of him twisting quotes to serve himself; they go on and on about how he goes on and on. Do you folks learn anything? Who is worse, Roger or you? The question to Roger about who is "we" has been asked over and over. Roger isn't the problem anymore. Those that feed him are. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate. From: Jeri Date: 01 Sep 05 - 03:27 PM So Roger - you're saying that YOU have a problem with people replying to you? You're probably right, but one would expect, unless they have a compulsion and CAN'T stop themselves, that they would WANT people to reply. Maybe he really hopes people will stop replying. You know what they say: "it takes an entire village to ..." - no, it was something else about a village. Spaw, I've considered suggesting Shambles create a glossary so we can know for sure what he's trying to say instead of trying to interpret it. Then I I realized, 1) it's more fun this way, and, 2) who cares? My stab at it: -If all posters were now to be encouraged - by example - to try to resist the temptation to post publicly - only to pass their personal judgement upon any fellow poster. And were encouraged - by example - not to post and request that any imposition to be imposed upon the contributions of others � and our our volunteer fellow posters did not insist on firing the first shots at our forum - there is real danger that peace could well break out. If people would refrain from posting their opinions or requesting editing of other people's opinions[1], and if the editors stopped being the first to complain[2], I might shut up. [3] [1] I haven't seen anyone ask that another individual's message be edited. [2] But we aren't - not unles you think everyone except you is a clone, which would be a GOOD reason to not 'come out, wouldn't you say? [3] When flying is imposed upon porkers without their consent. Spaw, this is too obviously a parody of his own style to be real. I think he's just trying to win people over by being Pythonesque...or maybe it's his Adams-ish [is that the correct spelling?] Vogon-like writing style, that indefinable French thing: 'je-ne sais quack'. I noticed the imposition of hyperhyphenism too. Perhaps asterisks will be next, or tildes. Who knows? I can tell you I have no idea what he'd like to debate. Whether people shouldn't post their 'personal judgements' (opinions)? Right. You first, or we'll all get Rogered again. Wham-bam-thank-you-Sham. This message has been brought to you by the "Make It Go Away, Make It Better, Or Laugh At It (MIGAMIBOLAI) Committee. "Militant Apathy: Not giving a shit with passion!" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate. From: Cluin Date: 01 Sep 05 - 03:37 PM Shambles... Beaking new ground in the exciting world of ++ créâtïve punctuation ++ and anarchic application of font tags |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate. From: Cluin Date: 01 Sep 05 - 03:38 PM Cluin... breaking new ground in the shameful field of typos |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate. From: Clinton Hammond Date: 01 Sep 05 - 04:04 PM Oh, now that's just too perfect.. Shambles... entertain John.. John... talk to Shambles... You two should get on like a house on fire... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate. From: Pseudolus Date: 01 Sep 05 - 04:18 PM Spaw, Here's my stab at it. I just simply kept in everything that I understood and deleted the rest...here goes... "If all posters resist the temptation to post peace could well break out." I agree... Frank |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate. From: Joe Offer Date: 01 Sep 05 - 06:13 PM Don't tell Little Hawk I said this, but it really is a shame what's happened to Sha__e_ in recent years. The guy seems to have gone bonkers - and he's gotten fat. I wonder if Uhuru and Heather Locklear would have anything to do with a fat old buffoon like him nowadays. He's just all washed up, poor guy. -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate. From: Cluin Date: 01 Sep 05 - 06:41 PM After thast last fight with a Klingon where he got his stones ripped off, he bloated up. That's what happens to eunuchs. They also grow moobs. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate. From: catspaw49 Date: 01 Sep 05 - 06:47 PM Frank, I think you have it! I can see it now and I couldn't before. If no one posts then no one can possibly argue. I see this as being akin to those times when the 'Cat is down and by golly, Roger has a point on that. No posts=No 'Cat=No arguments and hence no way of insulting anyone. I didn't see it before but you unlocked it for us all Frank! I hereby crown you the Official Shambles InterpreterAnd now to Jeri ...Jeri, the firm of Lane, Fielding, Patterson, and Swan, Layabouts-At-Large and For Hire, has been remiss in not having a female on board. I have no doubt this stems from our sexist ways and something we need to correct. I have long thought you had the right attitude to become a part of the firm and would like, with the approval of my partners, to offer you an Associate position. If things go as I suspect, you will be offered a full partnership in no time. We offer you the best in support to do nothing for our clients and remember our slogans ... We do nothing for you, after all, it's the least we can do AND When Doing Sweet Damn All Is Just Too Damn Much, call LFPS If you accept the position we would like to have the rights to your phrase, "Militant Apathy; Not Giving a Shit with Passion." Should you make full partner as I think you will, we would incorporate it into out logo advertising. Please let us know your decision as I feel you are one of us already. Spaw Founding Partner LFPS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate. From: Jeri Date: 01 Sep 05 - 08:55 PM You just don't want me to sue when you steal my 'vision statement'. OK. As long as I get my own recliner. I should warn you that in my position of Official Shambles Interpreter, if I don't fully grasp the meaning of these overstatements, I'm going to do my best to explain what he might have said if I'd understood it. You eventually have to hire somebody to interpret what I write, although it probably doesn't really matter. |
