 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Dogs Chasing Their Tails
|
|
|
Subject: BS: Dogs Chasing Their Tails From: Q (Frank Staplin) Date: 13 Feb 14 - 07:14 PM Christian Persecution Militant Atheism Darwin's Witnesses Christmas Truce Drones over America The same people, the same opinions, over and over and over and over and over and..................................................... To me rantin' O fal de diddle ay |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dogs Chasing Their Tails From: Q (Frank Staplin) Date: 13 Feb 14 - 07:27 PM Small Hope........ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dogs Chasing Their Tails From: Rapparee Date: 13 Feb 14 - 10:32 PM I know some men who chase tail. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dogs Chasing Their Tails From: Ebbie Date: 14 Feb 14 - 02:06 AM But not usually their own, Rap. (pun intended :) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dogs Chasing Their Tails From: gnu Date: 14 Feb 14 - 06:09 AM We don't gotta, Ebbie. >;-) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dogs Chasing Their Tails From: GUEST,Grishka Date: 14 Feb 14 - 09:08 AM I propose creating the following long-life threads, similar to the "Mother" and the "Rainbow":
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dogs Chasing Their Tails From: gnu Date: 14 Feb 14 - 09:23 AM That would be like herding Mudcatters, Grishka. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dogs Chasing Their Tails From: GUEST,Grishka Date: 14 Feb 14 - 10:27 AM It may be worth a try, gnu. After all, the Rainbow seems to be a respected taboo zone, and so have been some other threads about potentially controversial topics. Like "all needing support & comfort", the bickerers like to be among themselves, and so would those who appreciate serious discussions. Everybody can be happy about a better distinction and separation. I could start the threads myself, but I think the chances will be better if the elves and the major bickerers make a deal, explicitly or tacitly. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dogs Chasing Their Tails From: Jack the Sailor Date: 14 Feb 14 - 10:43 AM Grishka, Do you think there are too many threads in the BS. section? :-) What is the right number? 9? 12? :-D If you want to talk about something else. Start a thread about something else. The problem isn't the number of threads. The problem is a few people wanting to have the same argument until they win. When two or more do that on opposite sides of an issue, any even tangentially related issue gets turned to that subject. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dogs Chasing Their Tails From: Allan C. Date: 14 Feb 14 - 12:15 PM What I want to know is do most dogs chase their tails clockwise or counterclockwise? It seems to me to be at least as important to know this as it is to "win" any of these erm... discussions. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dogs Chasing Their Tails From: GUEST,gillymor Date: 14 Feb 14 - 12:25 PM Depends on which side of the equator they're on. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dogs Chasing Their Tails From: GUEST,Grishka Date: 14 Feb 14 - 12:26 PM The problem is that some want to bicker endlessly in the vain hope to "win", while others would like to discuss or chat about the same topic. Banning the former is not considered feasible, but separating them from the others may be what all of us wish, so that we know from the thread title whether we want to read the thread or leave it alone. The Rainbow does it successfully. Too many threads? Not my main concern, but indeed, frequently several simultaneous threads result in the same debate, to everybody's confusion, including the bickerers'. Often new threads are started only in the hope of seizing the rhetorical advantage of choosing a suggestive title. This is clearly abusive, besides being bound to backfire. You know who is primarily associated with this trick. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dogs Chasing Their Tails From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 14 Feb 14 - 01:02 PM What is folk? So long as you aren't expecting to reach some settled and agreed conclusion discussions about fundamentals can be great. Just don't treat them as arguments and try to win them, that's all. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dogs Chasing Their Tails From: Jack the Sailor Date: 14 Feb 14 - 01:37 PM " You know who is primarily associated with this trick." If I am the one you are talking about it is because a number of JACKASSES have associated me with that trick. Are you one of them? The only reason I would start a new thread on the same topic is this. "others would like to discuss or chat about the same topic. " to reboot from the bickering so that hopefully some non-bickerers can have something to say. I would LOVE to start a discussion about a cartoon or a debate and have it run its course and drop off the board. I refuse to be bullied into not talking about the things I am interested. Max has given us a way to deal with bullies. It is working for me. When I see that the intent is to bicker rather than discuss, I decline the invitation to bicker. If I see bullying and insults, I remind the bully of the rules. If you think your suggestion that thread ghettos for the bickerers would work and that they will willingly confine their bickering to those threads, by all means give it a try. Personally, I think it would be an insane waste of time. Trying is sometimes the only way to learn. Go for it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dogs Chasing Their Tails From: GUEST,Grishka Date: 14 Feb 14 - 03:22 PM The "ghettos" I propose are for fundamentally controversial aspects of topics, not for particular types of posters. Thus we avoid having to judge about who is guilty, who started the dispute, who is acting in justified self-defence or defence of others, how using manipulative rhetorics compares to name-calling, etc. It only works if any of such, however justified, can be moved to the "ghetto" by the elves. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dogs Chasing Their Tails From: gnu Date: 14 Feb 14 - 04:48 PM And the winner IS.... Q!!!! Urp. Making spaghette/chilli here. Too much spice for an old man like me but every now and then, ya just gotta test old age dammit! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dogs Chasing Their Tails From: Jack the Sailor Date: 14 Feb 14 - 05:05 PM Yeah, good luck with that. Are you the one who gets to decide what is controversial? What if the Usual Suspects start to bicker about one of your interests? Will you be directing the "elves" on what belongs where? Are they going to take instruction from you. If that is your only enforcement you may be well advised to think of another strategy. You are suggesting a very complicated strategy with a lot of moving parts. If you get your way there will be a lot of conflict over it. Have you ever asked a pair of people in conflict on this forum to try to find common ground, much less asking them to stay out of threads on their favorite subjects. I'm sure that Max has thought about this longer and harder than you. Why don't you go start your own forum with your own rules and report back on how it works? Until then, we have a set of rules that the full forum has not accepted as of yet. As a group we can apply the rules to posts and thread titles. The moderators can close the odd thread that descends into hopeless bickering, as they have been doing show some patience, take it from there. Don't make extra work and headaches for the moderators. I have found this forum to be a lot calmer and less vitriolic than it has been in a long time. Things are getting better. Give it some time. If you want to talk about about something, start a thread and respectfully ask for some ground rules, but nearly every thread can descend into bickering. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dogs Chasing Their Tails From: GUEST,Grishka Date: 14 Feb 14 - 05:51 PM As you know, Jack, I have no personal power here, and (in contrast to you) I do not tell the organizers how to interpret their rules. My idea is designed to alleviate the problems resulting from the phenomenon mentioned by Q, without resorting to censorship. Whoever disagrees or has a better suggestion, may please address the whole community, not only me. If no action is found necessary, all the better. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dogs Chasing Their Tails From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 14 Feb 14 - 06:54 PM The idea that there is a clear divide between "fundamentals" and "details" doesn't really stand up too well. The real divide is between on the one hand discussions where a range of views and perhaps a range of facts, are brought forward, and differences and commonalities are explored, with the aim being to understand each other and learn from each other, and on the other hand arguments which people try to "win", typically by making debating points and skipping over weak points. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dogs Chasing Their Tails From: Jack the Sailor Date: 14 Feb 14 - 07:35 PM I don't tell anyone what to do. I have asked, for people to do what I can't. And you certainly did at least that much for one of my threads, when I was trying to reboot the bickering. And someone complied with your demand. That made me think that I could do something about songwronger. So please excuse me for speaking frankly about your new plan. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dogs Chasing Their Tails From: Rapparee Date: 14 Feb 14 - 11:32 PM Martin Gibson, Clinton Hammond, Claymore...you guys don't remember the Olde Tymes. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dogs Chasing Their Tails From: GUEST,Grishka Date: 15 Feb 14 - 07:20 AM McGrath, The idea that there is a clear divide between "fundamentals" and "details" doesn't really stand up too well.Very true indeed. The idea behind the awkward word "details" is to discourage all crusaders (not necessarily all bickerers); we may find a better label. Jack, you are perfectly welcome to speak/write frankly. What you describe as your attempt to "reboot the bickering" appeared as a tactic to "win" finally (the game of manipulative rhetorics), since your thesis had been discussed already, and no new aspect could be expected. People who find their points convincing do not need to repeat them, let alone to strive for the "last word". Martin Gibson, Clinton Hammond, Claymore...What did they do? Debate about "What Is Folk"? Or "that-of-which-we-don't"? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dogs Chasing Their Tails From: gnu Date: 15 Feb 14 - 07:38 AM 'They' did what they did and got doored. It was quite an experiment. |
