A Moderated Content Section?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
27-12-2014, 09:16 PM
RE: A Moderated Content Section?
(27-12-2014 09:04 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  
(27-12-2014 08:19 PM)evenheathen Wrote:  I rather like the rug, it really ties the room together.

Well well comment on my shoes.



You're sweet to say that.

Fuckin' A.




But now I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had an underlying truth.

~ Umberto Eco
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like evenheathen's post
27-12-2014, 09:27 PM
RE: A Moderated Content Section?
(27-12-2014 09:16 PM)evenheathen Wrote:  
(27-12-2014 09:04 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  Well well comment on my shoes.



You're sweet to say that.

Fuckin' A.







#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-12-2014, 04:16 AM
RE: A Moderated Content Section?
(27-12-2014 09:15 PM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  We have plenty of real experts on religion and atheism here. We have published authors, doctors, philosophers etc..so you assertion that "real experts" don't participate in forums is false. Simple.

Ok, this is so typical of this forum.

Do you see how you made a big assertion, whose only apparent purpose is to put somebody else down while pumping yourself up, and you provided no evidence whatsoever of the thing you claim that exists?

The entire post, just empty content emotion, and nothing more.

I do sincerely hope that you are correct, and that you or somebody will create a list of the published authors, doctors, philosophers, and some clergy and theologians too, who post here. THAT would be an excellent way to prove me wrong.

The next step might be for the mods to identify such high quality posters and create a special section for them in recognition of their training and ability, so that they can have intelligent conversations without being continually interrupted by wacko net users with stupid screen names like Baba Fucking Bozo. :-)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-12-2014, 04:46 AM
RE: A Moderated Content Section?
(28-12-2014 04:16 AM)Baba Bozo Wrote:  
(27-12-2014 09:15 PM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  We have plenty of real experts on religion and atheism here. We have published authors, doctors, philosophers etc..so you assertion that "real experts" don't participate in forums is false. Simple.

Ok, this is so typical of this forum.

Do you see how you made a big assertion, whose only apparent purpose is to put somebody else down while pumping yourself up, and you provided no evidence whatsoever of the thing you claim that exists?

The entire post, just empty content emotion, and nothing more.

I do sincerely hope that you are correct, and that you or somebody will create a list of the published authors, doctors, philosophers, and some clergy and theologians too, who post here. THAT would be an excellent way to prove me wrong.

The next step might be for the mods to identify such high quality posters and create a special section for them in recognition of their training and ability, so that they can have intelligent conversations without being continually interrupted by wacko net users with stupid screen names like Baba Fucking Bozo. :-)


I'm sorry, what was that again?


(27-12-2014 07:09 PM)Baba Bozo Wrote:  Where are the real experts on religions and atheism? They don't participate on forums, that's where. They don't participate because no one in the forumsphere can be bothered to serve their needs. Simple.


[Image: c5f90fa8846a8af137d36fbf0a6e89412507b1c5...9d4102.jpg]


Empty assertions don't need to be refuted to be dismissed. Where was your evidence that experts didn't peruse or participate on forums? You didn't present any, you just made an empty blanket assertion.

Anyways...

Mark Fulton is a published author, Buckyball in currently in seminary, and goodwithoutgood takes college courses on this subject (but I'm not sure if he's actually a theology major). That's just off the top of my head, I know there have been others as well.

If you really want to get pissy with a professional, go over to the DebunkingChristianity blog and try to piss off John W. Loftus. Go knock yourself out, have fun jackass. Drinking Beverage

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-12-2014, 07:26 AM
RE: A Moderated Content Section?
Perhaps this might help us focus the conversation a bit.

1) Should there be places on the net where folks can enjoy water cooler chit chat quick clever blurb type conversations?

Yes, of course.

2) Should there be many such places?

Yes again, because water cooler chit chat is an activity enjoyed by very many people, and so it's reasonable that very many sites serve this need.

3) Should every site on the net feel obligated to provide this service?

Well, maybe. Chit chat is a popular activity, even among intellectuals, so having a kick back chit chat section isn't a bad idea for any forum owner hoping to build their audience.

4) Should every section of every discussion site on the net, even if their site names contain words like "philosophy", "thinking", "reason", "intellectual"....

.... be flooded with quipy blurby chit chat clever little comment posts?


Apparently so. The lazy ego starved Blurbists feel they simply must be allowed to run free in every section of every site no matter what the goals of that site might be.

Yes, I have evidence!

If a reader might return to the opening post of this thread, they will see my proposal was only that a forum might contain ONE SECTION where blurbing was not permitted. You know, maybe that could happen on some forum with "thinking" in the title?

And now you can read the rest of the thread and see all the hysterical blurby replies for yourself. A few of the posts are indeed intelligent and useful (thanks for that!), but most are just posters who want to inflate their ego with the fewest possible keystrokes.

They are outraged at the thought that there might be one tiny little place somewhere on the vast Internet that they can't crap up with their relentless ego driven laziness.

If it was just this forum, it wouldn't be worth mentioning. But this same phenomena exists all over the net. Any suggestion anywhere that blurbing might be somehow limited is met with a hysterical response from the juvenile quipster mob, a hysteria which mods and forum owners feel bound to bow down to.

I hope mods of intellectual type sites won't be offended if I respectfully suggest that they might have more respect for themselves and the site they serve, more confidence that they don't have to suck up to crap, and could if they tried be part of something far more interesting and inspiring than yet another Quipsville site like all the so many others.

As Steve Jobs was known to say, "Think different". Never mind what all the very many other forums are doing. Why be just like everybody else?

What's interesting is that forum owners and mods are extremely willing to limit some kinds of junk content, for instance, spam. One spam, and the poster is gone, Gone, GONE! Ok, great, no problem.

But if that same poster should instead flood an intellectual type forum with literally thousands of little ego inflating blurbies that contribute nothing of value to any conversation, thus degrading the reputation of the site, and discouraging participation from higher quality writers....

....then that poster is a welcome member of the community.

Does that make sense? Or is crap just crap, whether the poster is selling products or their ego?

Yes, ok, this post is inflammatory, and so on etc. But it wouldn't be an inflammatory post on any site that was actually about....

...thinking.

Yes, I might still be disliked personally that's true, but the point of this post would not be controversial at all. The point of this post will only be controversial on sites over run by the lazy quipster mob.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-12-2014, 08:52 AM
RE: A Moderated Content Section?
(28-12-2014 07:26 AM)Baba Bozo Wrote:  Perhaps this might help us focus the conversation a bit.

1) Should there be places on the net where folks can enjoy water cooler chit chat quick clever blurb type conversations?

Yes, of course.

2) Should there be many such places?

Yes again, because water cooler chit chat is an activity enjoyed by very many people, and so it's reasonable that very many sites serve this need.

3) Should every site on the net feel obligated to provide this service?

Well, maybe. Chit chat is a popular activity, even among intellectuals, so having a kick back chit chat section isn't a bad idea for any forum owner hoping to build their audience.

4) Should every section of every discussion site on the net, even if their site names contain words like "philosophy", "thinking", "reason", "intellectual"....

.... be flooded with quipy blurby chit chat clever little comment posts?


Apparently so. The lazy ego starved Blurbists feel they simply must be allowed to run free in every section of every site no matter what the goals of that site might be.

Yes, I have evidence!

If a reader might return to the opening post of this thread, they will see my proposal was only that a forum might contain ONE SECTION where blurbing was not permitted. You know, maybe that could happen on some forum with "thinking" in the title?

And now you can read the rest of the thread and see all the hysterical blurby replies for yourself. A few of the posts are indeed intelligent and useful (thanks for that!), but most are just posters who want to inflate their ego with the fewest possible keystrokes.

They are outraged at the thought that there might be one tiny little place somewhere on the vast Internet that they can't crap up with their relentless ego driven laziness.

If it was just this forum, it wouldn't be worth mentioning. But this same phenomena exists all over the net. Any suggestion anywhere that blurbing might be somehow limited is met with a hysterical response from the juvenile quipster mob, a hysteria which mods and forum owners feel bound to bow down to.

I hope mods of intellectual type sites won't be offended if I respectfully suggest that they might have more respect for themselves and the site they serve, more confidence that they don't have to suck up to crap, and could if they tried be part of something far more interesting and inspiring than yet another Quipsville site like all the so many others.

As Steve Jobs was known to say, "Think different". Never mind what all the very many other forums are doing. Why be just like everybody else?

What's interesting is that forum owners and mods are extremely willing to limit some kinds of junk content, for instance, spam. One spam, and the poster is gone, Gone, GONE! Ok, great, no problem.

But if that same poster should instead flood an intellectual type forum with literally thousands of little ego inflating blurbies that contribute nothing of value to any conversation, thus degrading the reputation of the site, and discouraging participation from higher quality writers....

....then that poster is a welcome member of the community.

Does that make sense? Or is crap just crap, whether the poster is selling products or their ego?

Yes, ok, this post is inflammatory, and so on etc. But it wouldn't be an inflammatory post on any site that was actually about....

...thinking.

Yes, I might still be disliked personally that's true, but the point of this post would not be controversial at all. The point of this post will only be controversial on sites over run by the lazy quipster mob.

Let's put it simply: you're a fucken prat. Your opinion as to how the site should be run means dick. If you don't like it you're free to fuck off.

Lazy enough, quippy enough for you, asshole?

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like morondog's post
28-12-2014, 09:16 AM
RE: A Moderated Content Section?
(28-12-2014 07:26 AM)Baba Bozo Wrote:  They are outraged at the thought that there might be one tiny little place somewhere on the vast Internet that they can't crap up with their relentless ego driven laziness.

I have not seen anyone outraged at the idea of a moderated section; the only negatives are the reaction to your arrogant, condescending bullshit.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 6 users Like Chas's post
28-12-2014, 09:17 AM
RE: A Moderated Content Section?
(27-12-2014 06:32 PM)Hughsie Wrote:  
(25-12-2014 04:55 PM)Baba Bozo Wrote:  It would be great if there was one section of the forum where members couldn't clog the thread to death with short little clever quipy blurb posts that don't really add anything useful to the topic.

The problem is the same on every forum. You have intelligent interesting posters here, but their writing tends to get swamped by the less qualified, those whose only real interest is to get a quick lazy ego bump for the least possible effort.

It's a signal to noise ratio problem. Some good posts are there, but after awhile one starts to wonder whether it's worth digging through the junk pile to find them.

In fairness, this is a problem on pretty much all forums, not just this one.

I'm guessing this suggestion will be declined, and that's ok, no problem. But I thought I would cast my one little vote.

Funnily enough, I agree with you. I have long since abandoned any attempts to converse with theists (or anyone who doesn't follow the mainstream view) on here. The reason being that, like you said, I just get drowned out by people attacking the other person for their own reasons (either valid or invalid). Even if those reasons are understandable it still prevents me from having my discussion, which is a shame. I know that myself and quite a few others would love to have to opportunity to converse with theists without well-intentioned other members, and the not-so-well-intentioned crusaders, drowning us out.

I wouldn't hold your breath on it happening any time soon though.

You could go find a forum more to your liking, you know. Drinking Beverage

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Chas's post
28-12-2014, 09:19 AM
RE: A Moderated Content Section?
(28-12-2014 09:16 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(28-12-2014 07:26 AM)Baba Bozo Wrote:  They are outraged at the thought that there might be one tiny little place somewhere on the vast Internet that they can't crap up with their relentless ego driven laziness.

I have not seen anyone outraged at the idea of a moderated section; the only negatives are the reaction to your arrogant, condescending bullshit.

And the fact that he's clearly only pushing the idea so that he can run screaming to the mods every time someone deflates his ego.

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like morondog's post
28-12-2014, 09:22 AM (This post was last modified: 28-12-2014 09:25 AM by Full Circle.)
RE: A Moderated Content Section?
(28-12-2014 07:26 AM)Baba Bozo Wrote:  Perhaps this might help us focus the conversation a bit.

1) Should there be places on the net where folks can enjoy water cooler chit chat quick clever blurb type conversations?

Yes, of course.

2) Should there be many such places?

Yes again, because water cooler chit chat is an activity enjoyed by very many people, and so it's reasonable that very many sites serve this need.

3) Should every site on the net feel obligated to provide this service?

Well, maybe. Chit chat is a popular activity, even among intellectuals, so having a kick back chit chat section isn't a bad idea for any forum owner hoping to build their audience.

4) Should every section of every discussion site on the net, even if their site names contain words like "philosophy", "thinking", "reason", "intellectual"....

.... be flooded with quipy blurby chit chat clever little comment posts?


Apparently so. The lazy ego starved Blurbists feel they simply must be allowed to run free in every section of every site no matter what the goals of that site might be.

Yes, I have evidence!

If a reader might return to the opening post of this thread, they will see my proposal was only that a forum might contain ONE SECTION where blurbing was not permitted. You know, maybe that could happen on some forum with "thinking" in the title?

And now you can read the rest of the thread and see all the hysterical blurby replies for yourself. A few of the posts are indeed intelligent and useful (thanks for that!), but most are just posters who want to inflate their ego with the fewest possible keystrokes.

They are outraged at the thought that there might be one tiny little place somewhere on the vast Internet that they can't crap up with their relentless ego driven laziness.

If it was just this forum, it wouldn't be worth mentioning. But this same phenomena exists all over the net. Any suggestion anywhere that blurbing might be somehow limited is met with a hysterical response from the juvenile quipster mob, a hysteria which mods and forum owners feel bound to bow down to.

I hope mods of intellectual type sites won't be offended if I respectfully suggest that they might have more respect for themselves and the site they serve, more confidence that they don't have to suck up to crap, and could if they tried be part of something far more interesting and inspiring than yet another Quipsville site like all the so many others.

As Steve Jobs was known to say, "Think different". Never mind what all the very many other forums are doing. Why be just like everybody else?

What's interesting is that forum owners and mods are extremely willing to limit some kinds of junk content, for instance, spam. One spam, and the poster is gone, Gone, GONE! Ok, great, no problem.

But if that same poster should instead flood an intellectual type forum with literally thousands of little ego inflating blurbies that contribute nothing of value to any conversation, thus degrading the reputation of the site, and discouraging participation from higher quality writers....

....then that poster is a welcome member of the community.

Does that make sense? Or is crap just crap, whether the poster is selling products or their ego?

Yes, ok, this post is inflammatory, and so on etc. But it wouldn't be an inflammatory post on any site that was actually about....

...thinking.

Yes, I might still be disliked personally that's true, but the point of this post would not be controversial at all. The point of this post will only be controversial on sites over run by the lazy quipster mob.

tl;dr

“I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man’s reasoning powers are not above the monkey’s.”~Mark Twain
“Ocean: A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made for man - who has no gills.”~ Ambrose Bierce
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Full Circle's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: