Rhetoric and the art of Collaborative Discussion

[Belligerent Savant]

Exactly, Burnt.

This whole "we just want our questions answered" gambit sounds an awful lot like "we just want to talk about ethics in videogame journalism" to me.

J.

'Ol pal, chiming in with his illumination, as usual.

So absurd, expecting clarity/answers to questionable content, in a discussion board!

What will they think of next, amirite?

[seemslikeadream]

you are not the entitled one here

no one has to answer your questions

some members here do not want to discuss anything with you and that is their right

there is no rule that says everyone MUST answer BS is a timely manner or at all!

[Belligerent Savant]

.
That's right -- no one 'HAS' to answer any questions from anyone. That's not the point of contention, however. Once again:

We're talking about discourse and courtesy. Posting content here -- particularly content warranting scrutiny -- and then acting 'surprised' or alarmed when others follow-up with questions and/or challenge the content, to me goes against the very nature of a DISCUSSION board.

But no one is forcing anyone's hand here. You don't need anyone's permission to continue curating your "content" to your heart's content, as you will. Likewise for AD.

But posting content on a public forum on the internet will, invariably, inspire follow-up, which may include follow-up questions, rebuttals, requests for clarity.

This should all be self-evident, but apparently it's not.

Quit with the insipid strawman arguments, already.

[peartreed]

Thanks, BS, for exemplifying the exact adolescent gaming gambits I was referring to that mistake a discussion board for a board game, where you post a series of sarcastic swipes to score points and eviscerate “the enemy” in personal terms. It results in more of us stooping to your level to fight fire with fire and hopefully thus clue you in to the forum’s descent into discord by your adolescent drama, derision and derailment.

[seemslikeadream]

.
That's right -- no one 'HAS' to answer any questions from anyone. That's not the point of contention, however. Once again:

We're talking about discourse and courtesy.

you talking about courtesy ...what a joke!

take your strawman and your pearls and.............

[seemslikeadream]

.

But posting content on a public forum on the internet will, invariably, inspire follow-up, which may include follow-up questions, rebuttals, requests for clarity.
.

yes and the fact remains no one is obligated to talk with you about anything or answer any questions you may have for them.....to demand this is an absolutely a self absorbed notion

[Belligerent Savant]

.

Is that so, peartreed? SLAD's sophomoric/adolescent references to clutching something other than pearls pass by you?

Try scrolling up and discarding the selective reading of content. Or otherwise dispense with your fraudulent attempts at impartiality.

[seemslikeadream]

and your pearl remark was what??

sophomoric/adolescent

that's right

so I answer your sophomoric/adolescent remark with a sophomoric/adolescent ....hysterical that you think your sophomoric/adolescent remark should not be answered with an sophomoric/adolescent remark

get a grip


yea peartree don't forget to read BS's post selective reading of content

[Belligerent Savant]

.
The reference to 'clutching pearls' is not sophomoric.
Your retort to that statement, however, was.

[seemslikeadream]

and that is for you to decide?

I think not

sophomoric is in the eye of the pearl

you need to check the dictionary ...who knows what you meant by that statement....you didn't elaborate

you trashing peartree was definitely shady but sophomoric as well hell


now we have BS deciding what is sophomoric and what is not sophomoric of course he would never post something sophomoric......I think that decision is sophomoric and a sophomoric statement can be replied with an sophomoric statement ....I guess

is calling someone a troll sophomoric?

two snaps up

clutch the pearls what a sneaky thing to do



In total there are 104 users online :: 4 registered, 5 hidden and 95 guests (based on users active over the past 5 minutes)

[Jerky]

Jesus Fucking Nailholes... are you EVER going to stop whining about this?!

J.

.
That's right -- no one 'HAS' to answer any questions from anyone. That's not the point of contention, however. Once again:

We're talking about discourse and courtesy. Posting content here -- particularly content warranting scrutiny -- and then acting 'surprised' or alarmed when others follow-up with questions and/or challenge the content, to me goes against the very nature of a DISCUSSION board.

But no one is forcing anyone's hand here. You don't need anyone's permission to continue curating your "content" to your heart's content, as you will. Likewise for AD.

But posting content on a public forum on the internet will, invariably, inspire follow-up, which may include follow-up questions, rebuttals, requests for clarity.

This should all be self-evident, but apparently it's not.

Quit with the insipid strawman arguments, already.

[Sounder]

There is an analogy to be made between scientism and science, and rhetoric and collaborative discussion. Scientism and rhetoric both spare no effort to prove their initial assumption, while science and collaborative discussion seek to falsify assumptions in an effort to improve our thinking.

There is a vid that Grizzly posted today on the Syria thread that all people need to see.

We must find out why it is that we can’t listen to the truth from Syrian people themselves.

[Belligerent Savant]

.

To close the loop, on my end at least:

.

I've allowed myself to succumb to sub-par behavior here. I'll take ownership of it, and will desist immediately.

The issues raised -- by me and others -- remain, however.

[seemslikeadream]

sounds good to me

thank god we didn't let it get blown out of proportion

[82_28]

Well done guys! I was hoping all day you'd sort this out without any sort of moderation. If this festers once again, action will have to be taken.