rigorousintuition.ca

peartreed wrote:It doesn’t surprise me that you characterize the attacks on SLAD as, “mild disagreements or constructive criticism”

Except that I don't. I was talking about mild disagreements and constructive criticism, which are not attacks. They have often been met with the same reactions.

Attacks are attacks, I've seen those too and I don't condone them.

I'll just say this:
I like Slad. She was the first person to send me a friendly note when I was a newbie here. We've clashed at times, but I'm over it. I appreciate her good nature, her wisdom and her great passion. May wisdom rule.


Oh, and I didn't connect 'bandmates' with 'bandwagon.' The bandmate played bass. Now that I think of it, we had to fire him... he was band. Get it? He was band?

I'll let myself out.

.

Stepping out of my self-imposed exile for a moment, as Elvis raises good points above.

I've participated in this forum (as a contributor and/or lurker) since the early 2000s.

I respect SLAD's passion and core intent; we've had plenty of pleasant communications over the years, even via PM. I'm confident if we ever met in person we'd share a few laughs (largely at my expense) and spirited conversation. The same would apply to most others here.

It's folly to judge a human by online interface alone.

It was just a couple days ago that I typed:

Belligerent Savant » Sun Sep 09, 2018 4:36 pm wrote:.

...will briefly chime in to say that we (by 'we' I mean RI forum members and observers) are far more in agreement rather than disagreement -- at least at the macro-level -- over our current state of (global) affairs.

Frustrations/disturbances abound at the moment; inevitable, given our current orange-hued figurehead at the helm.

I’ve appreciated the further clarifying comments above by Sounder, Elvis and BS.

In particular I’m glad you’ve acknowledged your respect for SLAD as a person as well as a long-term, regular contributor of value here. That is refreshing insight.

BS, I know we should judge other humans by more than their online posts but, when that’s all we have to assess them, it becomes the default criteria. I base my views of RI members on the content and character they impart in their posts. We all do.

I’m also aware that the critical harassment of SLAD by several others in succession was not intended (by the individuals involved at the time at each instance) to be bullying. The cumulative effect on the target, however, is exactly that.

In nature, as we all know, when a prey is cornered by a pack of predators the survival instinct kicks in to fight back fiercely in a hyper-adrenaline, vital, final death struggle. It might surprise the predators expecting surrender to superior strength.

Like boys in a locker room preparing for a sport, each is thinking about their own role and position and assignment as it fits into the game plan. But when they hit the field the opponent player sees them as a powerful enemy, a group threat, an attack.

When that opponent player is not a team or group but a single cheerleader, it seems, to me, like mass misogyny madness!

I happen to like the cheerleader in this analogy because we are on the same team.

I also support SLAD because she posts news material I might not otherwise see (because of my location with less MSM coverage), and I’m sympathetic to the partisan perspective it presents of an out-of-control POTUS that threatens us all. To me, nothing is more important in current affairs and we all need the facts about it – even if others consider it propaganda, socialist pap or fake news. I want to see it.

But my final point is that SLAD is a really nice person herself, passionate and motivated enough to contribute so much time and effort here over many years.

For us.

Whether or not we like or want that, we owe her our respect and fair treatment.

Respect and fair treatment is what we're all talkin' about.

As I post this on 9/28:

Of the 50 threads on page 1, 31 of them have their last post by either AD or Slad.

31 of 50, folks. Think about that.

km artlu » Fri Sep 28, 2018 5:41 pm wrote:As I post this on 9/28:

Of the 50 threads on page 1, 31 of them have their last post by either AD or Slad.

31 of 50, folks. Think about that.

That's about a normal day. It's just the way things are.

True, Elvis. But what if:

- Moderation vowed exceptional rigor going forward.

- That rigor were applied to a posting limit per person of x posts per day. (5?)

By rough estimate such a restriction would have no effect at all on the majority here. (80 - 90%?) It would however have a profound effect on those few with an apparent affluence of leisure time available to them, coupled with a zeal for disseminating Mockingbird media and an apparent devotion to the New World Order agenda.

There’s no question that such a policy would promote more robust discussion and a renewed diversity of subject matter. One could even hope to see some long-absent names return and class the place up again. They left for a reason, you know; in droves.

I hold very little hope for this proposal. I post it as an alternative to mourning a loss in silence.

That's a mall cop, though. Being a mall cop is a shitty job, and if RI is going to hire one, they deserve to get paid.

You're right, WR.

If an effort to raise funding for that gained agreement, I would gladly contribute.

I found a user guide for the "php" board software, and don't see any way to set-and-forget a limit on daily individual post counts, so it would indeed require a cop on the beat to root out any offenders. What happens if someone is discovered to have made six posts instead of five? A stern Warning? A suspension? How arbitrary do you want it to be? Anyway, personally I think a daily post limit rule might not be the best idea.

Maybe we could just pay people not to post?

Crowdfunding donors could specify which member(s) would receive money in exchange for not posting past a certain limit.

It'd be like a poll, except with money!!

That’s truly funny Elvis. Thanks for the laugh.

My understanding of digital technology is not good. So my proposal lacked any functional component. I just assumed, like, “settings” and roared ahead. I appreciate that you looked into it as you did, and I concede that your findings do not bode well for practical implementation.

I am working on a story. One of the main plot points is being deep in space and suddenly your emotional connections go dark and you have no idea what the fuck is up. No one to ask. No one to hear from. But sometimes the occasional "U up" or something but then nothing after that for interminable spans of time and you don't know why. For better or for worse or something, this place has left its lights on. I prefer to go with better only because people do have feelings and it does fill a need of sorts and those are not for me to decide.

82_28 wrote: For better or for worse or something, this place has left its lights on. I prefer to go with better only because people do have feelings and it does fill a need of sorts and those are not for me to decide.

This is what I love about you, 82.

km artlu wrote:That’s truly funny Elvis. Thanks for the laugh.

My understanding of digital technology is not good. So my proposal lacked any functional component. I just assumed, like, “settings” and roared ahead. I appreciate that you looked into it as you did, and I concede that your findings do not bode well for practical implementation.

I was joking, yes, but having detractors of my own, I'm open to offers.

"Nice Discussion Board you got here... Be a shame if anyone were to turn it into a garbage dump."

It does take one to throw the garbage out the window, Mac. Nobody here is garbage until they become so.

EDIT: I am not calling you "garbage", Mac. No one here is "garbage". Just everyone cool it (which we have). Everyone has their own way of how they seek to communicate in ways to be understood -- what is on their mind -- what they want others to read. I simply will not put up with something that appears to be looking for trouble. Sorry about that.