Rhetoric and the art of Collaborative Discussion

Moderators: DrVolin, Elvis, Jeff

Re: Rhetoric and the art of Collaborative Discussion

Postby coffin_dodger » Fri Oct 11, 2019 12:05 pm

Oh, Username Jerky, you're so silly.

How could a 'f****** stupid' idiot like me even contemplate, let alone accomplish, destroying a veritable institution like RI. I didn't have to do a thing - not that it was ever my intention - Username slad, AD and yourself have critically injured the credibility of RI without any assistance from myself and my 'ilk'.

Hmmm... I would quite like being part of a club called 'The Ilk'. Perhaps the names on the recent ignore list posted by Username slad should be henceforth collectively known as, 'The Ilk'. Would save time in describing 'The Usual Suspects', eh?
User avatar
coffin_dodger
 
Posts: 2166
Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2011 6:05 am
Location: UK
Blog: View Blog (14)

Re: Rhetoric and the art of Collaborative Discussion

Postby American Dream » Fri Oct 11, 2019 12:10 pm

They are bad news, them and their whole attack RI crew. That's for sure.
American Dream
 
Posts: 19946
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 4:56 pm
Location: Planet Earth
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Rhetoric and the art of Collaborative Discussion

Postby coffin_dodger » Fri Oct 11, 2019 12:19 pm

Yeah, I mean, it's outrageous isn't it, AD?

When someone disagrees with you.

There's really no place for that here at RI, is there? No, no.. no place at all. Place should be cleansed, right? Cleansed so that a bright new dawn can flourish. Where all dissidents are simply wiped away.

Nothing totalitarian in that, no Sir.

There is no better slave than one which loves it's master, right AD?
User avatar
coffin_dodger
 
Posts: 2166
Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2011 6:05 am
Location: UK
Blog: View Blog (14)

Re: Rhetoric and the art of Collaborative Discussion

Postby Belligerent Savant » Fri Oct 11, 2019 12:21 pm

.


American Dream » Fri Oct 11, 2019 11:10 am wrote:They are bad news, them and their whole attack RI crew. That's for sure.


And you're one to know, aren't you, AD?

Your username is synonymous with "Good News", is it?

I can't imagine anyone here actually believes the empty words you type, the few times you manage to craft something of your own.

You have a fan in Jerky, though. Well done!

But enough of this: you have threads that require your attention!

There are only so many hours in a day, and you and your fellow SPAMMER SLAD have to keep pace with your prodigious output.



Get back to it!
User avatar
Belligerent Savant
 
Posts: 2440
Joined: Mon Oct 05, 2009 11:58 pm
Location: North Atlantic.
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Rhetoric and the art of Collaborative Discussion

Postby American Dream » Fri Oct 11, 2019 12:23 pm

I love the victim posturing from those who are clearly quite aggressive. I will add the coffin_dodger username to my ignore list. It's really the best for all concerned.
American Dream
 
Posts: 19946
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 4:56 pm
Location: Planet Earth
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Rhetoric and the art of Collaborative Discussion

Postby coffin_dodger » Fri Oct 11, 2019 1:05 pm

I love the victim posturing from those who are clearly quite aggressive


Could you point to the part where I am 'playing the victim', please?

Because I'm interested to know if I really was unwittingly playing the victim, or, if you just said that as a form of insult, which is pretty much your team's modus O. i.e. you play the victim - see, for instance, Username slads personalisation of everything 'all my friends here... etc etc', then, when challenged on anything, you claim the opposing mind is 'playing the victim'. It's an interesting ploy that rarely fails to provoke a negative response, but no longer works as well as it used to.

Oh, I forgot - I'm on ignore now. :rofl2
User avatar
coffin_dodger
 
Posts: 2166
Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2011 6:05 am
Location: UK
Blog: View Blog (14)

Re: Rhetoric and the art of Collaborative Discussion

Postby Belligerent Savant » Sun Oct 13, 2019 4:03 pm

.

Worth re-posting, from a few pages back:


Wombaticus Rex » Fri Dec 28, 2018 12:04 am wrote:Take Facebook as antipattern; as What Not To Do.

1) No memes. No .jpg posting. 99% of the .jpg content here disappears in 24 months time anyway, it's all hosted somewhere else.

2) No driveby sniping, no quoting 5 paragraphs of someone else's post to snark at them with a sentence. Pollution is pollution, noise is noise.

3) More discussion than headlines. We've got a "Current Events" AND a "Data Dump" now. Let's keep GD to actual discussion - moving conversations.

4) Dinner party conversations require a certain amount of restraint and decorum in order to function. Online discussions are little different.

Commitment to general discussion of the issues covered here will require a mutual commitment to leaning against the howling noise of our era. That is both difficult and very straightforward.



Wombaticus Rex » Fri Dec 28, 2018 8:55 pm wrote:
Iamwhomiam » Fri Dec 28, 2018 2:16 am wrote:Regarding #3, I was disappointed to read a few complaints about either the dearth of posts to discuss or that the majority of topics of discussions on the opening General Discussion page were produced by only two members. I notice those complaining about either of these issues rarely posted new topics for discussion themselves, and so, I would ask for folks to not fault others for their own shortcomings.


Love everyone here. Still chiming in mostly to disagree, my apologies.

Here, my disagreement is total. I think it's ridiculous to disdain our -- more eloquent, more thoughtful -- posters for not "contributing" enough or not, somehow, putting in enough effort. Nobody here has an obligation to be filling this feed with Everything They've Read So Far Today. Most especially: nobody here has an obligation to keep up with that shit, either.

General Discussion should be for discussions. Not an auction block.

Iamwhomiam » Fri Dec 28, 2018 2:16 am wrote:"Mostly," Wombat, 'cause I'm not sure if you mean all pics. There are photos with different file extensions, other than .jpg, right?


No, I would definitely recommend a Cleansing Fire Jihad against cluttering this up with image content. What good is most of it? Paul Laffoley was trying to tell us something. 100% of online articles are paired with stock files that editors think will increase "engagement." What the fuck does a photograph of Dick Cheney add to an article about Dick Cheney?
User avatar
Belligerent Savant
 
Posts: 2440
Joined: Mon Oct 05, 2009 11:58 pm
Location: North Atlantic.
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Rhetoric and the art of Collaborative Discussion

Postby Elvis » Sun Oct 13, 2019 4:56 pm

Worth reposting:

Belligerent Savant » Sun Oct 13, 2019 1:03 pm wrote:.

Worth re-posting, from a few pages back:


Wombaticus Rex » Fri Dec 28, 2018 12:04 am wrote:Take Facebook as antipattern; as What Not To Do.

1) No memes. No .jpg posting. 99% of the .jpg content here disappears in 24 months time anyway, it's all hosted somewhere else.

2) No driveby sniping, no quoting 5 paragraphs of someone else's post to snark at them with a sentence. Pollution is pollution, noise is noise.

3) More discussion than headlines. We've got a "Current Events" AND a "Data Dump" now. Let's keep GD to actual discussion - moving conversations.

4) Dinner party conversations require a certain amount of restraint and decorum in order to function. Online discussions are little different.

Commitment to general discussion of the issues covered here will require a mutual commitment to leaning against the howling noise of our era. That is both difficult and very straightforward.



Wombaticus Rex » Fri Dec 28, 2018 8:55 pm wrote:
Iamwhomiam » Fri Dec 28, 2018 2:16 am wrote:Regarding #3, I was disappointed to read a few complaints about either the dearth of posts to discuss or that the majority of topics of discussions on the opening General Discussion page were produced by only two members. I notice those complaining about either of these issues rarely posted new topics for discussion themselves, and so, I would ask for folks to not fault others for their own shortcomings.


Love everyone here. Still chiming in mostly to disagree, my apologies.

Here, my disagreement is total. I think it's ridiculous to disdain our -- more eloquent, more thoughtful -- posters for not "contributing" enough or not, somehow, putting in enough effort. Nobody here has an obligation to be filling this feed with Everything They've Read So Far Today. Most especially: nobody here has an obligation to keep up with that shit, either.

General Discussion should be for discussions. Not an auction block.

Iamwhomiam » Fri Dec 28, 2018 2:16 am wrote:"Mostly," Wombat, 'cause I'm not sure if you mean all pics. There are photos with different file extensions, other than .jpg, right?


No, I would definitely recommend a Cleansing Fire Jihad against cluttering this up with image content. What good is most of it? Paul Laffoley was trying to tell us something. 100% of online articles are paired with stock files that editors think will increase "engagement." What the fuck does a photograph of Dick Cheney add to an article about Dick Cheney?
"Frankly, I don't think it's a good idea but the sums proposed are enormous."
User avatar
Elvis
 
Posts: 6275
Joined: Fri Apr 11, 2008 7:24 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Rhetoric and the art of Collaborative Discussion

Postby brainpanhandler » Sun Oct 13, 2019 6:14 pm

2 - mea culpa

Discussion is work.
"Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." - Martin Luther King Jr.
User avatar
brainpanhandler
 
Posts: 4990
Joined: Fri Dec 29, 2006 9:38 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Rhetoric and the art of Collaborative Discussion

Postby seemslikeadream » Mon Oct 14, 2019 9:01 am

No one is stopping you from discussing anything

Start a thread ....is that too hard for you to do?

It takes little effort to blame, complain, triturate and give up your power to communicate

It is way easier to say SLaD is making me not say something

The New Thread Topic is always there for the taking, I've used it 3 times this month, 6 times in September, 11 times in August, 3 times in July 1 time in June, 0 in May, 6 in April, so that is 30 threads in 6 months ....not the hundreds of OPs that is the rumor that spawned the hissy fit ...just to correct the record. On average one thread a week does not an epidemic make :roll:


Wombaticus Rex » Thu Jan 26, 2017 6:59 pm wrote:Edit: per the notion SLAD runs some Irish terror regime that intimidates everyone into silence, well, I am skeptical on that front
Last edited by seemslikeadream on Mon Oct 14, 2019 9:50 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Re: Rhetoric and the art of Collaborative Discussion

Postby Belligerent Savant » Mon Oct 14, 2019 9:50 am

.

Your ability to misframe or miss the point/context is uncanny. Is it deliberate, or is your self-absorption so great it blinds you from ANY other perspective other than your own?

NO ONE has ever claimed here that SLAD is "making" a member "not say something".

What you have done, and continue to do, however, in your monomaniacal copy/paste sprees, is often drown out a response to one of your copy/pasted posts by immediately replying with additional copy/pasted material in short order, which again, serves to stifle discourse.

(other than the occasional one or two line snark remark by you, accompanied with various animated emojis, and immediately followed by the next wall of pasted text. And then the next wall of pasted text... and then the next. Etc..)

If/when there is earnest inquiry into a piece of pasted material (though increasingly members are now simply ignoring your threads given your M.O., which again, effectively snuffs out discourse), at a minimum, it would be courteous to let that inquiry/response BREATHE for a bit. Let it sit there, to potentially be viewed by another, which in turn may inspire a follow-up hand-typed response, and then perhaps, actual engagement...

(Note: I am not suggesting for YOU to engage with the response if you have no interest in doing so -- no one is obligated to engage.)

The potential for such events -- considered standard in any discussion board, and typically undertaken by fellow members as acts of forum etiquette and courtesy -- are greatly minimized here due to the flooding and overall disruptive tactics undertaken by these two most prolific posters.

Because: they do NOT have an interest in discourse, or discussion... in the General Discussion board.

No. They want only to spread their viewpoints/agenda like wildfire, without interruption, debate, or discussion.


There is nothing to debate! You don't like it, start your own thread!


Unsubscribe.
Last edited by Belligerent Savant on Mon Oct 14, 2019 10:00 am, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
Belligerent Savant
 
Posts: 2440
Joined: Mon Oct 05, 2009 11:58 pm
Location: North Atlantic.
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Rhetoric and the art of Collaborative Discussion

Postby seemslikeadream » Mon Oct 14, 2019 9:54 am

well I won't comment on the above post I am sure it was complaining about me I see the name right after my post that's all I need to know....it's what is most important to him

I've heard he wants me banned and is willing to buy this place from Jeff to do it EVEN after Jeff came here and said he wants no one banned ....that's dedication and that's why I will never reply to him again

Does anyone think Jeff would sell this place to someone who openly is defying his wishes for RI?

I believe Jeff has way more integrity. I would not trash the owner of this board, the person that makes it possible to post here
Last edited by seemslikeadream on Mon Oct 14, 2019 10:24 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Re: Rhetoric and the art of Collaborative Discussion

Postby Belligerent Savant » Mon Oct 14, 2019 10:03 am

.

No, it's not what's "important to me". In truth, this is all rather trivial, relatively-speaking. But It's a recurring issue expressed by quite a few of those that remain (and more that have since departed).

You can't read this, though, right?

Don't mind me: the day is young and there is much material to paste!



P.S. - you "heard" wrong. You're referring to something I typed tongue-in-cheek and later refined a bit. Good to see you're paying attention, though.

The Good Will of Saint Jeff Will Surely Keep The Lights On For You And AD To Continue To SPAM This Board At Your (lack of) Discretion.
User avatar
Belligerent Savant
 
Posts: 2440
Joined: Mon Oct 05, 2009 11:58 pm
Location: North Atlantic.
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Rhetoric and the art of Collaborative Discussion

Postby seemslikeadream » Mon Oct 14, 2019 10:46 am

give each other space
no one is to be banned
the board should not be heavily moderated.
not flooding someone's thread
not driving discussions off topic
not making vicious personal attacks

6 simple rules and I take note what Jeff did not find necessary to include

the c/p harpies should take note nothing in the original rules or new statement from Jeff say anything about that or limiting number of OPs or limiting the number of posts by any member. It is really unnecessary to keep complaining about that or my banning. It is your choice be the place you want it to be post what is important to you or you can keep on keeping on. In the end if you do get your way and have everyone that disagrees with you or that you can not tolerate banned or you run them off with your constant bullying so be it but that will not be what Jeff wanted. Your only success will be to stifle.

I will follow all these rules in the future and follow the original rules Jeff set in place 15 years ago.

Jeff » Sat Oct 05, 2019 6:18 pm wrote:There's no way this won't sound anodyne, but isn't the board big enough for everyone?

I won't pretend to be up to speed on all of the disagreements here, but maybe that's good. The issues are maybe irrelevant to my point, which is that you don't all need to be pals, but maybe you do need to give each other some space.

I don't want anybody banned or the board to be heavily moderated. In return, all I'd like is some basic, online courtesy. Like not flooding someone's thread, or driving discussion off topic, or making vicious personal attacks. That kind of stuff.

Jeff out.
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Re: Rhetoric and the art of Collaborative Discussion

Postby Belligerent Savant » Sun Oct 20, 2019 1:40 pm

.

JackRiddler » Sun Oct 20, 2019 10:15 am wrote:It's time for this board to get the one moderator or the other, and settle these questions. It's a fucking joke that Wells pays the little bit of rent so that we have the equivalent of a repeater station (with maybe 10 readers?) for whatever the day's prime disinfo is on MSNBC or Google News. Either the decisions are reinstated and the flood ends or the rest of us can go away. Which is it going to be?



JackRiddler » Sun Oct 20, 2019 10:54 am wrote:Semantical play is an essential tool of sophistry. This is why semantics matter:

1. I don't think and have not said SLAD is purposefully spreading disinformation. To divine purpose is to attribute motive, which is unknowable to me. This is yet another variant on the "personalization" narrative, as in the frequent claim that I am "attacking" SLAD, whom I do not know, when I am only describing the username's actual activity on the board. Many honest people have fallen for disinformation campaigns in the past. Many honest people specifically have been taken in by the #Russiagate complex and its current successor efforts. I cannot know an anonymous username's purpose.

2. Mere spreading is not the problem. The issue is flooding: relentless, by all forms, by thread proliferation and miles of uncommented copy-paste of daily bullshit lifted directly from corporate outlets that literally reach 10,000 times the readers as this forum, the output of which all here already know. It's like MSNBC and DNC have a local scold crew who will seek out any untoward statements and promptly reply with 25 screens of copy paste.

3. So I am saying SLAD has been flooding the board with a particular form of disinformation for years, specifically since the start of the #Russiagate psyop campaign.

.


JackRiddler » Sun Oct 20, 2019 11:15 am wrote:You [SLAD] should be more careful about constantly invoking a meaningless piece of "leave me alone" boilerplate from the same Jeff Wells who every day spends substantial time on other outlets angrily trashing exactly the same disinformation you flood this board with. I don't think you'd be too happy if you actually get him interested in this board again and examining the crap you do here.
User avatar
Belligerent Savant
 
Posts: 2440
Joined: Mon Oct 05, 2009 11:58 pm
Location: North Atlantic.
Blog: View Blog (0)

PreviousNext

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 9 guests