Is this a discussion forum, or a soapbox/blog?

[ERD50]

Honest question. I've noticed some posters lately have been putting up new threads that state their opinion on some subject (usually political). That's fine, but then they have no interest in actually discussing the topic. They respond with something like 'I can say what want', and ' don't read my posts if you don't like them', etc.

I don't think that is the intent of this forum, and certainly not why I come here. I thought this was a discussion forum. And I might start reading a thread, and responding, not realizing that it is not a discussion thread, and it just wastes my time.

I think that if someone wants to post something that they wish to share, but do not wish to discuss, they should take this approach:

1) Get your own blog. Post what you wish.

2) If posting here, at least preface the title with something descriptive, like 'JMO - NO DEBATE: <grumble, grumble, grumble, insert topic de jour here>'. At least I'd know up front.

Any input from the forum members, owners and/or moderators?

TIA -ERD50

 

[Gumby]

..

 

[Nords]

' don't read my posts if you don't like them', etc.

I honor their request by adding them to my "Ignore Poster" list...

 

[ERD50]

I honor their request by adding them to my "Ignore Poster" list...

That is fine for some, but I prefer not to use the 'ignore' feature.

Maybe there is a bit of the perennial optimist buried deep inside this cynical old guy, but I have found that occasionally, even people who appear to have nothing to offer come up with a gem of wisdom. Or sometimes, a poster seems unreasonable to me on one subject, but may be expert in other subjects. I can't selectively ignore, other than a quick scan of the thread.

Sometimes, I just like to see how their minds work (or don't work, depending on your view).

Just seems to me that if someone feels strong enough about something to start a thread on it, they ought to feel strongly enough to defend their position against challenges.

Why clutter the forum with statements of faith? I can get those all over the internet. Plenty of people out there to support any position I take, and tell me how smart I am for agreeing with them.

-ERD50

 

[Gumby]

..

 

[Texas Proud]

I find it interesting that I saw a clip about Colbert running for President last night.... and I belive it was in one of those clips that I heard someone say something like...

"Forget the facts, the facts can change... my OPINION will not change"... (my emphasis)... thought it was a hoot...

Like others, I have some very strong opinions and will not change them very easily without some major 2X4 hits on the cranium... but it does not mean that I don't enjoy reading someone else's thoughts.

 

[retire@40]

That is fine for some, but I prefer not to use the 'ignore' feature.

Maybe there is a bit of the perennial optimist buried deep inside this cynical old guy, but I have found that occasionally, even people who appear to have nothing to offer come up with a gem of wisdom. Or sometimes, a poster seems unreasonable to me on one subject, but may be expert in other subjects. I can't selectively ignore, other than a quick scan of the thread...

Most of the time the ugly comes out in the political or religious threads.

Someone can offer good info in an ER-related thread but get hostile and make a lot of enemies in the political/religious threads.

That's why I keep asking for an "[-]make invisible[/-] ignore thread" feature, but apparently it can't or won't be done.

 

[RunningBum]

That's why I keep asking for an "[-]make invisible[/-] ignore thread" feature, but apparently it can't or won't be done.

I hear that. And it was just painful while glancing at updated threads to see which ones I felt like reading to keep seeing the Armeinen (sp) thing is Well nuts thread title. When someone doesn't give a lot of thought into spelling and grammar on the title of a political thread, you can be pretty sure they won't give a lot of thought into someone else's opinion.

 

[haha]

When someone doesn't give a lot of thought into spelling and grammar on the title of a political thread, you can be pretty sure they won't give a lot of thought into someone else's opinion.

A long time ago we had some grammar/spelling gurus but I think the job became overwhelming. Spelling well or even understanding what word to use doesn’t appear to be highly correlated with putting together enough assets or income to ER.

Ha

 

[Gumby]

..

 

[ERD50]

Maybe, but before we could tackle whether it is enforceable or not, we need to know if it is acceptable or not.

If the owners, admins, and moderators feel that it is acceptable for people to use the forum as their own personal blog space, then there is no issue of enforcement, as there is no violation.

I'd bet that a few reports, and a few deleted threads, or warnings to those that are posting but refuse to engage in debate would clear some clutter out of the forum pretty quickly.

But only if the powers-that-be see it that way.

-ERD50

 

[Martha]

Well, I did correct the spelling of Armenian.

 

[Rustic23]

Spelling. Those who spell well seem to look down their noses at those who don't. If ever there were snobs, it is those that spell well.

I don't! Never have. It's not that I don't want to, I have read every book, method, and theory. I still can't spell!

Spell checkers help. I never, misspell a word on purpose, and I doubt others do either. I re-read my post to see if they make since and if the spelling is OK. The problem is, if I spell a word wrong, other than maybe a typo, it is how I think it should be spelled. Proof reading ones own work for a poor speller is a very difficult thing. In college I had my roommate proof my papers. Now spell check and DW. So, HaHa/Running Bum, from your post are we to conclude, if a person can't spell or use proper grammar, his opinions just don't count?

Yep, you hit a nerve!

 

[samclem]

Maybe, but before we could tackle whether it is enforceable or not, we need to know if it is acceptable or not.

If the owners, admins, and moderators feel that it is acceptable for people to use the forum as their own personal blog space, then there is no issue of enforcement, as there is no violation.

I'd bet that a few reports, and a few deleted threads, or warnings to those that are posting but refuse to engage in debate would clear some clutter out of the forum pretty quickly.

But only if the powers-that-be see it that way.

-ERD50

I understand your frustration, but it's probably not practical to institute a rule on this. Some people apparently believe that continually re-stating unsupported opinions is somehow constructive. If they haven't developed the tools to have a constructive dialog by the time they are on this board and considering ER, there's not much chance that they'll develop the habit here.

But, hey, it is still a "win" when a thoughtful poster takes the time to develop a point: A lot of people read it and learn from it even if the OP doesn't respond. The silence of the OP (or worse, their failure to put forward a strong reply) speaks volumes concerning the likely validity of their position.

My personal challenge: Learning when to just ignore posted items with which I disagree.

 

[brewer12345]

Sounds like someone doesn't like the way other children are playing at recess and wants the princiapl to do something about it. Maybe whining really loudly will help.

Oh yeah: I can spell pretty well. I just cannot type.

 

[ERD50]

The silence of the OP (or worse, their failure to put forward a strong reply) speaks volumes concerning the likely validity of their position.

My personal challenge: Learning when to just ignore posted items with which I disagree.

Agree , and it is a challenge for me also. The old 'a lie, repeated enough and left unchallenged becomes accepted as truth' effect makes it hard to just ignore some things. But I should try.

Sounds like someone doesn't like the way other children are playing at recess and wants the princiapl to do something about it. Maybe whining really loudly will help.

Well, read it that way if you want. I thought it was an attempt at being constructive, and improving the signal/noise ratio around here.

Hey, it's the 'princiapl' of the thing, you know.

-ERD50

 

[ERD50]

Well, I did correct the spelling of Armenian.

Oh.... I thought it was supposed to be another post about 'Armageddon'...

-ERD50

 

[dex]

A long time ago we had some grammar/spelling gurus but I think the job became overwhelming. Spelling well or even understanding what word to use doesn’t appear to be highly correlated with putting together enough assets or income to ER.

Ha

Spllenig is not taht ipmrotnat. Olny the frsit and lsat ltteer need to be in the rgiht palce.

 

[RunningBum]

Spelling. Those who spell well seem to look down their noses at those who don't. If ever there were snobs, it is those that spell well.

I don't! Never have. It's not that I don't want to, I have read every book, method, and theory. I still can't spell!

Spell checkers help. I never, misspell a word on purpose, and I doubt others do either. I re-read my post to see if they make since and if the spelling is OK. The problem is, if I spell a word wrong, other than maybe a typo, it is how I think it should be spelled. Proof reading ones own work for a poor speller is a very difficult thing. In college I had my roommate proof my papers. Now spell check and DW. So, HaHa/Running Bum, from your post are we to conclude, if a person can't spell or use proper grammar, his opinions just don't count?

Yep, you hit a nerve!

Nope. I make spelling errors and typos myself. I proofread to try to catch them but don't use spellcheck or obsess over it.

What gets me is people who type on forums as if they are in a chat room or IMing someone. If more than one or two people are going to read something, have the courtesy to make an effort to write coherently. Can they not even take the time to make a thread title readable That just seems selfish to me, and lazy.

You, on the other hand, are putting forth the effort to make posts readable and I appreciate that.

I try to be tolerant of people who have learned English as a second language. I'm pretty sure that's not the case of the author of the thread I was talking about.

I used to work with someone who abbreviated all kinds of words in emails. should=shd for example. So not only did I have to try to understand the technical content of the email, I first had to decode the words. I asked him to spell words out, and he told me to just ask him about any word I couldn't make out. Like that is no burden on me. Eventually he got canned because he was as lazy about all of his work as he was his emails. So I do see some correlation with how someone writes and how they really are. And no, I wasn't the one who fired him, and in fact I saved his job the first time they were going to give him the axe.

So no, I'm probably not likely to read something here where the poster couldn't be bothered to make it readable. So I guess their opinion doesn't count with me.

Did someone say something about hitting a nerve?

Sorry to venture somewhat off-topic, I know the original poster was concerned with content, not presentation.

 

[bright eyed]

Why can't the forum be both?

You can look at the same set of facts and come to two totally different conclusions, if you accept that as a part of life than it will be easier to be ok w/ some of the convos we have around here.

Do we have to defend every opinion we have with reams of data and links? That is unfun.

I think it is more about keeping it civil and knowing when to walk away, decide to disagree or raise the white flag.

 

[chinaco]

ERD you on your soapbox again.

 

[Nords]

Maybe, but before we could tackle whether it is enforceable or not, we need to know if it is acceptable or not.
If the owners, admins, and moderators feel that it is acceptable for people to use the forum as their own personal blog space, then there is no issue of enforcement, as there is no violation.
I'd bet that a few reports, and a few deleted threads, or warnings to those that are posting but refuse to engage in debate would clear some clutter out of the forum pretty quickly.
But only if the powers-that-be see it that way.

Gosh, it sounds so simple, doesn't it? Step outta line, the moderators gonna come take you away. Clear, easy rules for everyone to understand and follow.

However the vocal (minority?) portion of the board sees that kind of moderation as jack-booted censorship. Even behind-the-scenes moderation has been decried as somehow deceptive double-secret probation with the eventual (inevitable) banning being a lightning bolt from the blue, leaving other [-]innocent bystanders[/-] posters stunned and wondering when they're gonna get it next. Eventually the moderators learn that less is best and let the [-]Lord of the Flies[/-] membership sort it out. People who can't get along eventually cross the line flagrantly enough (or often enough) to get banned, or they run off the rails and fluff off in a hissy fit. But although the moderators can tell from the first dozen posts what the end result will be, any interference before then would be met with cries of First Amendment alarm.

Spelling. Those who spell well seem to look down their noses at those who don't. If ever there were snobs, it is those that spell well.
I don't! Never have. It's not that I don't want to, I have read every book, method, and theory. I still can't spell!
Yep, you hit a nerve!

Let's not forget that some of the board's posters are using English as a second language, too.

My favorites are the grammar police. I never remember whether the quotes go before or after the "?" but I don't think it matters much, either. Thank goodness that language can evolve & change, or we'd all still be speaking Latin.

However the spelling-challenged person under discussion is also a retired school teacher, one who arguably would be expected to have developed some spelling survival skills over the years. When I read those subject lines it brings to mind an image of Jim Cramer with a few frosty beverages in one hand beating on his keyboard with the other. At least Cramer has an editor.

What gets me is people who type on forums as if they are in a chat room or IMing someone. If more than one or two people are going to read something, have the courtesy to make an effort to write coherently. Can they not even take the time to make a thread title readable That just seems selfish to me, and lazy.
I used to work with someone who abbreviated all kinds of words in emails. should=shd for example. So not only did I have to try to understand the technical content of the email, I first had to decode the words.
Did someone say something about hitting a nerve?

You would've had a lot of fun reading naval message traffic. Every possible acronym and jargon phrases would ensure that not a bit of bandwidth was wasted. I'm sure the other armed forces weren't much better...

 

[haha]

So, HaHa/Running Bum, from your post are we to conclude, if a person can't spell or use proper grammar, his opinions just don't count?
Yep, you hit a nerve!

Well, that is not my meaning at all. It is true that I have a strong esthetic preference for correct spelling and good word choice. Today, the only places that are guaranteed to present that are the International Herald Tribune, New York Times and the New Yorker. Online organs like Slate are also excellent, as are many smaller online and print sources.

But I would no more reject something poorly written or spelled on that basis alone than I would reject a beautiful gal who said, "Ha, I ain't wasting no more time before I get you into bed".

Ha

 

[ERD50]

Why can't the forum be both?

You can look at the same set of facts and come to two totally different conclusions, if you accept that as a part of life than it will be easier to be ok w/ some of the convos we have around here.

Do we have to defend every opinion we have with reams of data and links? That is unfun.

I think it is more about keeping it civil and knowing when to walk away, decide to disagree or raise the white flag.

Oh, I suppose it can be both. I just think the poster has the responsibility to make that clear, especially when they start a thread on a controversial subject.

Now, if someone wants to start a thread that is clearly opinion, and makes it clear they are not going to change their mind no matter what - fine, we can have some 'fun' with that, just throwing opinions around - no justification needed.

For example, I like a four-season climate, and others think people who live anywhere a furnace is needed are nuts. That can be tossed around in a good-natured way - and nobody is likely to change their preference.

But in matters political, I just don't think that fits.

If someone is going to start a thread 'The Left (or Right) Wing is screwed up on this - and I won't discuss it', well, the 'answer' to that could be to start an opposing thread titled 'The Right (or Left) Wing is screwed up on this - and I won't discuss it'.

And that is just noise, IMO.

And it is OK to come to a point where you 'agree to disagree', but it ought to come after hearing each other out, not just after repetition.

The trouble with walking away is, the thread sometimes gets going and there is some give-and-take before the OP acknowledges they aren't going to debate, just proselytize. By that time, you've already got some energy into it. Hey, if you don't want to discuss it, at least make that clear up front.

-ERD50

 

[haha]

The silence of the OP (or worse, their failure to put forward a strong reply) speaks volumes concerning the likely validity of their position.

I feel that a position can be judged by a number of methods other than the eagerness of its promulgator to argue it.

For the most part I don't like to argue; it suits me fine if others have different ideas. Most of what we discuss really has no single answer. In the rare cases where it does, IMO inquiry works better than argument.

Ha