Chaos and the Kiddies Table

[320 Years of History]

Yes, sometimes I get my butt kicked, but you get used to it after awhile.

I think Elvis Obama's point is that it isn't your butt that should feel "kicked," as it were. It's one thing to attack someone's ideas with strong counterarguments. It's wholly another to lambaste them personally. But rather than assail folks ideas with cognitively solid rebuttals, folks just attack the person. Moreover, folks aim to find (be it real or imagined) any little crack they can find in another's case and use it as the basis for discarding and discrediting the entirety of a writer's ideas.

Why? I don't know, but I have to suspect that it's because they lack any substantive basis for taking on the central argument. Now if one wants to chip away at the edges, so to speak, fine, but in doing so, at least have the integrity to state that while one can find flaws in some minor points, one must accept the central theme presented. It seems, however, even that is too much for many folks here.

What is even more frustrating, chafing even, for me at least, is when folks refute some bit of irrelevant minutia offered in a post, and whether that data point is right or wrong isn't going alter the substance of the remark in which the item was noted. The most recent illustration of that is found in this Politics sub-forum thread. (the first post in that thread that pertains to this paragraph's comments is #247 -- my second one in the thread -- and the relevant comment is in the "sidebar" comment at the very end of the post.)

I made one remark, an ancillary/parenthetical one at that, about one gun evolving into another. That's it. One ill informed member attempted to assert my statement was inaccurate, and sought therefore to discredit everything else I wrote in post #247. Never mind that nothing I wrote in that post hinged on the relationship between the two guns mentioned in that sidebar paragraph. Even today, another member persists in trying to poke holes in the veracity of that claim and is trying to twist the remark into something it is not and was never meant to be. Personally, I think it generous to consider the remarks made by that member and the one who even today continues on that line to be illustrative of anti-intellectualism; as far as I'm concerned, it's indicative of utter stupidity.

Look in another new thread. You'll find one members who think in my OP I've:

• Asserted "conservatives are idiots, the government never lies, and Liberals know everything."
• Called for "doctorates and such to truly be the ONLY qualified posters worthy to comment or even be here."

Now I can't say where, how or why they came up with those conclusions. I can only observe that they did and that I neither wrote nor intimated either of those things. And to your comment about my vernacular, I made a point of not peppering the noted OP with abstruse words and complex features of sentence structure or literary and grammatical devices/constructions.

Lastly, I'm sure you have ample illustrations of your own whereby folks have done nothing other than make empty claims about the insufficiency of your remarks. I don't even understand what is to be gained from doing that. Sure, it makes sense if one is delivering a stand up comedy act. In a discussion about public policy, economics, religion, science, etc., what is that to achieve? And to to Elvis Obama's point, what is the point of remaining active in a forum, God forfend actually engaging writers who make such remarks, where that sort of commentary prevails? None that I can identify.

I made a point of not peppering the noted OP with abstruse words and complex features of sentence structure or literary and grammatical devices/constructions.
I noticed. Nice job.
I made one remark, an ancillary/parenthetical one at that, about one gun evolving into another. That's it. One ill informed member attempted to assert my statement was inaccurate, and sought therefore to discredit everything else I wrote in post #247.
That's a common tactic, and an even more common one in gun arguments is to reject articles and studies as "lies" or "liberal propagada." Some days that is more frustrating than others. With those posters, you can't possibly "win."

what is the point of remaining active in a forum, God forfend actually engaging writers who make such remarks, where that sort of commentary prevails? None that I can identify.
So I don't know what you would call it when I can't help myself from opening my big mouth and continuing to state my objections or my point of view (stupid, opinionated old geezer, I guess). I realize some posters won't accept whatever evidence I provide, but a thread is a mixed audience. Not everyone is arguing sheer garbage. If that is all that shows up, I move on.

Let's take a look at the kind of thread that has caused me to decide that this forum is a lost cause.

The subject is CDZ - Gun Control

First there are ten useless posts. Then C_Clayton_Jones posts the truth here. This is not a legitimate attempt to foster debate.

Now, the subject of gun control is much in the news, for obvious reasons. A legitimate debate would be most welcome. It is impossible to have such a debate here. Why? Because here legitimate debate is routinely subverted in preference to catering to idiots. By the time we get to here, we've descended into insult. After that it's "butt hole buddies". I've watched college debating societies compete, and I have never heard anyone make reference to "butt hole buddies". Not even the Republicans have fallen that far. So I think we have a legitimate claim on being the worst excuse for debate that this planet has ever seen. There are then a few really nasty posts by 2aguy and his psycho squad. They too have NOTHING to do with debate. Debate is IMPOSSIBLE with psychos and children in the room.

This is in no way the fault of the members who are infantile or psychotic. They can't help themselves. What's the excuse of the mods? This is entirely their fault. They create a forum, ostensibly for the purpose of encouraging clean debate, then do NOTHING to make that happen. Why not ask c_clayton_jones to mod? He seems to be able to distinguish between legitimate debate topics and garbage. Move the illegitimate topics out. Culling out a couple of really nasty posts, but leaving the thread, with a warning to comply with CDZ rules, is an absurd response. That's like removing part of a tumor and hoping the cancer won't grow back. BAN people. IMO the only sensible thing to do is ban them from the forum entirely, but at least ban them from the CDZ. Legitimate debate is not natural. It requires rules and the guts to enforce those rules.

Yep....you really should try the "ignore" feature. It definitely helps, in particular with the insults. It also is quite good for ensuring one sees only comments from folks who actually bother to think about what they have to say before typing it. Might it be that one ignores someone, say 2aguy, who once in a blue moon has something of merit to say and one misses that remark? Sure, but on balance, one is overall better off just not being aware of what that person has written...because it's so damn rare that they do say something intelligent and relevant.

 

[saveliberty]

About this kiddies table. Do they get more dessert and get excused first? This may impact my decision on where to sit.

 

[OldLady]

Interestingly, I did "report" Picaro and this thread this morning, inviting a mod's response, but we didn't get one.
Maybe my definition of "insult" is wrong. Is it because Elvis opened this in Announcements and Feedback instead of CDZ? I could swear it started there--did they move it?

 

[JoeMoma]

Oldlady, 320 has a thread in CDZ that is somewhat similar to this thread. It is about Anti-Intellectualism or something like that!

 

[Elvis Obama]

Yes, sometimes I get my butt kicked, but you get used to it after awhile.

I think Elvis Obama's point is that it isn't your butt that should feel "kicked," as it were. It's one thing to attack someone's ideas with strong counterarguments. It's wholly another to lambaste them personally. But rather than assail folks ideas with cognitively solid rebuttals, folks just attack the person. Moreover, folks aim to find (be it real or imagined) any little crack they can find in another's case and use it as the basis for discarding and discrediting the entirety of a writer's ideas.

Why? I don't know, but I have to suspect that it's because they lack any substantive basis for taking on the central argument. Now if one wants to chip away at the edges, so to speak, fine, but in doing so, at least have the integrity to state that while one can find flaws in some minor points, one must accept the central theme presented. It seems, however, even that is too much for many folks here.

What is even more frustrating, chafing even, for me at least, is when folks refute some bit of irrelevant minutia offered in a post, and whether that data point is right or wrong isn't going alter the substance of the remark in which the item was noted. The most recent illustration of that is found in this Politics sub-forum thread. (the first post in that thread that pertains to this paragraph's comments is #247 -- my second one in the thread -- and the relevant comment is in the "sidebar" comment at the very end of the post.)

I made one remark, an ancillary/parenthetical one at that, about one gun evolving into another. That's it. One ill informed member attempted to assert my statement was inaccurate, and sought therefore to discredit everything else I wrote in post #247. Never mind that nothing I wrote in that post hinged on the relationship between the two guns mentioned in that sidebar paragraph. Even today, another member persists in trying to poke holes in the veracity of that claim and is trying to twist the remark into something it is not and was never meant to be. Personally, I think it generous to consider the remarks made by that member and the one who even today continues on that line to be illustrative of anti-intellectualism; as far as I'm concerned, it's indicative of utter stupidity.

Look in another new thread. You'll find one members who think in my OP I've:

• Asserted "conservatives are idiots, the government never lies, and Liberals know everything."
• Called for "doctorates and such to truly be the ONLY qualified posters worthy to comment or even be here."

Now I can't say where, how or why they came up with those conclusions. I can only observe that they did and that I neither wrote nor intimated either of those things. And to your comment about my vernacular, I made a point of not peppering the noted OP with abstruse words and complex features of sentence structure or literary and grammatical devices/constructions.

Lastly, I'm sure you have ample illustrations of your own whereby folks have done nothing other than make empty claims about the insufficiency of your remarks. I don't even understand what is to be gained from doing that. Sure, it makes sense if one is delivering a stand up comedy act. In a discussion about public policy, economics, religion, science, etc., what is that to achieve? And to to Elvis Obama's point, what is the point of remaining active in a forum, God forfend actually engaging writers who make such remarks, where that sort of commentary prevails? None that I can identify.

I made a point of not peppering the noted OP with abstruse words and complex features of sentence structure or literary and grammatical devices/constructions.
I noticed. Nice job.
I made one remark, an ancillary/parenthetical one at that, about one gun evolving into another. That's it. One ill informed member attempted to assert my statement was inaccurate, and sought therefore to discredit everything else I wrote in post #247.
That's a common tactic, and an even more common one in gun arguments is to reject articles and studies as "lies" or "liberal propagada." Some days that is more frustrating than others. With those posters, you can't possibly "win."

what is the point of remaining active in a forum, God forfend actually engaging writers who make such remarks, where that sort of commentary prevails? None that I can identify.
So I don't know what you would call it when I can't help myself from opening my big mouth and continuing to state my objections or my point of view (stupid, opinionated old geezer, I guess). I realize some posters won't accept whatever evidence I provide, but a thread is a mixed audience. Not everyone is arguing sheer garbage. If that is all that shows up, I move on.

Let's take a look at the kind of thread that has caused me to decide that this forum is a lost cause.

The subject is CDZ - Gun Control

First there are ten useless posts. Then C_Clayton_Jones posts the truth here. This is not a legitimate attempt to foster debate.

Now, the subject of gun control is much in the news, for obvious reasons. A legitimate debate would be most welcome. It is impossible to have such a debate here. Why? Because here legitimate debate is routinely subverted in preference to catering to idiots. By the time we get to here, we've descended into insult. After that it's "butt hole buddies". I've watched college debating societies compete, and I have never heard anyone make reference to "butt hole buddies". Not even the Republicans have fallen that far. So I think we have a legitimate claim on being the worst excuse for debate that this planet has ever seen. There are then a few really nasty posts by 2aguy and his psycho squad. They too have NOTHING to do with debate. Debate is IMPOSSIBLE with psychos and children in the room.

This is in no way the fault of the members who are infantile or psychotic. They can't help themselves. What's the excuse of the mods? This is entirely their fault. They create a forum, ostensibly for the purpose of encouraging clean debate, then do NOTHING to make that happen. Why not ask c_clayton_jones to mod? He seems to be able to distinguish between legitimate debate topics and garbage. Move the illegitimate topics out. Culling out a couple of really nasty posts, but leaving the thread, with a warning to comply with CDZ rules, is an absurd response. That's like removing part of a tumor and hoping the cancer won't grow back. BAN people. IMO the only sensible thing to do is ban them from the forum entirely, but at least ban them from the CDZ. Legitimate debate is not natural. It requires rules and the guts to enforce those rules.

Yep....you really should try the "ignore" feature. It definitely helps, in particular with the insults. It also is quite good for ensuring one sees only comments from folks who actually bother to think about what they have to say before typing it. Might it be that one ignores someone, say 2aguy, who once in a blue moon has something of merit to say and one misses that remark? Sure, but on balance, one is overall better off just not being aware of what that person has written...because it's so damn rare that they do say something intelligent and relevant.

Can I ignore the fact that this thread, intended to discuss the health of the CDZ with CDZ participants and to ask the mods to explain their approach to moderating the CDZ has been moved out of the CDZ and the absurd "gun control" thread remains? I fully expected this to happen. When insults are encouraged and legitimate criticism is suppressed, you know you're dealing with a fascistic mentality.

I repeat, my problem here has nothing to do with the idiot posters. My problem is with the mods. They allow the idiots free reign. And why? I can understand, though I despise, the philosophy that says forum boards exist to create click bait for paid sponsors, not to create discussion. Who is more likely to click on random sponsor links, thoughtful people or idiots? What are there more of, thoughtful people or idiots? A board with this level of traffic requires a financial investment, and I understand, although I despise, the mentality which prefers quantity over quality. What I don;t get is the mods. The volunteers. The ones who don't own this board but who give of their time, without recompense, to make the world safe for morons who want to call other people libtards. I guess they must be as stupid as the people whose right to be stupid they defend so vigorously.

Whatever. I have deleted my favicon for this place. I found this forum a disgusting cesspool the first day I was here, and every day thereafter. Hey mods! Discussion on the internet is dead, and YOU killed it. Congratulations morons, and good riddance.

 

[Elvis Obama]

About this kiddies table. Do they get more dessert and get excused first? This may impact my decision on where to sit.

You get to make bubbles in your soda with a straw without the icky grown-ups telling you not to. If that appeals to you, go for it.

 

[Elvis Obama]

Interestingly, I did "report" Picaro and this thread this morning, inviting a mod's response, but we didn't get one.
Maybe my definition of "insult" is wrong. Is it because Elvis opened this in Announcements and Feedback instead of CDZ? I could swear it started there--did they move it?

Yup, moved with a motive of pure cowardice. The inability to tolerate criticism is not a virtue, and in a politics forum it is especially disgusting.

 

[saveliberty]

About this kiddies table. Do they get more dessert and get excused first? This may impact my decision on where to sit.

You get to make bubbles in your soda with a straw without the icky grown-ups telling you not to. If that appeals to you, go for it.

My experience has been it only took one kid in elementary school in order for the rest of us to lose a privilege. It seems to hold true even into adulthood on message boards. The privilege of real debate is lost.

 

[OldLady]

Oldlady, 320 has a thread in CDZ that is somewhat similar to this thread. It is about Anti-Intellectualism or something like that!

Thanks, I added my anti-intellectual remarks there, as well.

 

[JoeMoma]

Oldlady, 320 has a thread in CDZ that is somewhat similar to this thread. It is about Anti-Intellectualism or something like that!

Thanks, I added my anti-intellectual remarks there, as well.

I'm thinking 'bout going catfishing.

 

[saveliberty]

Can I ignore the fact that this thread, intended to discuss the health of the CDZ with CDZ participants and to ask the mods to explain their approach to moderating the CDZ has been moved out of the CDZ and the absurd "gun control" thread remains? I fully expected this to happen. When insults are encouraged and legitimate criticism is suppressed, you know you're dealing with a fascistic mentality.

I repeat, my problem here has nothing to do with the idiot posters. My problem is with the mods. They allow the idiots free reign. And why? I can understand, though I despise, the philosophy that says forum boards exist to create click bait for paid sponsors, not to create discussion. Who is more likely to click on random sponsor links, thoughtful people or idiots? What are there more of, thoughtful people or idiots? A board with this level of traffic requires a financial investment, and I understand, although I despise, the mentality which prefers quantity over quality. What I don;t get is the mods. The volunteers. The ones who don't own this board but who give of their time, without recompense, to make the world safe for morons who want to call other people libtards. I guess they must be as stupid as the people whose right to be stupid they defend so vigorously.

Whatever. I have deleted my favicon for this place. I found this forum a disgusting cesspool the first day I was here, and every day thereafter. Hey mods! Discussion on the internet is dead, and YOU killed it. Congratulations morons, and good riddance.

The money and point of a message board is to have conversation. Mods are not so much cops on the beat, as traffic regulators. Keep the traffic flowing. I could be wrong, but you seem to be in a discussion and it is still visible for all to read. We also allow people to whine about what they want.

 

[oldsoul]

You say that you would like the general public to be better informed (I am paraphrasing), and yet, when presented with a real opportunity to move towards that laudable goal, you cut and run instead of standing and fighting. Interesting....

Red:
??? The context of his "cut and run" is participation the USMB forums. What point is served by his remaining here and contributing in the face of the rampant knee-jerk, hyper-partisan and fact-free remarks that pervade the conversations here? None of any value that I can think of.

For my own part, I don't intend to participate here once the duration of my lost wager's "penance" is complete. There is just too much derelict and glib intellectual torpidity for me to endure beyond a year. Truly I had no idea that "average folks" were as "loud, strong and wrong" as has been shown to me by having participated in a variety of topics on this forum. I don't get it. How can one profess to care enough about political matters to engage in public discourse about them yet, as so many folks here are, refrain entirely from factual investigation?

I mean really. I can count on one hand the number of times someone on USMB (besides I) has, in context, cited credible/rigorous research facts to support their arguments. In contrast, I see repeated echoes of partisan content/ideas drawn from partisan sources. Why have the discussion if all one is going to do is parrot what any of us can read in various editorials?

You guys want an informed and thoughtful populace? Then DO something about it. Don't just sit there and type out your whining about the "problem", as you see it, accually get of your duff and DO something about it. I see this as a great opportunity to do just that, challenge those who, as you said, "refrain entirely from factual investigation". Just running away to another forum where that is already taking place does nothing to solve the problem.

Well, I do do something about it, and in a very direct way. I have sent my three kids to schools that taught them how to be informed and how to be critical thinkers. I require them to present rational arguments when discussing things with me. I've done the same for over a dozen disadvantaged kids whom I've mentored over the past 20+ years.

And yes, as goes my participation in the forum, I do challenge poorly developed lines of argument. Moreover, I have on multiple occasions entreated for well ordered and presented discussions on multiple topics. You'll find almost every one of those offers for rigorous thought and discussion in the Structured Debate Forum. You'll also find there's not been one person who presented a strong argument on those topics.

Those who wish to seek out the cause of miracles and to understand the things of nature as philosophers, and not to stare at them in astonishment like fools, are soon considered heretical and impious, and proclaimed as such by those whom the mob adores as the interpreters of nature and the gods. For these men know that, once ignorance is put aside, that wonderment would be taken away, which is the only means by which their authority is preserved.
-- Baruch Spinoza, Ethics​

Well, good for you. I guess the rest of us unwashed are just not good enough for your graciousness then.

For my own part, I don't intend to participate here once the duration of my lost wager's "penance" is complete.

I once had respect for you and your well thought out and researched arguments, this ends the respect. I cannot respect someone who is only doing good on a bet.

Red:
??? You are the one who said "do something about it." I merely indicated that I do do things about it.

Blue:
??? And that changes the quality of my arguments in what way? Their rigor isn't diminished by that which gives rise to my being here and making them.

Was I unclear? I said "I cannot RESPECT someone who is only doing good on a bet."
Respect: a feeling of deep admiration for someone or something elicited by their abilities, qualities, or achievements.
Quality: the standard of something as measured against other things of a similar kind; the degree of excellence of something.
You use big words regularly, and yet the definition and context of such small and common words seems to have escaped you. Kinda funny.

 

[oldsoul]

I can think of nothing to do except express my opinion that the CDZ is not working, and that the staff here are not doing enough to make it work

That's too bad that you can think of nothing else to do but cut and run.

Why do you avoid discussing the questions asked in this thread?

Because there is no point in discussing them with someone who has no interest in staying here.

Do you like this forum?

Yes, I do. It is imperfect, and run by imperfect people. Maybe you should start your own.

Are you satisfied with the level of civil discourse here

No, I would love to see more civility, but that is just not going to happen until people get more educated.

First of all, I'm not running away to another forum

My apologies, your just running away.
"Run, Forest, run."

 

[OldLady]

Oldlady, 320 has a thread in CDZ that is somewhat similar to this thread. It is about Anti-Intellectualism or something like that!

Thanks, I added my anti-intellectual remarks there, as well.

I'm thinking 'bout going catfishing.

What does that mean?

 

[JoeMoma]

Oldlady, 320 has a thread in CDZ that is somewhat similar to this thread. It is about Anti-Intellectualism or something like that!

Thanks, I added my anti-intellectual remarks there, as well.

I'm thinking 'bout going catfishing.

What does that mean?

 

[320 Years of History]

Red:
??? The context of his "cut and run" is participation the USMB forums. What point is served by his remaining here and contributing in the face of the rampant knee-jerk, hyper-partisan and fact-free remarks that pervade the conversations here? None of any value that I can think of.

For my own part, I don't intend to participate here once the duration of my lost wager's "penance" is complete. There is just too much derelict and glib intellectual torpidity for me to endure beyond a year. Truly I had no idea that "average folks" were as "loud, strong and wrong" as has been shown to me by having participated in a variety of topics on this forum. I don't get it. How can one profess to care enough about political matters to engage in public discourse about them yet, as so many folks here are, refrain entirely from factual investigation?

I mean really. I can count on one hand the number of times someone on USMB (besides I) has, in context, cited credible/rigorous research facts to support their arguments. In contrast, I see repeated echoes of partisan content/ideas drawn from partisan sources. Why have the discussion if all one is going to do is parrot what any of us can read in various editorials?

You guys want an informed and thoughtful populace? Then DO something about it. Don't just sit there and type out your whining about the "problem", as you see it, accually get of your duff and DO something about it. I see this as a great opportunity to do just that, challenge those who, as you said, "refrain entirely from factual investigation". Just running away to another forum where that is already taking place does nothing to solve the problem.

Well, I do do something about it, and in a very direct way. I have sent my three kids to schools that taught them how to be informed and how to be critical thinkers. I require them to present rational arguments when discussing things with me. I've done the same for over a dozen disadvantaged kids whom I've mentored over the past 20+ years.

And yes, as goes my participation in the forum, I do challenge poorly developed lines of argument. Moreover, I have on multiple occasions entreated for well ordered and presented discussions on multiple topics. You'll find almost every one of those offers for rigorous thought and discussion in the Structured Debate Forum. You'll also find there's not been one person who presented a strong argument on those topics.

Those who wish to seek out the cause of miracles and to understand the things of nature as philosophers, and not to stare at them in astonishment like fools, are soon considered heretical and impious, and proclaimed as such by those whom the mob adores as the interpreters of nature and the gods. For these men know that, once ignorance is put aside, that wonderment would be taken away, which is the only means by which their authority is preserved.
-- Baruch Spinoza, Ethics​

Well, good for you. I guess the rest of us unwashed are just not good enough for your graciousness then.

For my own part, I don't intend to participate here once the duration of my lost wager's "penance" is complete.

I once had respect for you and your well thought out and researched arguments, this ends the respect. I cannot respect someone who is only doing good on a bet.

Red:
??? You are the one who said "do something about it." I merely indicated that I do do things about it.

Blue:
??? And that changes the quality of my arguments in what way? Their rigor isn't diminished by that which gives rise to my being here and making them.

Was I unclear? I said "I cannot RESPECT someone who is only doing good on a bet."
Respect: a feeling of deep admiration for someone or something elicited by their abilities, qualities, or achievements.
Quality: the standard of something as measured against other things of a similar kind; the degree of excellence of something.
You use big words regularly, and yet the definition and context of such small and common words seems to have escaped you. Kinda funny.

Purple:
Actually, no, you are not. I see now it was I who was unclear.

 

[OldLady]

Oldlady, 320 has a thread in CDZ that is somewhat similar to this thread. It is about Anti-Intellectualism or something like that!

Thanks, I added my anti-intellectual remarks there, as well.

I'm thinking 'bout going catfishing.

What does that mean?

Highly doubtful, but okay if you say so.

 

[Elvis Obama]

I can think of nothing to do except express my opinion that the CDZ is not working, and that the staff here are not doing enough to make it work

That's too bad that you can think of nothing else to do but cut and run.

Why do you avoid discussing the questions asked in this thread?

Because there is no point in discussing them with someone who has no interest in staying here.

Do you like this forum?

Yes, I do. It is imperfect, and run by imperfect people. Maybe you should start your own.

Are you satisfied with the level of civil discourse here

No, I would love to see more civility, but that is just not going to happen until people get more educated.

First of all, I'm not running away to another forum

My apologies, your just running away.
"Run, Forest, run."

Running away. LOL. You mean it's cowardly to leave someplace you don't like? You're supposed to stay and fight to make the place into something you do like? Forever? That's how you live your life? What an absurd waste of time. I don't own this board and I don't delude myself into thinking I have any influence here. Apparently you do delude yourself into thinking you can make this board over in your own image. Why? Can you provide an example of how your influence has changed/improved this board? Or anyone else's influence?

You've stated that you do like this place, and you are satisfied with the way the board is run and the level of civility that is maintained here. I think your standards are way too low, but that's your business.

I've run several forum boards. Have you? The last time I tried to put a board together I couldn't find a single person who believed forum boards were still relevant. They felt that forums have been killed by the impossibility of managing nutjobs and the competition of social media, where everybody is a star. I prefer the inherently democratic structure of a forum board, where everybody in a discussion is equal. That standard can only be maintained with active moderation. Otherwise the nutjobs take over, as they have done here.

This is becoming a circular discussion. You seem to like this place and you seem to believe I have some kind of obligation here. I don't like this place and I acknowledge no obligation to it.

 

[JoeMoma]

Oldlady, 320 has a thread in CDZ that is somewhat similar to this thread. It is about Anti-Intellectualism or something like that!

Thanks, I added my anti-intellectual remarks there, as well.

I'm thinking 'bout going catfishing.

What does that mean?

Highly doubtful, but okay if you say so.

That is a picture of one of the catfish I caught last evening. Not only was I thinking about going catfishing yesterday, I actually went and caught some catfish.

 

[oldsoul]

You've stated that you do like this place, and you are satisfied with the way the board is run and the level of civility that is maintained here. I think your standards are way too low, but that's your business.

Maybe you mis-read, maybe you forgot. At any rate let me remind you. Your question was:
"Do you like this forum?" My answer was:

Yes, I do. It is imperfect, and run by imperfect people.

Your question was:
"Are you satisfied with the level of civil discourse here?" My answer was:

No, I would love to see more civility, but that is just not going to happen until people get more educated.

So, intentional or not, you are misrepresenting my statements.