Originally posted by STANGFor all those religious people who fear having their threads pushed into a category that others might ignore ...
I'd suggest that RHP create a pop-down list of debating categories, such as "Religion", "Politics", etc.
People could chose a category before starting a new thread that would be categorised as such. People could add a new category that would appear on the pop-down list in future.
Others could then review threads by category, filtering out Religion o ...[text shortened]... tion is far cheaper than the cost of customer acquisition.
By the way, Bush is a liar and ...
When readers first enter the Debates forum, all categories would be shown. Readers would then have the option of selecting which categories they're interested in. Next time they came to the Debates forum, all categories would be shown again.
Something like this would NOT be the same has forcing all religious threads into a totally separate forum.
Originally posted by darvlayI did post a note to it though. His post is still here so I guess they could care less.
Then I misunderstood you and I retract my statement.
EDIT - ... and I apologize. Sorry for jumping on your back, Mike.
I did it for the simple reason that when cribs said he alerted Ivanhoe’s posts twice in the last 24 hours, he also “encouraged” others to do so as well. (As if we are unable to distinguish what is offensive for ourselves) I thought this was particularly lame of him; to actually call others to alert a post they may not otherwise look at twice. Don’t you think?
Is he reformed…..I think not.
http://www.chessatwork.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=17466
Originally posted by rapalla7Don't be a jerk and misquote me again. I never said I alerted any post twice. I said Ivanhoe posted "Don't F--- with me Cribs!" twice in the last 24 hours. I only alerted once.
I did it for the simple reason that when cribs said he alerted Ivanhoe’s posts twice in the last 24 hours.
I demand that you retract this misquote, lest others jump on the banning bandwagon based on false information, just like they did last time around.
Originally posted by rapalla7Still avoiding my question,I asked to you three times but you carefully avoid to answer:what did he to you?
I did post a note to it though. His post is still here so I guess they could care less.
I did it for the simple reason that when cribs said he alerted Ivanhoe’s posts twice in the last 24 hours, he also “encouraged” others to do so as well. (As if we are unable to distinguish what is offensive for ourselves) I thought this was particularly lame of him ...[text shortened]... s he reformed…..I think not.
http://www.chessatwork.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=17466
You see this is great! Obviously our debate has degenerated, but isn't there some element of fun in it? For instance, ivanhoe's stark hypocrisy has been apparent to us all for some time now. Would I want to alert or even ban him for it? No way. This sort of banter augments our discussions by tying them to a larger, evolving sense of community. I love it.
I do not think that there should be any ban on preaching. Of late I think their has been an air of legalism in this forum. Some members have taken themselves to do pro bono police work, haughtily roaming threads looking for wayward poster, ready to reprimand for the slightest offense.
If some one routinely posts vacuous arguments, then s/he is more the fool for it. I myself have wrestled with a sort of constrained maximization problem. Do I spend the time required to post a well-structured, logical response? Or should I instead go for sharp wit or bombastic hyperbole? Strong posts increase my reputation as a clear thinker and a respectable contributer to the discussion, but this comes at the cost of not being read. Shallow posts increase my sense of belonging in the community and get some cheap laughs at the cost of debate reputation.
If recommendations received should be a signal of the communities favor for one method or the other, I must say that I have found no significant correlation between either form of posting and rec's. So I say leave things the way they are. It's fun and self-enforcing. If you like something give it a rec; don't be stingy. People will respond accordingly.
Originally posted by telerionExcellent post. By the way, my expertise is in constrained optimization. We should have more threads about it. We should work on formulating the model about forum tradeoffs more specifically. Maybe Russ could implement it, and we could all have our objective function values indicated and updated under our avatar.
You see this is great! Obviously our debate has degenerated, but isn't there some element of fun in it? For instance, ivanhoe's stark hypocrisy has been apparent to us all for some time now. Would I want to alert or even ban him for i ...[text shortened]... give it a rec; don't be stingy. People will respond accordingly.
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesI agree. Also ...
Excellent post. By the way, my expertise is in constrained optimization. We should have more threads about it. We should work on formulating the model about forum tradeoffs more specifically. Maybe Russ could implement it, and we could all have our objective function values indicated and updated under our avatar.
Bush is a liar and a war monger (see HTTP://rhp-ratings.blogspot.com). Bush and those who support him are a threat to the security of the world. Power = Responsibility.
Thanks. Speaking of constrained optimization, I found myself watching "Faith Under Fire about a month back (Don't ask why that show or even that channel, UPN.). So they were arguing about intelligent design and evolution, and the evolution proponent rightly asks, "If your god is so brilliant, why did he do such a bad job designing so many of the things we find in nature?" He launched into a polemic about how the human eye could be made better.
Now the YEC/ID guy didn't blink. When his adversary was finished, he calmly asked, "Have you heard of something called constrained optimization? Engineers have recently discovered this and think it might explain why the human eye is the way it is."
Now Lee Strobel (third-rate evangelical apologist and host of Faith Under Fire) was duly impressed with this answer and wrapped up the program without giving the evolutionist a chance to respond. The irony, which had so many levels in this case, nearly caused me to spontaneously hurl my television set through the wall.
Originally posted by telerionHmm, I haven't heard that sort of argument for intelligent design before. I'm not sure I fully understand it. Was it trying to say that the design of the eye is a locally-optimal solution that the creator stumbled across and stuck with, and that if he had explored vastly different ideas for the design, he may have found the globally-optimal one? This sounds more like an argument in favor of evolution than in favor of design to me.
Thanks. Speaking of constrained optimization, I found myself watching "Faith Under Fire about a month back (Don't ask why that show or even that channel, UPN.). So they were arguing about intelligent design and evolution, and th ...[text shortened]... aused me to spontaneously hurl my television set through the wall.
Or was it attempting to say that the creator had a time constraint of only 24 hours to come up with the design, and that if he hadn't been in such a hurry to finish and take a day off, the eye might have had a better design?
Dr. S
Perhaps Telerion is right.
This thread reminds me of a story I heard about the online game Sim City (could have been sim world etc, not sure), the general gist was that a group of service users basically overthrew the general democracy and law abiding that you expect to find on any normal online game. Most people have a sense of moral responsibilitiy that transfers into the virtual world. Well the ToS on this had no mention of any specific control of law and order and so these guys, gaining support managed to basically overthrow any sense of policing, moral code and government and turned the server into a ghetto. Most of the general users complained, but because there was ToS clause concerning this, they conceded there was nothing they could do. So the server remained a ghetto and people, in there sick and amusingly twisted minds, flocked in there hundereds to join it 🙂
Now I don't know if I have told it right, I don't know if it even happened, maybe it's an urban myth. But I guess, in keeping with this sense of anarchy, now might be a good time to say:
Bush is a liar and a warmonger. Bush and those who support him are a threat to the security of the world. POWER = REPONSIBILITY 🙂
Yeah I know, but if you can't beat em, join em....
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesany chance you can bung this topic in a seperate thread so it will be easier to follow - am quite interested
Hmm, I haven't heard that sort of argument for intelligent design before. I'm not sure I fully understand it. Was it trying to say that the design of the eye is a locally-optimal solution that the creator stumbled across and stuck with, and that if he had explored vastly different ideas for the design, he may have found the globally-optimal one? ...[text shortened]... in such a hurry to finish and take a day off, the eye might have had a better design?
Dr. S
Ta
Originally posted by StarrmanAlso similar (I think) was a Ch4 reality show about a prison block.
Perhaps Telerion is right.
This thread reminds me of a story I heard about the online game Sim City (could have been sim world etc, not sure), the general gist was that a group of service users basically overthrew the general democracy and law abiding that you expect to find on any normal online game. Most people have a sense of moral responsibilitiy th ...[text shortened]... y of the world. POWER = REPONSIBILITY 🙂
Yeah I know, but if you can't beat em, join em....
A group of 'contestants' was split into two groups - one lot the guards the others the prisoners. They were then left to get on with it, and videoed a la Big Bro'.
Before the week was past half way the prisoners had trashed the place and locked up the guards and the show was ended rather quickly with a bit of analysis into how that always happens.
Originally posted by rhbI have just learned something new. I didn't know the meaning of the verb "to bung", and I have to admit that I didn't even believe it to be a proper word at all. I looked it up at m-w.com and was amazed to find that it has not just one but three entries, one of which means to throw or toss. I also looked up bunghole, which I had previously only known as vulgar slang, and m-w.com has one non-vulgar entry for that as well, meaning a hole for emptying a cask. Equipped with this new knowledge, I can now consider whether I do indeed wish to bung this topic into a separate thread, or just remain in this one watching rapalla continue to make himself look like a bunghole.
any chance you can bung this topic in a seperate thread so it will be easier to follow - am quite interested
Ta
Dr. S
Originally posted by rhbThere is a German movie called Das Experiment based on this phenomenon.
Also similar (I think) was a Ch4 reality show about a prison block.
A group of 'contestants' was split into two groups - one lot the guards the others the prisoners. They were then left to get on with it, and videoed a la Big Bro'.
Before the week was past half way the prisoners had trashed the place and locked up the guards and the show was ended rather quickly with a bit of analysis into how that always happens.