04 Aug 09
1 edit
Recent Archaeological Discovery
"Recent reports from an undisclosed dig site document discovery of CWC (Cold Wet Cave), the first General Forum in the history
of mankind. Of particular interest, the findings include an archive photo of the very first thread ever posted by a CWC Member."
.........................
"Things I Wonder About"
(1) Who are we? (2) Why are we here? (3) Where are we going? (4) How
will we get there? (5) Will the sun shine for our 1st Meet-Up in August?
Cromag~
Originally posted by Very Rustyit's just yet another attempt by GB to start a 'discussion' that he will try to control, passing judgement on any well-intentioned posts people contribute - praising the ones that conform to his views and criticising the rest. he doesn't want a discussion, he wants people to be converted to his own views. if the thread strays from the topic (as gf threads are wont to do) he'll repost one of his own posts to try to keep control. he will talk about keeping an open mind, but doesn't have one himself. and we see all this in thread after thread after thread, day after day after day.
I believe you are smart enough to figure it out, and it wasn't about turds, at least on GB'S part.
Perhaps try to contribute and make some interesting threads, if you don't like GB's threads?
take this current thread. 'who are we?' 'why are we here?' etc. ok, the eternal questions, fair enough - i have no problem with a discussion on that, per se. a genuine discussion, that is. now, if someone says we're over-evolved apes, and there is no 'why', GB will post some cryptic sh** that translates to 'no', and if someone says we're god's creatures put here to fulfill his will or something like that, he'll post some cryptic sh** that translates to 'yes'. not for a moment is there any danger of him actually engaging in a genuine two-way exchange of views. it's the way he works. look back over his threads and you'll see it.
it really surprises me that there are people who don't see this.
and he's a world-class expert at doing a little reading (probably from wikipedia) and throwing in just enough buzzwords to convince people unfamiliar with the territory that he knows all about it.
gah!
04 Aug 09
Originally posted by wormwoodI think everyone has the right to post, and make threads.
it really surprises me that you think that vr will. like explaining quantum physics to a poodle.
If people don't care for those threads, they do not have to go into them and be critics.
Perhaps making interesting threads of their own, would be a good option?
Originally posted by Very Rustyno they do not have to read those posts and criticise, but they if the original poster has a right to post, then others have a right to read and criticise those posts.
I think everyone has the right to post, and make threads.
If people don't care for those threads, they do not have to go into them and be critics.
Perhaps making interesting threads of their own, would be a good option?
sure, i agree that creating interesting threads is a good thing, but it is not an alternative to obstructing the proliferation of bs, it is a separate and distinct activity.
look at my posts through the various forums - you'll see i don't criticise those who genuinely have expertise in various areas. but GB is a faker, and that's a good deal of the reason i criticise some of his posts. there just isn't anything there behind the (deliberately) obscure phrasing. ultimately, it's just hot air, designed to make him look like he knows more than he does.
04 Aug 09
1 edit
Originally posted by BlackampPrimary purpose of this thread is simply to wish Phlabibit (whom I recently irritated with a 'potluck' comment)
it's just yet another attempt by GB to start a 'discussion' that he will try to control, passing judgement on any well-intentioned posts people contribute - praising the ones that conform to his views and criticising the rest. he doesn't want a discussion, he wants people to be converted to his own views. if the thread strays from the topic (as gf threads a people unfamiliar with the territory that he knows all about it.
gah!
a great meet-up in RI this month. Secondary purpose is to spark conversation about those basic questions.
-gb
04 Aug 09
Originally posted by BlackampI do understand your opinion, and point you are trying to make.
no they do not have to read those posts and criticise, but they if the original poster has a right to post, then others have a right to read and criticise those posts.
sure, i agree that creating interesting threads is a good thing, but it is not an alternative to obstructing the proliferation of bs, it is a separate and distinct activity.
look at my ...[text shortened]... . ultimately, it's just hot air, designed to make him look like he knows more than he does.
Having known from previous experience that a poster does not care for GB's style of thread. I can not see any reason why the poster would want to continue going back to future threads, only to be a critic, and hurl insults. There is absolutely nothing positive to be gained by doing this type of thing, over and over again.
I think the good alternative would be to make interesting threads of their own. Show us all how interesting threads should be done instead?
04 Aug 09
Originally posted by Very RustyHeartily Recommended.
I do understand your opinion, and point you are trying to make.
Having known from previous experience that a poster does not care for GB's style of thread. I can not see any reason why the poster would want to continue going back to future threads, only to be a critic, and hurl insults. There is absolutely nothing positive to be gained by doing this ty ...[text shortened]... e interesting threads of their own. Show us all how interesting threads should be done instead?
Originally posted by Very Rustyokay, one approach would be to just ignore the bs, don't go into the threads, create other stuff etc. that's all very well, but it does nothing to stem the proliferation of bs, and stemming the proliferation of bs is a good thing i think. other people can still read the thread and make up there own minds, and make their own comments if they wish. they can criticise my criticisms, as you are doing, and i fully accept that.
I do understand your opinion, and point you are trying to make.
Having known from previous experience that a poster does not care for GB's style of thread. I can not see any reason why the poster would want to continue going back to future threads, only to be a critic, and hurl insults. There is absolutely nothing positive to be gained by doing this ty ...[text shortened]... e interesting threads of their own. Show us all how interesting threads should be done instead?
as for creating interesting threads, i've tested the water with the moral dilemmas (2) thread - which is about a genuine philosophical problem that is the subject of a good deal of current research. i don't know if people will find this interesting, but as i asay, i'm just testing the water. at least it is the real thing. let's see if there is an appetite for it.
the other thing is that, although i do have a view about that problem, i'm not trying to bring people around to that view, but trying to encourage a genuine exchange of informed opinions.