Originally posted by chancremechanicBe it so. Most of these high-pitched US- baitors are residents of free societies like USA itself or EUROPE. Let me ask - how many of these US-baitors - would , given the option, opt to live and settle in a totalitarian country like Cuba or China?
I guess that makes SVW your alter ego, since you post nothing but "Capitalists are evil", "America is evil" for about 5-6 straight posts, I mean, WTF, are you on crack or someting?🙄
Originally posted by coolwarriorIs it legitimate to critisize US foreign policy or the current administration? Or is that considered US-baiting? Of course no-one in their right mind would choose to live in an oppressive regime. Are you saying that people should be thankful for what they've got and keep quiet?
Be it so. Most of these high-pitched US- baitors are residents of free societies like USA itself or EUROPE. Let me ask - how many of these US-baitors - would , given the option, opt to live and settle in a totalitarian country like Cuba or China?
Originally posted by RagnorakI totally agree and support this idea.
Any chance a limit could be imposed on the number of threads any particular user can post in, in any one day?
D
The forum is actually very much like an open meeting. A lot of people attend, and each wants to have a say.
All of us have been to a meeting of some sort where a minority few - sometimes even only one or two persons - dominate the whole discussion.
It is a characteristic of a "good" meeting if the chairperson manages to control those members who like the sound of their own voice. Once they have said something - even something useful - they need to repeat it ad nauseum, wasting everybody's time. (STANG!!)
On RHP there is no chairperson. The members are supposed to control their own board.
Question: so how do we do it?
One suggestion would be merely to ignore irrelevant posters. Since they thrive on reaction, censure only encourages them! (Maybe Br Ed now realises that I am ignoring him....)
1 edit
Originally posted by RagnorakA while ago, on a thread that I cannot recall, in anger I posted an oath to completely ignore any post made by SVW. Dispite my coming down from that temper tantrum I have stuck to my word, and I believe I was right in substance in not in behavior.
Any chance a limit could be imposed on the number of threads any particular user can post in, in any one day?
Its just that everytime that they let SVW out of the asylum, he finds the need to post in every single thread in the debates f ...[text shortened]... of course, but still unnecessary in a forum on a chess site.
D
Do not respond to flames, rediculous comments, and other forum garbage. It is fueled only by people becoming irate and trying to squash the comment. The word to all users who try to do this: those posters won't listen to you, and all sensible people already agree with you. Don't give these loudmouthed pedants the time of day.
(Imagine Lisa Simpson singing. . . "Just don't look, just don't look. . . ." )
On another chess site I used to frequent, forum users have the option to permanently ignore selected other users.
In other words, you could simply put a given user on your ignore list, and their posts aren't even visible to you.
It can make some threads look a bit bizarre (and one-sided, if someone you can see is slogging it out with someone you can't), but it seemed to work.
Originally posted by thesonofsaulExcellent advice.
A while ago, on a thread that I cannot recall, in anger I posted an oath to completely ignore any post made by SVW. Dispite my coming down from that temper tantrum I have stuck to my word, and I believe I was right in substance in not in behavior.
Do not respond to flames, rediculous comments, and other forum garbage. It is fueled only by people be ...[text shortened]... of day.
(Imagine Lisa Simpson singing. . . "Just don't look, just don't look. . . ." )
The only problem comes when SVW posts something interesting and edifying. The story, "Christmas with Louise" comes to mind.
His drunken rants I mostly ignore.
Originally posted by WulebgrActually,
That SVW is drunk when he posts explains a lot, but to limit his drunken rants would impair the essentially democratic character of these forums. I understand the need to ignore his posts. Nevertheless, he claims to be an atheist, yet he defends and is protected by legions of the Bible thumping Christians who preach here. I appreciate that diversity.
Perh ...[text shortened]... ers of his ilk, could be regulated without jeopardizing the free interchange of ideas by others.
What has recently been called "flame" is simply an effort to get people to think about "reality and superstition".
For what it's worth. I think that sometimes we all need to come to grips with a few simple facts. There is no magic. I watched several people and several methods of "messing with the mind" and thought it would be interesting to give a small demo on RHP. To force a little thinking.
If it failed that, then so be it.
There is no "magic" folks. Just clever people willing to mess with other peoples minds. It would be a good thing to discuss it in the forums, but it is taboo. People are afraid of talking about the supernatural. Which I find hilarious!
I actually had superstitious people accusing me of "threatening" people. Magically! Go figure.
Oh well. It would have been a good thing to talk about. Except for peoples silly taboo's.
Mike
Originally posted by StarValleyWyAnd that has what to do with calling other posters terrorists and childkillers?
Actually,
What has recently been called "flame" is simply an effort to get people to think about "reality and superstition".
For what it's worth. I think that sometimes we all need to come to grips with a few simple facts. There is no magic. I watched several people and several methods of "messing with the mind" and thought it would be inte ...[text shortened]... well. It would have been a good thing to talk about. Except for peoples silly taboo's.
Mike
2 edits
Originally posted by XanthosNZI don't know. What I was trying to do was get several posters to run to the censors with claims that I was "threatening" them. Now -- HOW would I ever do that? On the internet? I don't have a clue who ANYBODY is on RHP. Nevermind anything about them. Like name or even country where they live.
And that has what to do with calling other posters terrorists and childkillers?
Did you go to the censors? Some did. Some did not. And it isn't really important.
Except in the context of the examination of magic. And superstitions. Which are REALLY, REALLY big parts of "Reality".
Anyway. If I "frightened" you, I apologize. That was not the REAL point of what I was doing.
Mike
1 edit
I don't really think it's fair to pick on SVW specifically. I do think the community should somehow encourage good and meaningful posting, but I don't know how that is achieved; I don't think imposing a daily limit is a good idea, especially since a time constraints require some users to function in long sessions occasionally rather than posting small amounts regularly.
Personally, I have found some of SVW's posts completely infuriating, but in the way the New York Times crossword or a piece by John Cage is infuriating; his style is somewhat unique on RHP, but if one has a private discussion with him it is apparent that his reasons are also quite unique. In general, if someone's post annoys you but does not violate the ToS, the best thing to do is simply ignore it and continue discussing the matter at hand, as most of us did with the infamous Toker and do with STANG.
I also doubt seriously that SVW harbors any nasty intentions toward RHPers. Furthermore, I suspect he sometimes takes a slightly exaggerated position (not to speak for him) either for dramatic value or to inspire more passionate discussion.
1 edit
Originally posted by royalchickenHow doin' Mark?
I don't really think it's fair to pick on SVW specifically. I do think the community should somehow encourage good and meaningful posting, but I don't know how that is achieved; I don't think imposing a daily limit is a good idea, ...[text shortened]... ither for dramatic value or to inspire more passionate discussion.
I don't know if you saw the infamous events in question? Basically, I was doin' a big "shaman" parlor trick. It worked. Too well, I think.
I did have "exaggerated" postions and whatnot. Though i suspect that "positions" is a stretch. I was just pulling chains left and right. That probably isn't a position. Errrrr... I digress.
Anyway, I did have hopes of stimulating a few bouts of "superstition" in the hopes of discussing it in the forums. You know me. I'm kind of stubborn on occasions.
Anyway. Why discuss "Reality and Superstition"?
It seems to go hand-in-hand with all the silly drivel on religion that seems to be the only thing this thread has turned into.
I way over-estimated the crowd. At least on that night. Some actually began to feel fear. Which was stupid of me. Oh well.
Anyway. How doin' Mark?
ps... I got a couple of nasty notes from Jon (that night) telling me to quit threatening people. I started laughing so hard I had to just quit and go to bed. Silly me.