63 {{ upvoteCount | shortNum }}
63 {{ upvoteCount | shortNum }}

Rational discourse and the ability to do it...

by KenThompson
54 replies
First, this is not an attempt to complain at all - far from it.

I do not know the reason why the thread that was just locked was done so
after the person in question was able to post a response without allowing
a response for the benefit of those who may be able to benefit from it.

But that is ok... I presume this will not be the end of it considering history
of the subject in question (spinning) and the propensity of certain people
to post blatant misinformation regarding it.

But to the mod who locked it... the two or three people in question... we
will revisit this when it happens again, and you know it will happen again.

I could have easily added valuable, useful and supportive information to
what was said. But it was locked - much to the glee of certain people,
I'm sure.

So, it is ok to bask in this short-lived moment.

I am recommending that a bit more tolerance and support for positive discussion
in the interest of truth be explored and allowed. If you are tired of the topic
of spinning, I understand. But I am sure you realize there will be more new
people asking about it. So it will not go away.

I do not think it is necessarily the topic so much as the way people respond to
it.

So this is not so much about spinning as it is openness in discussing business matters
that are controversial and largely misunderstood by many people.

Perhaps others may like to comment on this?


Ken
#ability #discourse #rationale
  • Profile picture of the author nasuryono
    It might be your thread contains something that the mod does not like to see.

    Be clear, straightforward and simple please. This is a forum that is read by actual people.

    -Andrew
    Signature
    ----------------------------------------


    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3984875].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author KenThompson
      Originally Posted by nasuryono View Post

      It might be your thread contains something that the mod does not like to see.

      Be clear, straightforward and simple please. This is a forum that is read by actual people.

      -Andrew
      Hi Andrew...

      First, it was not my thread. Second, there was nothing I said that was
      grounds for it happening, and I'm not asking about that.

      Lastly... I am always clear, and I think I know much better than you that this
      forum is read by actual people. But thanks.


      Ken
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3984889].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Paul Myers
    Discussions on that particular topic seem to be anything but rational lately.

    I have come very close in the past few weeks to creating a web site called The Church of Article Marketing. Declaring it a religion would make it offtopic for this forum, thus ending the discussions, and the ridiculous viciousness that accompanies them.

    I have not yet ruled it out as a possibility.


    Paul
    Signature
    .
    Stop by Paul's Pub - my little hangout on Facebook.

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3984892].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author KenThompson
      Originally Posted by Paul Myers View Post

      Discussions on that particular topic seem to be anything but rational lately.

      I have come very close in the past few weeks to creating a web site called The Church of Article Marketing. Declaring it a religion would make it offtopic for this forum, thus ending the discussions, and the ridiculous viciousness that accompanies them.

      I have not yet ruled it out as a possibility.


      Paul
      Hey Paul,

      There certainly are instances of heated emotions, to be sure, and the bottom
      line is they should not happen. No question.

      But I would like to suggest that we do the difficult task that sometimes, or often,
      occurs with difficult subjects. Also, as you know, just like with article marketing,
      I have kept out of the discussion re spinning for the most part.

      But, I am tired of the deception and misinformation that have been perpetrated
      by a very few re the subject. Even with rational and flowery words, blatant untruths
      are just as ugly and damaging as viciousness.

      I personally would not suffer if you banned the discussion of article marketing and
      spinning.


      Ken
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3984944].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Paul Myers
        Ken,

        The way to combat misinformation is with data, not the harangues and hostility that seem to have become part and parcel of the conversation.

        There are three basic requirements that I keep in mind before debating with anyone online. I have to be very confident that my position is correct, equally confident that the other position is incorrect, and have a specific purpose in mind that will be served by the discussion.

        The "article marketing" conversation lacks the second component for most of its participants. Jojo's may well be right in Jojo's own practices, but that doesn't mean Wilfred's approach doesn't also work with Wilfred's systems.

        By the way... Your use of the word 'deception' there steps into an area that would be quite personally insulting if directed at a specific individual. I've seen that word thrown around a lot, and rarely with any demonstration of intent on the part of the accused. Being incorrect (assuming one is) is not the same as being deceptive. It would do us all good to keep those sorts of distinctions in mind.


        Paul
        Signature
        .
        Stop by Paul's Pub - my little hangout on Facebook.

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3985007].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author KenThompson
          Originally Posted by Paul Myers View Post

          Ken,

          By the way... Your use of the word 'deception' there steps into an area that would be quite personally insulting if directed at a specific individual. I've seen that word thrown around a lot, and rarely with any demonstration of intent on the part of the accused. Being incorrect (assuming one is) is not the same as being deceptive. It would do us all good to keep those sorts of distinctions in mind.


          Paul

          Paul,

          All right, I can see that and have no problem with it. There are
          two perspectives regarding the use of that word; implied conscious
          intent and effect as a result of the information offered.

          My use of it was the latter as I have no idea what goes on in the
          minds of other people. But the effect is still the same.

          I agree completely about stating facts in support of arguments. That
          point definitely applies to both sides.

          Actually, I could have stated facts had the thread been left open, but
          that's ok - no problem.

          Thanks,


          Ken
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3985037].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author BloggingPro
    Honestly when I see a locked thread my interest actually goes up because I want to try and discern what was said to see why the thread was locked.

    I believe they call this the Streisand Effect.

    So in actuality if a mod doesn't like something and closes a thread it can actually draw more attention to the aspect that caused the closing of the thread.

    I'm all for more liberal discussion on these forums, however, where do you stop? I've seen some downright nasty posts in some threads, personal attacks of sorts--yet the thread remains open.

    Then in other cases I've seen a strong stance towards a particular topic have its thread shut down with less than ten posts.
    Signature
    You're going to fail. If you're afraid of failure then you do not belong in the Internet Marketing Business. Period.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3984907].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Paul Myers
      Then in other cases I've seen a strong stance towards a particular topic have its thread shut down with less than ten posts.
      Occasionally, that will be because the really unpleasant posts were deleted, and the thread locked to keep people from continuing their Holy Wars.


      Paul
      Signature
      .
      Stop by Paul's Pub - my little hangout on Facebook.

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3984928].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author meerkat29
    I've been on several different forums, about different subjects. Each one has its own culture and way of managing its content.

    One website had a special section for politics, and I used to post comments on it. But there were a few people who were obnoxious about it, and they frequently stirred things up, so I totally quit visiting that section of the website.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3984958].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Richard Van
      Well Ken,

      As you know, I was one of those in that thread.

      I was as tolerant as I can get and you and I didn't even get remotely close to argueing.

      The problem with those threads and I do my level best to stay out of them these days, was as usual, you have two sides, who both do well doing what they're doing and I don't think the misinformation is always limited to the side you're suggesting it is.

      But to the mod who locked it... the two or three people in question... we
      will revisit this when it happens again, and you know it will happen again.

      I could have easily added valuable, useful and supportive information to
      what was said. But it was locked - much to the glee of certain people,
      I'm sure.
      Well I'm sure it will be revisited and I'm sure you could have added value but to suggest it was locked to the "glee" of certain people and this subsequent thread, does suggest an element of bitterness from you which I think is unnecessary. A moderator locked it, for reasons unknown to me. Far from leaping around with glee, I thought nothing of it and moved on as I think you should have done. As one of those two or three people you're referring to, I think you're looking a little too deeply into this Ken

      If we all could just discuss this like decent people, the moderator would have no reason to have locked the thread.

      I believe I wished you well at the end of my post. You wrote to me not long ago Ken, I was genuinely pleased that you had got that JV.

      Either way though, it was locked and I can assure you, it takes far more for me to feel "glee" than that, I'm not like that Ken.
      Signature

      Wibble, bark, my old man's a mushroom etc...

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3985045].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Paul Myers
        Ken,
        All right, I can see that and have no problem with it. There are two perspectives regarding the use of that word; implied conscious intent and effect as a result of the information offered.
        Yep. And the use of the word 'perpetrated' later in the sentence tends to suggest the deliberate sort, no?


        Paul
        Signature
        .
        Stop by Paul's Pub - my little hangout on Facebook.

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3985107].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author KenThompson
          Originally Posted by Paul Myers View Post

          Ken,Yep. And the use of the word 'perpetrated' later in the sentence tends to suggest the deliberate sort, no?


          Paul
          Yes, it can from the perspective of those who cause it; those who write the
          words and produce the effect. I could have written, those who say that or those
          who write it, but I used the word perpretrated.

          And yes, the use of that word also is meant to highlight the fact that this has
          been ongoing for quite some time.

          But if I may, Paul...

          People have offered facts in prior discussions. They have offered their own
          experiences. They have explained the process in full detail as well as pointing
          out the inadequacies of the given arguments stated.

          Yet, all of that certainly seems to have been ignored, not read, forgotten, over-
          looked... I don't know. But given the responses in those threads after such
          information was offered, it does seem that the information was read. That is
          my strong impression and observation.

          So, what could be said about that?

          If good information and corrections were offered, yet nothing else has changed
          regarding what was later written, then there is a "possibility" - a strong one,
          that the first perspective on 'deception' is applicable.

          In that case, then the use of perpretration as a deliberate act is also applicable.


          Ken
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3985160].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author Paul Myers
            Ken,
            If good information and corrections were offered, yet nothing else has changed regarding what was later written, then there is a "possibility" - a strong one, that the first perspective on 'deception' is applicable.
            You are assuming that the corrections were received and accepted as valid. That is quite often not the case.

            It is possible to present a logically consistent argument and find it rejected by an honest person who operates from different base assumptions, or whose context involves qualifiers for which you didn't allow.

            For example, I could make a compelling case, based on the colloquial lading of your word choices and the consistency of their use, that you are angry about this subject. I could further make the case that you see people on at least one side of the discussion as villains, rather than people who simply disagree with your position based on their own situations, beliefs, experiences, and goals.

            If you don't want to be convinced of that, you won't, no matter how 'logical' my argument might be. Further, and more importantly, anyone who agrees with you is unlikely to agree with my reasoning, because it contradicts their own preferred beliefs.

            The fact that a person does not agree with you does not mean they fail to understand your arguments. It also does not mean they're being malicious, prideful, or any other nasty thing. It might just mean they honestly disagree with you.


            Paul
            Signature
            .
            Stop by Paul's Pub - my little hangout on Facebook.

            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3985231].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author Paul Myers
              Thomas,

              I didn't lock that one. I probably would have, though, had I seen it first.

              s/kids/mods/


              Paul
              Signature
              .
              Stop by Paul's Pub - my little hangout on Facebook.

              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3985259].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author KenThompson
              Originally Posted by Paul Myers View Post

              Ken,You are assuming that the corrections were received and accepted as valid. That is quite often not the case.
              No Paul, partly, because there have been enough instances in which the
              following responses, given after corrections, could only mean one thing -
              they were received.

              I understand they may not have been accepted as valid. But that does
              not mean they are not valid. You know that.

              For example, I could make a compelling case, based on the colloquial lading of your word choices and the consistency of their use, that you are angry about this subject. I could further make the case that you see people on at least one side of the discussion as villains, rather than people who simply disagree with your position based on their own situations, beliefs, experiences, and goals.
              Paul... while you are a handsome devil, you're not a cute one.

              Since you are planting that thought, I will take the time to correct
              you and let you know that I am not angry at all. Villians? No, not
              villians. Unwilling to accept the differing experiences of many others,
              sure. Why? No idea.

              This is not a matter of disagreeing with me based on those things. They
              have not taken the time to find out the truth of the matter. The truth,
              based on the experiences, and continued experiences, of many people
              as being completely different from what they continue to espouse as
              truth.

              Of course I do not expect them to do that. But on the other hand, they
              expect others to do the same - believe them based on their experiences.

              Don't ever think this angers me or that anything does in this forum. I
              may have strong opinions on a matter, but that does not constitute anger.

              If you don't want to be convinced of that, you won't, no matter how 'logical' my argument might be. Further, and more importantly, anyone who agrees with you is unlikely to agree with my reasoning, because it contradicts their own preferred beliefs.
              I totally believe that they believe what they say. But there are many others
              who know, from experience and lots of it, that it is incorrect. I am not trying
              to convince anyone that they should change their business practices, etc.

              But rather I am pointing out that the information that continues to be given
              is not accurate. This is not a matter of opinion, either. It is based on facts
              which are based on the experiences of many others.

              Now, it's ok if they do not want to accept that. No problem. But then when
              others offer up the facts, what does that say about them if they refuse to
              talk about it?

              They often point to the experiences of others and say... see? Here it is. Well,
              that approach is good enough for them, but it does not seem to be good
              enough for others, or apparently - maybe, you.

              The fact that a person does not agree with you does not mean they fail to understand your arguments. It also does not mean they're being malicious, prideful, or any other nasty thing. It might just mean they honestly disagree with you.
              I never suggested they failed to understand my arguments. I did suggest, however,
              that one possibility is they fail to understand the process in question. Based on
              what I know, many others know, what the person in question only mentions about
              this particular process... it was an accurate and reasonable suggestion that they
              do not understand it.


              Ken
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3985349].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author Tom B
                Banned
                Originally Posted by KenThompson View Post

                I never suggested they failed to understand my arguments. I did suggest, however,
                that one possibility is they fail to understand the process in question. Based on
                what I know, many others know, what the person in question only mentions about
                this particular process... it was an accurate and reasonable suggestion that they
                do not understand it.


                Ken

                Hi Ken,

                I read the thread that got locked. I believe it is the one you are referring to in the OP.

                I see both groups being very passionate and wanting to help others. Not a bad thing but it does get out of hand at times. I don't think it got out of hand in that thread but based on past debates I can see why the mod locked it.

                It could be quite possible that some people don't know how to use spinning in a beneficial way. Now you can go and say it is beneficial without giving much details like I saw in the thread. It doesn't educate anyone nor help anyone.

                It is just one side saying it works and one side saying it doesn't work.

                I would have been interested in knowing some ways you use spinning and maybe the thread could have been educational because of it. From what I saw, I didn't see much value there besides two parties adamant in their ways.

                Just a perspective from someone who doesn't do articles.
                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3985381].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author KenThompson
                  Originally Posted by Thomas Belknap View Post

                  Hi Ken,

                  I read the thread that got locked. I believe it is the one you are referring to in the OP.

                  I see both groups being very passionate and wanting to help others. Not a bad thing but it does get out of hand at times. I don't think it got out of hand in that thread but based on past debates I can see why the mod locked it.

                  It could be quite possible that some people don't know how to use spinning in a beneficial way. Now you can go and say it is beneficial without giving much details like I saw in the thread. It doesn't educate anyone nor help anyone.

                  It is just one side saying it works and one side saying it doesn't work.

                  I would have been interested in knowing some ways you use spinning and maybe the thread could have been educational because of it. From what I saw, I didn't see much value there besides two parties adamant in their ways.

                  Just a perspective from someone who doesn't do articles.
                  Hello Thomas,

                  Yes, I see your point. As I stated above in this thread, and hopefully you read it,
                  that I was prepared to offer more information to support my argument. But as you
                  know, and as I stated above, the thread was locked. No problem.

                  Also, there have been threads in which specifics about spinning techniques have
                  been discussed and offered to the opposing party.


                  Ken
                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3985454].message }}
                  • Profile picture of the author Paul Myers
                    Ken,

                    Let's not make the mistake of confusing the example with the argument. If this continues to go back to the specific topic of spinning articles, I'll just lock the thing and go back to more productive activities.


                    Paul
                    Signature
                    .
                    Stop by Paul's Pub - my little hangout on Facebook.

                    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3985471].message }}
                    • Profile picture of the author Tom B
                      Banned
                      Originally Posted by Paul Myers View Post

                      Ken,

                      Let's not make the mistake of confusing the example with the argument. If this continues to go back to the specific topic of spinning articles, I'll just lock the thing and go back to more productive activities.


                      Paul

                      Sorry Paul, I am probably to blame since Ken was just responding to my post.
                      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3985481].message }}
                      • Profile picture of the author Paul Myers
                        Thomas,

                        Not a problem. I would really like to stay on the original topic. It's something I believe needs discussing.

                        That said, I won't be too annoyed if I become convinced that locking it is the better choice. That's common with spin-off threads. They tend to inherit the problems and potentials of the original.


                        Paul
                        Signature
                        .
                        Stop by Paul's Pub - my little hangout on Facebook.

                        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3985529].message }}
                    • Profile picture of the author KenThompson
                      Originally Posted by Paul Myers View Post

                      Ken,

                      Let's not make the mistake of confusing the example with the argument. If this continues to go back to the specific topic of spinning articles, I'll just lock the thing and go back to more productive activities.


                      Paul
                      Sorry.. did not see this. I was writing response.

                      Ok Paul, since that topic is integral, in my opinion, to what we are
                      talking about, then let's call it a day.

                      I have tons of writing to do, and we've been at this for several hours.
                      I don't mind talking to you, or debating, but I do not think we are
                      accomplishing anything more that is meaningful.

                      You made some good points, and hopefully I have made a few and
                      gotten my point across.

                      Take care,


                      Ken
                      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3985620].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author Paul Myers
                Ken,
                No Paul, partly, because there have been enough instances in which the following responses, given after corrections, could only mean one thing -they were received.

                I understand they may not have been accepted as valid. But that does not mean they are not valid. You know that.
                Disconnecting the halves of an inclusive 'and' statement and arguing the original is invalid because only one part was missing is sloppy debating technique.

                The fact that they're not accepted as valid has no bearting on whether they actually are valid. That's true. But you seem to be missing the fact that they could be valid for one person and not valid for someone else who's operating from a different position. I don't recall seeing a single discussion on the topic in question that got remotely close to being specific enough for that sort of certainty.
                Since you are planting that thought, I will take the time to correct you and let you know that I am not angry at all.
                You are going to correct a statement that wasn't made?

                Re-read what I said, Ken. I made no assertion about you in that quoted section at all.
                I totally believe that they believe what they say. But there are many others who know, from experience and lots of it, that it is incorrect.
                They "know" from their own experiences, in their own processes, and using their own styles and resources to accomplish their own goals. It is entirely possible that both sides could be right. Or wrong. Or some degree of both, which is the more likely of the three.


                Paul
                Signature
                .
                Stop by Paul's Pub - my little hangout on Facebook.

                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3985403].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author KenThompson
                  Originally Posted by Paul Myers View Post

                  Ken,Disconnecting the halves of an inclusive 'and' statement and arguing the original is invalid because only one part was missing is sloppy debating technique.
                  Perhaps we have to agree to disagree here, Paul.

                  I was not assuming they received it and considered it valid. I assumed it was
                  received based on their responses. By received I mean, read, unless they skipped
                  over it - but that would suggest a few things.

                  We do not know if they view it as valid or not. But if they do not have sufficient
                  experience, for whatever reason, then they are not in a strong position to make
                  certain statements about it such as it does not work, etc.

                  The fact that they're not accepted as valid has no bearting on whether they actually are valid. That's true. But you seem to be missing the fact that they could be valid for one person and not valid for someone else who's operating from a different position.
                  I do not think I am missing that fact, Paul. If a person discussed the topic in a way
                  that demonstrates a certain level of knowledge, and states it does not work, then
                  that is one matter. On the other hand, considering the same points continue to be
                  made which are nothing new and basically have been the case for several years,
                  then that reflects, or reasonably could reflect, a lack of in-depth knowledge.

                  Yes, I have no doubt, and never have had any, that they are operating from a
                  different perspective. But it certainly seems to a position that is ill-informed of
                  the facts.

                  I don't recall seeing a single discussion on the topic in question that got remotely close to being specific enough for that sort of certainty.You are going to correct a statement that wasn't made?
                  You referenced me when you said "you" in that statement.

                  Or wrong. Or some degree of both, which is the more likely of the three.
                  Paul
                  Interesting. Right or wrong...

                  I think I have been clear about what the issue is - with me. It is mispresenting
                  a technique with insufficient facts and nothing more than the things about which
                  you are taking me to task.

                  But that is ok, Paul. I never mind talking to you.

                  It is making declarative statements that are not supported. Ok, you and others,
                  maybe, would want me to name URL's, give away search positiongs, niches and
                  say... this person uses high quality spun content?

                  You want me to name names and say, this person uses it - does very well, etc?

                  Some techniques can be discussed, and I know that Kurt has talked about them
                  in previous threads. He has openly stated that he has been using these techniques
                  for very many years and they are still effective.

                  But that seems to be ignored - seems to be. Certainly seems to be. But if a person
                  wants to dismiss, out of hand - it seems, something like that, then of course they
                  can.

                  But if they want to continue on with the same inaccurate information, then it is
                  reasonable to expect some will correct them.

                  Paul, I have to say that you do seem to be taking the defense of the opposing party
                  only because you have never entered a conversation, that I know of - important
                  distinction, and offered the same arguments to them. But that is completely all right,
                  and I know you are busy, have your prerogatives, etc.

                  What is offered is not any proof that spinning does not work, but only a very thin
                  slice of certain methods of spinning that highly experienced people "know" as well
                  do not work - by themselves.


                  Ken
                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3985586].message }}
                  • Profile picture of the author Paul Myers
                    Ken,
                    Perhaps we have to agree to disagree here, Paul.
                    At this point, we're not even discussing the same thing. I suspect we're far enough past the point of mutually shared topics that it's unlikely we'd get back on the same track.

                    You are focusing on the specific incident that prompted you to start this thread. I am talking about logical principles and conversation in general.
                    You referenced me when you said "you" in that statement.
                    Did you actually go back and re-read it?

                    I stated that I could make a compelling logical argument along those lines. The point being that it could be true, untrue, or partially true, and the logic doesn't have much to do with it without more facts to work from.
                    But if they want to continue on with the same inaccurate information, then it is reasonable to expect some will correct them.
                    Again, you assume they're incorrect. Some statements clearly are, but those are rarely the basis for the ongoing discussions.

                    I find it interesting to see people of demonstrated intelligence and experience arguing like children with other smart, experienced people, without stopping to consider that maybe - just maybe - the other side has a valid point in there somewhere.
                    I have to say that you do seem to be taking the defense of the opposing party only because you have never entered a conversation, that I know of - important distinction, and offered the same arguments to them.
                    They didn't start a thread on this topic. You did.

                    I'm not taking any sides on the other argument at this point. It's irrelevant to the question of rational discussion.
                    What is offered is not any proof that spinning does not work, but only a very thin slice of certain methods of spinning that highly experienced people "know" as well do not work - by themselves.
                    Okay. Anyone who has any final comments on the original topic of the thread, please post them. Ken seems determined to hijack his own thread back into the already locked discussion.

                    Just for the record, Ken, I assumed you actually meant to discuss the topic of rational discourse when you posted this. I didn't get into this expecting you to turn it back onto the topic of the merits or demerits of article spinning.

                    I should know better by this point. It always goes back to the inspiration.


                    Paul
                    Signature
                    .
                    Stop by Paul's Pub - my little hangout on Facebook.

                    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3985697].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author KenThompson
        Originally Posted by Richard Van View Post

        If we all could just discuss this like decent people, the moderator would have no reason to have locked the thread.

        I believe I wished you well at the end of my post. You wrote to me not long ago Ken, I was genuinely pleased that you had got that JV.

        Either way though, it was locked and I can assure you, it takes far more for me to feel "glee" than that, I'm not like that Ken.
        Hey Richard,

        I have never had a problem with your responses, and I have observed that
        you are not as involved as others.

        And I'll apologize if you took my comment that way when I referenced the 'glee'
        of people. I cannot be specific or mention names, as you know. But yes, I
        did mention 'three' people, and the math is easy. So that was my mistake.

        But I will tell you, and everyone, that my basis for using that word came from
        reading very many posts in which "the reaction" could very likely be interpreted
        as expressing that particular emotion. It is not so difficult when there are other
        means of expression used other than mere words. You have to read between
        the lines of what I am trying to say.

        I can be extremely specific right now, but I have to dance around it. I am sure
        you understand.

        I have no problem with you, Richard, and I never have. Please keep that in mind.


        Ken
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3985110].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Alexa Smith
          Banned
          I mean it purely facetiously, of course, in an attempt to lighten the tone of the proceedings, but for those aspiring to rational discourse, I warmly recommend this admirable treatisethis admirable treatise , perhaps followed by a glance at the precepts distilled herehere (not often I get an excuse to recommend any of my former university textbooks in the forum!).
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3985182].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author Tom B
            Banned
            Damn Paul, I just started to spin my responses to syndication versus spinning. I worked all week on this new software program and now you start locking threads right before I can use it.

            This would have made me millions I tell ya, millions... if it wasn't for those pesky kids!
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3985236].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author Richard Van
              Originally Posted by Thomas Belknap View Post

              Damn Paul, I just started to spin my responses to syndication versus spinning. I worked all week on this new software program and now you start locking threads right before I can use it.

              This would have made me millions I tell ya, millions... if it wasn't for those pesky kids!
              Just because you have no hair Thomas, is no excuse to refer to people as pesky kids.

              I won't be kissing you head with that sort of attitude young man.
              Signature

              Wibble, bark, my old man's a mushroom etc...

              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3985265].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author Alexa Smith
                Banned
                Originally Posted by Richard Van View Post

                I won't be kissing you head with that sort of attitude young man.
                You leave that nice Mr Cueball and his kissable head alone ... I'm telling you, many of us have our eye on him ...
                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3985267].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author Tom B
                  Banned
                  Originally Posted by Alexa Smith View Post

                  You leave that nice Mr Cueball and his kissable head alone ... I'm telling you, many of us have our eye on him ...
                  I thought Paul was looking at me strangely.
                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3985281].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author Michael Mayo
                  Originally Posted by Alexa Smith View Post

                  You leave that nice Mr Cueball and his kissable head alone ... I'm telling you, many of us have our eye on him ...
                  I hope you're wearing welders goggles because if you catch a glare from the
                  sun off of that cue ball it could blind you.

                  Have a Great Day!
                  Michael
                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3985286].message }}
                  • Profile picture of the author Tom B
                    Banned
                    Originally Posted by Michael Mayo View Post

                    I hope you're wearing welders goggles because if you catch a glare from the
                    sun off of that cue ball it could blind you.

                    Have a Great Day!
                    Michael
                    Oh dear, I accidentally spun myself and created a Michael Mayo!
                    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3985296].message }}
                    • Profile picture of the author Michael Mayo
                      Originally Posted by Thomas Belknap View Post

                      Oh dear, I accidentally spun myself and created a Michael Mayo!
                      Nice improvement from the original don't cha think!

                      ~MM~
                      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3985308].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author Tom B
                Banned
                Originally Posted by Richard Van View Post

                Just because you have no hair Thomas, is no excuse to refer to people as pesky kids.

                I won't be kissing you head with that sort of attitude young man.
                I am changing the way we post on forums. Experienced members know the same questions keep getting asked so why not spin the answers to make them look unique.

                In the end, it will be a bunch of bots talking to each other but that doesn't matter since I will be creating a wso bot seller program and will throw in a wso bot buying program to keep Allen basking in cigars.

                No one will ever have to log into the wafo again.

                I have been commissioned by Allen to create a wafo thread lock bot to lock all posts that are spun.

                Crazy busy, can't chat so I used the bot to spin this response.

                You still can't afford to kiss my head.
                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3985277].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author Richard Van
                  Originally Posted by Thomas Belknap View Post

                  You still can't afford to kiss my head.
                  I'l play rough and force you to let me kiss it for free, then I'll hold you down and Paul will lick it and Micheal will.....Oh jesus, what am I saying.
                  Signature

                  Wibble, bark, my old man's a mushroom etc...

                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3985334].message }}
                  • Profile picture of the author Paul Myers
                    Richard,

                    You are one sick puppy.


                    Paul
                    Signature
                    .
                    Stop by Paul's Pub - my little hangout on Facebook.

                    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3985347].message }}
                    • Profile picture of the author Tom B
                      Banned
                      Originally Posted by Paul Myers View Post

                      Richard,

                      You are one sick puppy.


                      Paul
                      You got to watch out for those syndicators!

                      Richard, NO means NO.
                      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3985357].message }}
                      • Profile picture of the author Richard Van
                        [DELETED]
                        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3985406].message }}
                        • Profile picture of the author Paul Myers
                          Kurt,

                          Please do not re-start the other thread by bringing in quotes from it. They're unnecessary for the topic under discussion, and they will accomplish nothing other than to get this thread locked as well.


                          Paul
                          Signature
                          .
                          Stop by Paul's Pub - my little hangout on Facebook.

                          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3985436].message }}
                  • Profile picture of the author Kay King
                    Oh dear, definitely T.M.I.

                    In the end, it will be a bunch of bots talking to each other but that doesn't matter since I will be creating a wso bot seller program and will throw in a wso bot buying program to keep Allen basking in cigars.
                    So you're saying every day will be a Saturday on the WF?
                    Signature
                    Saving one dog will not change the world - but the world changes forever for that one dog
                    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3985366].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Paul Myers
    Alexa,

    I would add a recommendation for Robert Burton's excellent book on the subject, "On Being Certain."


    Paul
    Signature
    .
    Stop by Paul's Pub - my little hangout on Facebook.

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3985243].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author sbucciarel
    Banned
    lol. I don't care about article spinning one way or the other.

    I'm just loving the amusement value of this thread with all the kinky bald head innuendos. It's really turning me on.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3985519].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Richard Van
      [DELETED]
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3985532].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Paul Myers
        Ummm... Folks? This is not an adult chat room.
        Signature
        .
        Stop by Paul's Pub - my little hangout on Facebook.

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3985544].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Paul Myers
    [chuckle] We were both posting the same awareness at the same time.

    Cool.
    Signature
    .
    Stop by Paul's Pub - my little hangout on Facebook.

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3985704].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Black Hat Cat
      Banned
      With the constant locking of threads here, this forum should consider changing it's name from the Warrior Forum to the Fraidy Cat Forum.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3985970].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Paul Myers
        Cat,
        With the constant locking of threads here, this forum should consider changing it's name from the Warrior Forum to the Fraidy Cat Forum.
        Oh, blow it out your whiskers.

        I just looked, and the first two pages have, between them, 3 locked threads. One was locked because it was getting nasty. One was locked because it's 2 months old and getting bumped repeatedly with nothing new added to the discussion.

        The third one probably doesn't belong here anyway. This isn't an online jobs forum.


        Paul
        Signature
        .
        Stop by Paul's Pub - my little hangout on Facebook.

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3986029].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Paul Myers
          Michael,
          I just responded to what I thought was the original topic of the thread.
          Fair enough. I went back through it, and I probably didn't help make things clear with my first two posts.

          As for why those threads get locked or deleted, I can tell you that I have seen very few regulars in them that aren't guilty of unnecessary hostility.

          Listening seems to have become a lost art.


          Paul
          Signature
          .
          Stop by Paul's Pub - my little hangout on Facebook.

          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3986049].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author myob
            Originally Posted by Paul Myers View Post

            ..As for why those threads get locked or deleted, I can tell you that I have seen very few regulars in them that aren't guilty of unnecessary hostility.
            Well I've been feeling a bit irregular myself lately and had a temorous time finding a nice unquerolous quote all set up before that thread got locked:


            "Whenever you committed the evil of refusing to think and to see, of exempting from the absolute of reality some small wish of yours, whenever you chose to say: Let me withdraw from the judgement of reason the cookies I stole ... let me have my one irrational whim and I will be [someone] of reason about all else - that was the act of subverting your consciousness, the act of corrupting your mind. Your mind then became a fixed jury who takes orders from a secret underworld, whose verdict distorts the evidence to fit an absolute it dares not touch - and a censored reality is the result, a splintered reality where bits you choose to see are floating among the chasms of those you didn't, held together by that embalming fluid of the mind which is an emotion exempted from thought".

            - Ayn Rand
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3986170].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author Ken Strong
              Originally Posted by myob View Post

              "Whenever you committed the evil of refusing to think and to see, of exempting from the absolute of reality some small wish of yours, whenever you chose to say: Let me withdraw from the judgement of reason the cookies I stole ... let me have my one irrational whim and I will be [someone] of reason about all else - that was the act of subverting your consciousness, the act of corrupting your mind. Your mind then became a fixed jury who takes orders from a secret underworld, whose verdict distorts the evidence to fit an absolute it dares not touch - and a censored reality is the result, a splintered reality where bits you choose to see are floating among the chasms of those you didn't, held together by that embalming fluid of the mind which is an emotion exempted from thought".

              - Ayn Rand
              "Oh, blow it out your a**, Howard."
              - Olson Johnson, Blazing Saddles



              Signature
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3987018].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Ken Strong
        Originally Posted by Black Hat Cat View Post

        With the constant locking of threads here, this forum should consider changing it's name from the Warrior Forum to the Fraidy Cat Forum.
        I just checked the first 10 pages of the Main Forum and counted 19 locked threads out of 500.

        The two most recent ones out of that 19 were the ones about article spinning being discussed here -- all the rest were locked because they were in the wrong section, or were old threads bumped by newbies for no good reason.

        EDIT: My OCD is worse than Paul's, ha ha!
        Signature
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3986034].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Alexa Smith
        Banned
        Originally Posted by Black Hat Cat View Post

        this forum should consider changing it's name from the Warrior Forum to the Fraidy Cat Forum.
        Fraidy? That would be a little premature, perhaps ... it's only Teausdy today, after all.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3986054].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author DireStraits
    Ken,

    I was (as you know) one of the members participating in that earlier thread.

    I don't know what is up with the paranoia, but no - I wasn't dancing around the room with glee when it was locked. Why would I be? I invest time (albeit not too much, in those sorts of fruitless debates) to write them, and I don't like much enjoy seeing them vaporised ... but I totally understand why they are, from time to time.

    Yesterday, in another thread on more or less the same subject, you came in, apparently peeved that I'd made a totally light-hearted and humorous comment to another member - one that had absolutely zilch to do with you, or even the topic at hand (though I thought it was fair game, really: I'd already answered the OP's question in my own way, in a previous post, and was awaiting a response) - and took it upon yourself to scold, patronise and attack me, and perhaps other thread participants. I know I was at least one of the people to whom your post was directed, because upon confronting you about it, you acknowledged this.

    Your argument seemed to be that I'd added nothing of value to the thread, in your opinion, simply and presumably because you disagreed with what I'd said. Yet you offered nothing of value to the thread, in my opinion, and was merely using it as a soapbox from which to throw a hissyfit.

    Everyone here is entitled to express their opinions, providing they do so in accordance with the rules. Disagreement is not prohibited - indeed, that is often the basis of some very interesting debate - but baseless accusations targeted to specific members can constitute a form of mild slander, in my opinion, and if any member's posts come across that way enough to be deemed offensive, then they will be reported.

    Unfortunately, Ken, some of your posts recently have come across that way, to me, and that is why I've reported them. And if others have also reported them, then I can only assume it to have been for the same or similar reasons. :confused:
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3985922].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Paul Myers
    Michael,

    Perhaps you skipped a lot of this thread. Like the parts where I asked people, repeatedly, not to bring the other thread into it?

    Never fails.


    Paul

    PS: Stuff like that, and another post which was deleted, are why threads like this usually just get deleted on sight.
    Signature
    .
    Stop by Paul's Pub - my little hangout on Facebook.

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3985951].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author DireStraits
      Originally Posted by Paul Myers View Post

      Michael,

      Perhaps you skipped a lot of this thread. Like the parts where I asked people, repeatedly, not to bring the other thread into it?

      Never fails.


      Paul

      PS: Stuff like that, and another post which was deleted, are why threads like this usually just get deleted on sight.
      Paul,

      Apologies. I did actually read it all, but you said this ...

      Okay. Anyone who has any final comments on the original topic of the thread, please post them.
      ... and so I just responded to what I thought was the original topic of the thread.

      I'm absolutely not interested in getting into another discussion with Ken on the same topic as before (nor on any other topic, really, seeing how fruitless they've been over the last few weeks/months). I was just trying to cast some light on why Ken's posts (and/or threads in which he participates) are sometimes removed/locked, and raising the possibility that other members reporting his posts (or indeed the posts of other participants with whom he sometimes comes into collision - myself included among them) may be one of the reasons behind their attracting moderator attention.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3986017].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author CDarklock
    How to propagate total BS on the Warrior Forum

    1. Post your BS in a thread.

    2. Enlist several trolls from some other forum to get nasty all over said thread; trolls are banned, their posts deleted, the thread locked.

    3. Profit! Your BS remains available forever on the Warrior Forum, free from rebuttal or response.

    Whenever a thread is full of pissing and moaning garbage, it's a reasonably short period of time before nobody is paying any attention except the people pissing and moaning. And honestly, so long as their attention is consumed by that stupidity, they're not out starting other stupidity elsewhere on the forum. So I tend to think one should let things like that run their course. Maybe move them to a "Pointless BS" forum or something, which takes about as much time as locking them.

    But that's just my opinion, and we all know opinions are like elbows.
    Signature
    "The Golden Town is the Golden Town no longer. They have sold their pillars for brass and their temples for money, they have made coins out of their golden doors. It is become a dark town full of trouble, there is no ease in its streets, beauty has left it and the old songs are gone." - Lord Dunsany, The Messengers
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3986756].message }}

Trending Topics