Forum: Author Hangout

Now *that* is pretty much the ultimate Trolling post.

The forums are "interesting". Read, just to see what'g going on. If you think a few loud-mouthed, opinionated blowhards and ONLY found on this forum, I suggest that you look at others elsewhere.

Those personalities abound. Two things happen. Either they start irritating others so that conversations shut down, or a moderator pulls the plug on them.

Thing is, he was one of the "blowhards" as well. I've seen forums split in different directions with regards to political issues. It doesn't matter which side "wins" and remains behind, the forums become less because of it and they eventually wither away as a result.

degenerate into largely meaningless fights

Or Puns.

GoA's initial post reminds me of my childhood when baseball ruled my summers. We didn't have organized teams and leagues back then, just showed up at the park and chose up teams. Every once in a while one of the guys (no girls back then) would get in a snit and threaten to take his ball and go home. Now since about half a dozen had baseballs also, we'd all say "okay. See ya." Maybe GoA doesn't realize that that threat only has a chance to work under monopolistic conditions, i.e. where he has the only baseball. Maybe he'll realize one day that he doesn't have the best one of the many available here, and maybe not even the 2nd or 3rd best. Not by a long shot.

Maybe GoA doesn't realize that that threat only has a chance to work under monopolistic conditions

Maybe GoA didn't make a threat, and just said what he was doing. Maybe he has gone and doesn't care at all what opinions follow his departure. Maybe he became disillusioned at the tone he found here and just went away. Wouldn't that make your speculation specious?

Wouldn't that make your speculation specious?

Ah, yup. But thats not how I interpreted his entire parting shot. I guess different people see things differently, Zom.

But thats not how I interpreted his entire parting shot.

I get that, which is why I read it again before I posted, and could not find any sign of a 'threat' or 'parting shot'. Perhaps I am blind to that, or perhaps I don't go looking for such, or perhaps it just isn't there.

which is why I read it again before I posted, and could not find any sign of a 'threat' or 'parting shot'.

I just re-read it too, and the most pertinent comments I found were:

It doesn't make me happier ... There's no benefit ... So, I'm out.

That doesn't sound like a 'threat' or 'parting shot' to me, either.

I will genuinely miss the contributions Geek of Ages has been making to these forums; I have considered him amongst the most consistently constructive contributors here. I wish him well in whatever he chooses to do.

I think his description of these forums is accurate enough and he has every right to say why he has chosen to leave - without being criticised for that decision.

Not all of it and not a threat, but of course a lot of it was a 'parting shot'. Since he was exposed to some pretty vile abuse - at least during the last thread he participated in - I'd say it was an excusable one, though.

Maybe GoA doesn't realize that that threat only has a chance to work under monopolistic conditions,

What threat? I didn't see no stinkin' threat.

In the present context, what could be done to "improve your current location"?

And Geek of Ages should have somehow compelled all of us to do that before he left?

Several things. The one I'll mention is we all have strong opinions and defend them. If we were more willing to accept that the other person isn't going to change and drop the argument after a few exchanges regardless of who has the last word, the arguments wouldn't be as polarizing

A newsgroup I was on had this same problem and decided that if Hilter's name was posted with correct spelling then that thread died, never to be resurrected.
The subject here which seems to get the most heat is grammar; there are different schools, different cultures, different ideas so agreement will never be reached so ban that subject

(dons flameproof armour and flees)

Never trust an old guy sitting on his porch giving directions?

I've seen this I'm leaving response come up a few times over the years, and it's often after a hot political issue comes up and the person can't convince anyone to agree with their point of view, so they complain about the others and leave.

I think we get that type of thing more often on the internet with the anonymity it provides. But concommitant with the rise of the net has been the polarization of political belief, followed by the intolerance (read: lack of respect for the views of others) that is now the new reality. If media reports are to be believed, opposing political views are now being banned where such actions are possible, e.g. institutes of higher learning.

Concurrent with all that has been the rise of a school of thought of refusal to deal with opposition as well as dealing with failure or losing. In other words, refusing to deal with real life, where such things are routinely experienced (know that there is only one winner in pyramidal organizations). Ergo, the rise of "safe rooms" at colleges where traumatized students, triggered (love that word) by seeing something opposed to their views, where said student can retreat to avoid said reality instead of learning how to deal with it.

Its analagous to the "picking up your ball and going home" example of my earlier post. It happens a lot more today. Even here at SOL.

But concommitant with the rise of the net has been the polarization of political belief, followed by the intolerance (read: lack of respect for the views of others) that is now the new reality. If media reports are to be believed, opposing political views are now being banned where such actions are possible, e.g. institutes of higher learning.

A large part of that is the "personal information bubble" is much more of a thing today than it was 20 years ago, or even going back to the introduction of the first newspapers after the printing press was invented.

Although in some respects, early 19th Century America and the phase where it seemed like almost every other person had a printing press is potentially relevant.

Only unlike the 19th Century where "finding an audience" could be very difficult, the internet makes it amazingly simple.

Which then opens things up to group-think particularly when surrounded by "like-minded individuals."

"The information bubble" is perhaps the biggest social issue of this era with respect to how people interact with others who threaten their respective bubbles. The historical solution(and ongoing trend) is to self-segregate in order to protect and reinforce their favored traits within their "bubble."

It just happens that not all bubbles are created equally and some groups are more resilient/adaptive to coping with other ideas than others are. It just doesn't seem to be ones many like to think they are. (See: Liberal retreat from "rural areas" that isn't the Conservatives driving them out deliberately. That's Liberals removing themselves from environments they deem "hostile" but I guess that's potato vs potatoe to them)

(See: Liberal retreat from "rural areas" that isn't the Conservatives driving them out deliberately. That's Liberals removing themselves from environments they deem "hostile" but I guess that's potato vs potatoe to them)

My recollection of what happened is somewhat different. It wasn't liberals that left rural areas - rural areas were never liberal. After the Civil Rights Act in the mid 1960s pushed by Lyndon Johnson, conservative Democrats began leaving the Democratic Party and switching to become Republicans. Nixon came along in 1968 and launched his "Southern strategy," and that brought even more former Democrats to the Republicans. Today, Democrats are usually associated with liberalism and Republicans are usually associated with conservatism. I dislike the "liberal" and "conservative" labels, because they no longer really fit the classic definitions. I prefer to simply label politicians by the party they choose, regardless of ideology.

even with that, the Democrats would be the equivalent of Europe's center-right party.

Depends on the Democrat. Bernie Sanders is a socialist so he's more aligned with European socialism. So was Martin Luther King, btw.

Bernie's not a Democrat. He ran in the Democratic presidential primary in 2016, and he caucuses with them, but he's been I-VT since his first election as Vermont's Congressman thirty years ago.

....rural areas were never liberal. After the Civil Rights Act in the mid 1960s pushed by Lyndon Johnson, conservative Democrats began leaving the Democratic Party and switching to become Republicans.

With all due respect, that canard doesn't survive scrutiny. Maybe "Sheets" Byrd could have helped out here if he were still alive. Democrats started the KKK and have never stopped promoting segregation. A large scale shift never happened. Support of this fact is readily available on the net, but falls low in searches. Guess why.

Anyhow, I'll provide one link that sketches a broad outline:

Democrats started the KKK

Oh dear. Truth free zone again.

With all due respect, that canard doesn't survive scrutiny. Maybe "Sheets" Byrd could have helped out here if he were still alive. Democrats started the KKK and have never stopped promoting segregation. A large scale shift never happened. Support of this fact is readily available on the net, but falls low in searches. Guess why.

Because it's not true.

Compare, say, the 1908 electoral map to the 2008 map. (Or many other pairs of maps before and after Kennedy. I picked that pair because they're a neat hundred years apart, and neither of them is confused by third-party candidates or the Democratic candidate being from the South.) The shift is blatantly obvious from the actual historical data.

And that demonstrates what?

The Democrats have been running from their past for a long time. This canard of a massive party shift may assuage guilty modern day Democrat consciences (don't you find it odd that BOTH parties shifted instead of just one, especially given how early Southern Democrats hated the Republican Party for setting the Negro free?) but it doesn't do much more. The fact that it starts in those totally objective bastions of integrity, the modern press and liberal institutions of "higher" learning", is enough of an indictment for me, even if the absence of evidence to the contrary.

Or many other pairs of maps before and after Kennedy.

My impression was that it had more to do with LBJ than Kennedy. LBJ was the enforcer who broke racism within the Democrats, it took a while but when Reagan gave them a home, they changed sides.

I dislike the "liberal" and "conservative" labels, because they no longer really fit the classic definitions.

Whose "classic" definition though?

Conservatives meet all of the criteria for what they are for the most part. They would prefer to "conserve" or otherwise preserve the status quo for the most part. It is both the technical, and literal definition of "Conservative" to say that a conservative should oppose change.

Now a "Conservative" sitting on the right hand of the French king while holding court prior to the First Republic. As opposed to those "Liberals" who sat on his left. That is another matter.

I do openly agree the "Liberal" moniker is greatly misused and mis-understood. But the "Conservative" variant is mainly true to form. Only the specifics of the right/left axis as it relates to the United States is inverted in relation to "The Crown" being a Republic centered on individual rights which puts most of those 18th Century "Liberals" to the right (being "favored by the Government") rather than left. While many of those 18th Century Conservatives now belong on the left side of things as they're "out of favor" and prefer enhancing Government Power instead of reducing it(which is the entire founding premise of the United States--taking power from the government, and giving it to the citizen instead).

What? I'm shocked, SHOCKED, I tell you, to find there is adult pornography at Storiesonline.

Would you find child pornography more acceptable?

Seriously? Have you ever seen Casablanca?

Evidently not in his case.

Have you ever seen Casablanca?

No, and I have no desire to see it either.

I have no idea what the reference was to your post, though.

Yeah, I didn't get that either.

I have no idea what the reference was to your post, though.

Rick: How can you close me up? On what grounds?

Captain Renault: I'm shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on in here!

[a croupier hands Renault a pile of money] Croupier: Your winnings, sir.

I'm familiar with that reference, even though I've never seen the movie.

That however, has almost nothing to do with the comment I made.

Starfleet Carl commented.

What? I'm shocked, SHOCKED, I tell you, to find there is adult pornography at Storiesonline.

To which I replied, asking if he would prefer child pornography as a way of making fun of the fact that he felt the need to qualify pornography as "adult".

That however, has almost nothing to do with the comment I made.

I'm wasn't commenting, I only quoted the relevant scene from the movie 'Casablanca'.

as a way of making fun of the fact that he felt the need to qualify pornography as "adult".

I had a whole post written in response to you saying you hadn't seen Casablanca, about quotes indemic to segments of society.

Then I thought a minute, and said to myself, "What if Dominion's Son is making a joke himself, about qualifying "Pornography" by placing "Adult" before it? And we're just not catching on? After all, I haven't seen Casablanca, and I'm familier with the quote, could be true in his case as well."

So I canceled the post.

Now I see that my thought was correct.

We're not always very good at spotting when someone is making a joke, are we? I distinctly recall other cases where this has occured. Including times when I made the post, and times where I didn't spot the humor.

Even though I know this is why emojis were developed, I'm not comfortable using them, a lot of the time. They make me feel like I'm shouting, "This is a joke, dammit!"; they aren't subtle.

I'm not the only one who looks at them that way, I guess.

Valid.

As Children's Literature is literature to be read by children, and the same with Young Adult Literatue, Chick Flicks are movies to be watched by women, etc., the modern usage of the term "child pornography" is in conflict with how such phrases have traditionally been interpreted, where standardly the modifier indicates the target audience, not the subject matter.

Except, of course, that Military SF is science fiction concerning the military, Paranormal Romance is romances of the paranormal, etc., with the preceeding term indicating the sub-genre subject focus of the work.

So the reality is that there are two competing models for interpreting such phrases, with the actual interpretation being that which society as a whole has agreed upon.

This, of course, is one reason English is such a tricky language to master; it's so bloody inconsistent!

Gotta say, didn't find your post funny or infuriating, just logically sound in pointing out the inconsistency in how English uses terms to modify subjects, and the dangers this presents to those unfamilier with society's conventions for specific phrases.

Writing about my Bull & Shit 3.14159 calibre handgun firing dinner-jacketed circonflex rounds will result in a shooting off somewhere in the world.

Of course it will.

Writing about my Bull & Shit 3.14159 calibre handgun firing dinner-jacketed circonflex rounds will result in a shooting off somewhere in the world.

People will accept blatantly unreal fantasy in sex porn stories, but if you are going to do gun porn, or car porn, you damn well better get the details right.

as they picked up the Southern votes driven away by the Civil Rights Act, which was pushed through ahead of the 1964 election by the Democratic Johnson.

The Republicans pushed the Civil Rights Act, not so much the Democrats. I'll drop a quote from the article that I linked in an earlier post

Little known by many today is the fact that it was Republican Senator Everett Dirksen from Illinois, not Johnson, who pushed through the 1964 Civil Rights Act. In fact, Dirksen was instrumental to the passage of civil rights legislation in 1957, 1960, 1964, 1965 and 1968. Dirksen wrote the language for the 1965 Voting Rights Act. Dirksen also crafted the language for the Civil Rights Act of 1968 which prohibited discrimination in housing.

We are all entitled to our alternate opinions. But there are no alternate facts. Just smokescreens trying to hide them.

But there are no alternate facts

I am genuinely curious about what you would accept as a fact. It looks like you are defining a fact as something which happens to support your current opinion. Surely that can't be right! So what does a 'fact' have to be to gain your acceptance?

We are all entitled to our alternate opinions. But there are no alternate facts. Just smokescreens trying to hide them.

But there are larger, or smaller, contexts that can be applied. The 2012 presidential debates had one of the best(worst?) examples of that, and what some of the fact checkers did during that time.....

Now keeping in mind that was some 6 years ago at this point, but from memory it went something like this:

Romney claims domestic oil production on government owned lands was at the lowest level seen in ___ years. (Statement was true)

Obama refutes the claim by saying that domestic oil production was at the highest level seen in decades. (Statement was also true, as oil production on privately owned land was going gangbusters)

Now depending on the slant of the "fact checkers" being used, one candidate or the other had their statement labeled as false. IIRC, CNN and NBC both had their fact checkers flunk Romney and side with Obama(can't speak for the other networks).

Was the question oil production on government land or production in general?

I think the question had to do with energy, and Romney cited that number as something he'd work to change once in office to help work towards "North American Energy Independence."

Obama's citation was in rebuttal to Romney's claim regarding oil production on government land...

Both sides were being deceptive. Romney made it sound like domestic production in total was down, when it wasn't, which Obama did rebut. However, the problem was Romney did stipulate "on government land" which Obama failed to address. (Because Romney was right about that)

But many of the fact checkers sided with Obama.

The issue there was they didn't even bother with "partly true" for Romney, they simply said the claim was false, even though it was factually correct.

I actually looked at documentation for both claims. The remarkable part was that in one instance, they both correctly cited the same study to make their point. Just different pages within it.

Thus Romney's statement was intentionally misleading by basing his statement on government lands when he knew the topic was energy in general.

Yes and No, as President, Romney can do things to make public lands more, or less, available for "energy exploration." Just as the Obama Administration had done things to make them less available. As such, citing the historic low regarding public lands was relevant and topical.

So he was factually correct that he could do something about further expanding domestic energy production on government land.

Presidential influence on energy production happening on private land is far more convoluted and circuitous. (And mostly involved the EPA and only the EPA)

So actually Obama dodged the question with basically "Doesn't matter, domestic production has been increasing without regard to anything happening on public lands."

That means Romney gave a factually correct response, but evaded the question asked. Obama gave a factually correct response to the question that was asked.

Once again it goes back to what was the intent of the question Romney was asked and the wording of his response. I didn't listen to that debate, but according to you, the fact checkers said Obama's rebuttal was proper and Romney's response wasn't, even though what they both said was accurate.

Which would take us to how the fact checkers presented their own true/false analysis. Which didn't look at "larger context" it only cited their statement directly.

They directly quoted Romney saying production on Federal Land was at the lowest level seen in years. They then quoted Obama on National Production being at an all time high. They rated Romney's statement false, and Obama's true.

They weren't doing meta-analysis on who "best answered the question." Or at least, they weren't supposed to be doing so. Both answers were true, and each answer completely ignored what the other one was talking about.

Both answers were true

No. Romney's answer was definitely misleading - one of those "lies, damn lies, and statistics" kind of untruths.

Romney cherry-picked a statistic to claim production was down. It was down for the latest year, but over the three years Obama had been president that figure (limited to public lands) had actually risen.

The Civil Rights Act was first proposed by JFK. Then, on Kennedy's death, Johnson pushed it through Congress with both Democratic and Republican votes, and input from both parties. Republicans now trying to claim they were the primary movers of the legislation is simply trying to remake history.