Hopper, I've had a couple of beers tonight and I'm listening to music from my college days. Nothing about anything I am doing is serious. Except thinking about having one more beer.
Sirkickyass, Moderator.
- Thread starter Hopper
- Start date
Hopper, I've had a couple of beers tonight and I'm listening to music from my college days. Nothing about anything I am doing is serious. Except thinking about having one more beer.
Hopper
Banned
Yeah, and I spoze yo gunna hawg it all up yo own damn self, too, eh, Blood? I mean, like, I could use a few beers too, ya know?
my responses:
1. Small errors are ignored, either because they're too small to even be noticed, or because they don't significantly affect readability. I know I have pointed out grammatical and spelling errors to a number of posters, I hope for the most part it's taken without rancor. I will admit to occasionally making fun of a poster for their errors, but often it's because I think the poster didn't realize the mistake or wasn't aware of it being a mistake. Many posters accept the criticism good-naturedly, but some have called me out for it. For the most part, I am sincerely sorry if I've hurt somebody's feelings. I do try to make allowances for those that seem to be non-native English speakers. People who seem to purposely make frequent posts in a manner that is incomprehensible are not in the same category as someone who makes an inadvertent error or someone who makes an error because English is not their first language.
While I cannot absolutely speak for other jazzfanz members, I believe that most of them have good intentions most of the time. There have been occasions where I have felt some of the ridiculing of other posters goes too far and at those times I have let these posters know that I think they've overstepped the bounds of what I consider appropriate.
2. Yes, if I absolutely made the rules, and I felt the poster was purposely trying to subvert them, then eventually a ban might be effected. But I really don't like the idea of a permanent ban, so it might just be a series of 90 day bans interspersed between 30 days of posting activity or whatever the rules stated.
But no, there would not be any tests given. It would be my decision, based upon input I received from others who were active on the board in addition to my own personal preferences. There are plenty of other options on the internet for folks who might object to my rules and the manner in which they're enforced.
3. Yes to the first part of this question, no to your second part.
OK, so ignoring for the moment the fact that you're calling me a fool, please list some substantive reasons for doing so, in order to fulfill the scenario you describe as "Case 2"
Hopper
Banned
Thanks for your responses, Mo. I guess I wasn't really expecting any at this point. There are a couple of things you say that I find a little confusing, but I know you don't like being questioned much so I won't disturb you with that.
Well, Mo, it wouldn't matter what x, y, and z were for the purposes of making the distinction you asked about. But, if it helps, it could be sumthin like this:
Because:
x: You think 2 + 2 is 5, and it aint.
y: You think K-Y is the best player on the team, just because you think he's cute, and
z: You told me you're considering buying the Brooklyn Bridge for a mere $100,000.
At that point you have some substance. If you want to defend your positions, or ask me why I disagree with them, then at least you know what to address.
Or maybe you would want to simply correct my misinterpretations and tell me that you do NOT think 2 + 2 is 5, and so forth. Again, you can only do that if I provide you will some substance, and not just my conclusion.
Well, Mo, it wouldn't matter what x, y, and z were for the purposes of making the distinction you asked about. But, if it helps, it could be sumthin like this:
Because:
x: You think 2 + 2 is 5, and it aint.
y: You think K-Y is the best player on the team, just because you think he's cute, and
z: You told me you're considering buying the Brooklyn Bridge for a mere $100,000.
At that point you have some substance. If you want to defend your positions, or ask me why I disagree with them, then at least you know what to address.
Or maybe you would want to simply correct my misinterpretations and tell me that you do NOT think 2 + 2 is 5, and so forth. Again, you can only do that if I provide you will some substance, and not just my conclusion.
Last edited:
Hopper
Banned
Like all threads, Mo, this one has gone completely "off-topic," but as I think you know, I don't find that objectionable. In most threads there comes a point where it either:
1) Just dies, or
2) The topic starts to change from post to post.
But, to kinda elaborate on this "substance" vs. "raw assertion" distinction, let me ask you (or anybody else who cares to venture an answer) what you would do in a case like this:
You have been selected to be a juror. The DA comes in and says something like this:
Ladies and Gentlemen of the jury, I have worked as a prosecuting attorney for over 25 years. I'm not bragging, but simply stating the facts, when I tell you that our staff contains some of the most brilliant legal minds in the country. Our police department and it's detectives are also highly competent professionals, surpassed by no one in this country.
Collectively, we have looked at all the relevant facts, and have reviewed the applicable law. We have impartially and objectively analyzed and dissected these things, with an eye to serving justice only. Had we concluded that there was any reasonable doubt about the defendant's guilt, we would not have brought this case to trial, but I can tell you this: The defendant is guilty, beyond any reasonable doubt. I therefore ask you to convict him. The judge will then sentence him to 10-20 years, at his discretion. Thank you.
That's it. That's all he says. That's the entire case presented to you.
Would you, as a juror, vote guilty on that basis? I don't think I'm just being cynical when I tell you that I think a whole lot of people would (vote guilty). Would you?
1) Just dies, or
2) The topic starts to change from post to post.
But, to kinda elaborate on this "substance" vs. "raw assertion" distinction, let me ask you (or anybody else who cares to venture an answer) what you would do in a case like this:
You have been selected to be a juror. The DA comes in and says something like this:
Ladies and Gentlemen of the jury, I have worked as a prosecuting attorney for over 25 years. I'm not bragging, but simply stating the facts, when I tell you that our staff contains some of the most brilliant legal minds in the country. Our police department and it's detectives are also highly competent professionals, surpassed by no one in this country.
Collectively, we have looked at all the relevant facts, and have reviewed the applicable law. We have impartially and objectively analyzed and dissected these things, with an eye to serving justice only. Had we concluded that there was any reasonable doubt about the defendant's guilt, we would not have brought this case to trial, but I can tell you this: The defendant is guilty, beyond any reasonable doubt. I therefore ask you to convict him. The judge will then sentence him to 10-20 years, at his discretion. Thank you.
That's it. That's all he says. That's the entire case presented to you.
Would you, as a juror, vote guilty on that basis? I don't think I'm just being cynical when I tell you that I think a whole lot of people would (vote guilty). Would you?
Last edited:
Gyp Rosetti
Banned
If you were the defendant, then yes, I'd vote guilty.
Hopper
Banned
Blood, you never responded to these questions, so I will make a brief observation about them. To begin with, it seems to me to be impossible to choose any mode of expression which suits the needs and desires of EVERYBODY in a large audience. Any given statement may be composed in such a manner as to be more readily understandable (and tolerable) to some than others. No matter what segment you may try to address your comment to, there will always be the remaining segment which may be left dissatisified with your manner of "communicating."
Hopper
Banned
This one, Bum? I didn't take it seriously. I thought there was a "turkish" forum on the old board. What is it you think I should comment on, exactly?
Gods, not only are the most obnoxious person on the planet, you're also as dumb as a rock. I hate you.
I thought your questions were rhetorical.
Twain used Huck Finn and Jim's speech and dialect to tell the story. Faulkner used Benjy in much the same way in "The Sound and the Fury". Steinbeck used the Joad clan. Again, it was to tell the story. Twain also did it to breathe realism into Finn and Jim, as their characters were of little proper education. I doubt that is your case.
What story are you telling when you post with your style to discuss basketball? If we were sitting around and having a conversation, would you speak in the same way you write on this board? If so, fine. If not, why continue to write in that style on a basketball board, when most of the time it blurs the message?
Hopper
Banned
Does this "observation" also merit a response, in your opinion, Bum? If so, sorry, I have none.
My opinion > Science, and therefore, you. You suck.
Hopper
Banned
Well, Blood, to answer the personal question you posed, the answer is "yes." I seldom adhere to one, and only one, dialect or style of "grammar-adherence" in my oral conversations.
You really only responded to part of the question, and didn't seem to pay much attention to my own observations about the topic (which you quoted). You talk about what "blurs" the message, but part of my point is that different things may "blur the message" for different people. I enjoy talking basketball, but let's face it, a lot of the convo round these here parts really has nuthin to do with basketball. Even if it was "strictly basketball" I see no reason to try to eliminate "colorful" expression, or any degree of "levity" from the exchanges.
My particular motives for varying my style may be different on different occasions. I'm not even gunna attempt to fully explicate my reasons for not acting like I'm in a grade-school grammar class where I am desperately seeking a A grade.
TheItinerantSon
Well-Known Member
Hopper,
Was your mother using crystal meth while pregnant with you?
In light of how you turned out, what are your feelings on abortion?
Sincerely,
TIS
Was your mother using crystal meth while pregnant with you?
In light of how you turned out, what are your feelings on abortion?
Sincerely,
TIS
I missed The Internet Son.
Hopper
Banned
Glad you told me your post was "sincere," eh, Son? Otherwise I might not have known. Sincere or not, it does not merit a substantive response, sorry. I'm sure you were not expecting a substantive response to begin with though. Perhaps some other expectation underlies your continuing posts in this same vein, but what could it be, I wonder?
Let me take a wild-*** guess, eh? Mebbe you hope to provoke the type of response from me that you can "flag" and then run to the mods complaining about how badly you have been VICTIMIZED, eh? That it?
I wish you would just tell us how you feel about the moderating staff.
Hopper
Banned
From what I've seen, Bum, the mod staff is especially sensitive to, and very vigilant in spotting, then punishing, "trolling."
Can you believe that? I swear, it's like they're just out to get us. (my latest infraction was for trolling)