What's new
By:

The Official Welcome Back Rasp/Trout and Hopper/Taint Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
colton said:
And as far as the posting rules go, let me clarify what the moderators expect in case this really wasn't made clear to you: If you are responding to a post, do so ONCE rather than in three (or insert number here) separate back-to-back-to-back posts.
Click to expand...

OK, colton. If you don't mind, let me address this concern. As you may know, Eric and I have had some epic debates on this board. There often comes a point where everyone else has completely lost interest in the thread, or have at least lost any interest in making further posts on the topic. Usualy a small number, probably not more than a handful, of posters actually remain interested in the topic, and continue reading it, even if they rarely post in it.

So it boils down just me and Eric having some esoteric debate which the vast majority of poster do not care a whit about. So what? We're not hurting them just because we have a continuing interest in pursuing the topic, and they don't, are we? If they're not interested in the thread it's very simple--just don't click on it.

Even so we routinely get a bunch of posts in these kind of threads by various posters telling us to stop posting. Why do they care? How are they bothered? Why should their petty, groundless demands be complied with? Is there a valid reason that you can see, but which Eric and I don't?

Eric and I will often share research with each other in these debates, whether its about evolution, abortion, statistics, homosexuality, or whatever. These "research posts" cannot easily be, and in my opinion should not be, all crammed into one virtually interminable post. Often I make a few such posts for Eric to review after he gets off work. He can then consider them, and respond to them if he desires. Either way the information is now in the thread for future reference. But since no one else is, or wants to, post in the thread, the result is that I have made 3-4 consecutive posts. But so what? Again, who is being harmed?

The point is that if no one else is posting in a thread, then, by necessity, 100% of all further posts made will be by the two posters who are contintuing the debate, even if it goes on for another 20 pages. Under the circumstances is it unexpected that the majority of all posts are made by just one person?

Furthermore, Eric (or I) may make a single post where I could write 2-3 pages in response to each and every paragraph he writes (or vice versa). Am I prohibited from doing so? Your rule seems to say, yes, you are. Breaking a post up into smaller segments in order to separately address a number of distinct points or claims made seems not only natural, but necessary. Yet your rule seems to prohibit such logical, orderly structuring of a debate. What purpose does that serve? Who is being harmed if we punctuate our separate ideas by addressing them in separate posts?

All in all, what seems to result is a highly arbitrary, senseless, and chaotic superimposition of "rules" which discourage and virtually prohibit extended debate. I will freely grant you that the vast majority of posters here want "no part" of any extended, serious debate. They want short, one post "observations" and want to see the whole thread end before it ever reaches two pages. That accomodates their attention span and willingness to discuss matters to in any depth. That's fine. I don't complain about them, or insist they follow, or participate in, a thread they're not interested in. But why should they complain because others have a different interest? How does the fact that others care to pursue an issue they're not interested hurt them? I just don't get it.

There is actually more that I would like to say and ask about ONLY this small portion of your post that I quoted above, but this post is getting tediously long already, so I will cease. There are also questions/comments I would like to address to the remaining parts of your post, but, taken literally, your rule says I can NEVER do so. If I don't try to make this one single post a page or two long, then you are suggesting that I must forever forfeit any future "right" to respond to anything else you've said in your post. What sense does that really make?

It's a shame, because I would truly like to explore this topic with you. Trying to discuss it with Kicky is hopeless. You, on the other hand, are much more comprehensible to me, but you routinely declare your lack of interest in responding to my posts, so I haven't tried before.

After I publish this post, some afterthoughts will no doubt occur to me that I did not focus on in this one post. Again, further thought about a topic seems to be prohibited (or at least the expression of further thought). Do you see how difficult this rule, on it's face, makes it for people who are interested in seeing more than frequent one-liners from troutbum? Granted, it's not for all, but why discourage the expression of legitimate thought by board members? Is this just another way of saying: "We don't want you around here. We don't really want you posting, period. But if we can't stop you altogether by an immediate banning, we will severely restrict your right to post, until the time comes that we can."?

To say that others are "annoyed' because I make posts is to say what, exactly? What is the real logic here?
 
Last edited:
Archie Moses said:
Please, feel free to explain. I thought Hopper's post made a lot of sense. You see what you want to see I guess.
Click to expand...

What, that you should be able to post without worrying about posting rules, complaining that said rules aren't detailed enough in having every case scenario carefully laid out so that no supposed confusion can occur.

And you agree with that? Go to 4chan, then.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Share this page
Back
Top