|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 11/01/2007 : 18:58:51 [Permalink]
|
h. Humbert.....
Hum, I expect you to do any damn thing you want to do, as long as you stay within the rules. That is your right and privilege and I would not presume to infringe on those rights!
With respect to your name, I am somewhat surprised by your sensitivity. Would it help if you called me bagbuck, or psnfuck, bigsuck, badluck, bugmuck, bigyuck...you get the idea! I'll offer a prize for the most creative!
I think we should mutually pledge to try and be a tad more polite to each other! You too, Dude! I'll start, H. Humbert! |
 |
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
 Posted - 11/01/2007 : 19:37:11 [Permalink]
|
What you are doing is using faulty induction.
A. Skepticism follows a general set of principles.
B. Religion follows a general set of principles.
Therefore: Skepticism is religion.
No one would disagree with you that there are guidelines and rules to critical thinking, logic, scientific method, and skepticism.
Because without common definitions, even basic communication is impossible.
bngbuck said:
Here's a quote from wiki:
A religion is a set of common beliefs and practices generally held by a group of people
|
Are they sweet and delicious, those cherries you are picking?
The motorcycle club I belong to follows a set of common beliefs and practices (road safety, care of the machine, etc). The profession I am a member of follows a common set of beliefs and practices(medical procedures are taught by strict guidelines, the practice of setting aside your own ethics and values to respect those of others when they make decisions about their care, etc).
So really, anything that two or more people agree upon can be a religion by your definition. Which renders your definition meaningless.
I don't think you fail to grasp this point, so what I am left with is that you are being intentionally insulting.
If you were a catholic and some pentacostal fundy walked up and called you an atheist because you don't believe the same doctrine, wouldn't you be insulted?
| As somebody has accurately pointed out here, you can find any definition or set of definitions that you may want or need. The effort becomes ludicrous after awhile. It is a game, and I have played it enough! Let me say right here and now that I define Skepticism as a sort of "religion" for my purposes of argument. You go right ahead and make up your own definition, and use it. The whole damn thing gets silly at some point. |
The strength and great flaw of language.
Fortunately for us we don't have to argue over the definition of established concepts. Most words have a primary definition which is what most people mean when they use the word.
Your usage of "religion" is demonstrably wrong because you have diluted it down to the point where you can call any two people who agree on any topic religious.
Yes, I meant the first, or primary, 1a definition. What you mean by my "blind dogma" or "pavlovian dogma" escapes me. I searched back through my posts in this thread, and I couldn't find me saying "blind" or "pavlovian" dogma. Could it be that you are forcing words into my unwilling mouth?
|
No.
http://www.skepticfriends.org/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=8937&whichpage=4#135084
| Sigh....! Dude, you just did! In Pavlovian reflex, you obeyed the first Rule that Dave just got through explaining to me. Gather evidence! |
http://www.skepticfriends.org/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=8937&whichpage=5#135146
Your apologetic does highlight some of the issues I have been trying to discuss! Somehow, it does not seem fitting and proper to me for professed "critical thinkers" to carry bias of any stripe into the arena. It could even be compared to the baggage that some "True Believers" or "Fundies" haul onto the jousting fields and then proceed to trip over. Whether it's "just people" or superhuman response colossi (like Dave), either way I don't feel it behooves a critical thinking, skeptical, scientific methodologist to ply her craft whilst bearing marks of predetermined bias on his sleeve!
|
(off the topic of my response, but is it bias to prefer a hammer over a screwdriver for driving nails? Obviously not.)
Blind... ok, not in this thread. My mistake.
| I think we should mutually pledge to try and be a tad more polite to each other! You too, Dude! I'll start, H. Humbert! |
I have been the very soul of civility, or as close to it as I am capable.
(spelling edit) |
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
| Edited by - Dude on 11/01/2007 19:37:50 |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 11/01/2007 : 19:44:29 [Permalink]
|
Humbert wrote: | I'm not confused. Faith must be an integral part of anything calling itself a religion. It is how you choose to use the word religion which is in error. |
I didn't say you were confused. I said that I think you have this particular issue confused. Actually, you have it out and out wrong. Faith (as it is defined in the context of this conversation) is not a necessary component of anything that calls itself a religion. Try telling a Buddhist that and see where it gets you.
| It is more than possible to make the distinction between a religion and the cultural influences of that religion. |
I didn't claim that it wasn't possible. The point I'm making is that practice is as common and associated with religion as set of beliefs, and that neither are universal to all religions. There are people who don't practice religion and yet claim to be religious because they have the beliefs, and there are people who don't have literal faith but claim to be religious because they engage in religious practice. There are also religions that in their structure of leadership put emphasis on practice and not faith, and those that put emphasis on faith and not practice. There is nothing ambiguous about it. This is just a fact.
| I know you prefer ambiguity on this topic, but I have always regarded your attempts to label secular fellowship "religion" as misguided as those who try to label Intelligent Design "science." Things don't cease being what they are simply because you change what you call them. |
You say this as if I'm some kind of lone wolf leading a semantics crusade all by myself. In this paragraph you have just denounced Unitarian Universalists, liberal Quakers, Reform Jews since all of those socially and legally recognized religions have a set of beliefs that is open enough in interpretation to include adherent who have no literal faith, but rather, find the religious practice and terms useful and meaningful.
| You like to say this, mostly because the people you associate with may fit this description, but I still believe that the number of self-identifying religious atheists is negligible. (I'd guess less than 1% of the population, nowhere close to "a lot.") |
Less than 1% of the population of the USA identifies as an atheist, but I'd still say there are “a lot” of us, and I certainly don't think we're negligible.
| But even more importantly, not all atheists are skeptics. One may still be highly credulous in a great deal of spiritual woo without professing a belief in god. A truly skeptical atheist who holds zero religious beliefs but attends a church for it's social benefits is not a religious person. |
Tell that to Cicero.
You are the one pushing your own semantics over a general standard. The first paragraph on “religion” from Wikipedia: | A religion is a set of common beliefs and practices generally held by a group of people, often codified as prayer, ritual, and religious law. Religion also encompasses ancestral or cultural traditions, writings, history, and mythology, as well as personal faith and mystic experience. The term "religion" refers to both the personal practices related to communal faith and to group rituals and communication stemming from shared conviction. |
From the Columb |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
| Edited by - marfknox on 11/01/2007 19:49:32 |
|
|
|
JohnOAS
SFN Regular
Australia
800 Posts |
Posted - 11/01/2007 : 20:43:03 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by bngbuck
Oh come on! Insulted whom? Get ten different forum folks (besides you and Humbert) to post on this thread that I have insulted them personally with my arguments concerning the use of the words Skepticism and Religion, and I will apologize loudly and publicly to the whole group!
|
I wouldn't go so far to say that I was personally insulted.
However, your statement:
| Let me say right here and now that I define Skepticism as a sort of "religion" for my purposes of argument. |
Leads me to not take the argument seriously.
If you're going to redefine terms to mean things which they are generally accepted as not meaning, for no good reason that I've seen demonstrated to this point, then it becomes too difficult to interpret everything you say in a sensible fashion.
|
John's just this guy, you know. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 11/01/2007 : 21:03:47 [Permalink]
|
We've had this discussion here before, marf. There's got to be something that distinguishes between a religion and a chess club. If I can annotate the Wikipedia quote:A religion is a set of common beliefs and practices generally held by a group of people, often [but not always] codified as prayer, ritual, and religious law. Religion also encompasses [but doesn't require] ancestral or cultural traditions, writings, history, and mythology, as well as personal faith and mystic experience. The term "religion" refers to both the personal practices related to communal faith and to group rituals and communication stemming from shared conviction. With that in mind, a chess club is "a group of people" with "a set of common beliefs and practices" and has "group rituals and communication stemming from shared conviction." Only your quote from World Encyclopedia, with its "formulated in response to a spiritual awareness of existence" clause, offers a definition of religion that would not include a chess club as a religious organization.
In other words, I don't think religion scholars would turn to Wikipedia or Columbia Encyclopedia for their definitions, because they're overly broad in that they encompass groups with absolutely no metaphysical, spiritual, philosophical or transcendant interests.
Can you name a religion that we'd all recognize as a religion (or link to a Wikipedia page on one we wouldn't) that lacks any of those interests? Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Wicca, Buhddism, Taoism, Scientology (to name a few) all have definite interests in those areas. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 11/02/2007 : 00:26:56 [Permalink]
|
Dude.....
| What you are doing is using faulty induction. |
Bad thing for a guy that started out in Electrical Engineering!A. Skepticism follows a general set of principles.
B. Religion follows a general set of principles.
Therefore: Skepticism is religion. |
How about:Therefore Skepticism and Religion both follow a general set of principles?
god! That is profound!No one would disagree with you that there are guidelines and rules to critical thinking, logic, scientific method, and skepticism.
Because without common definitions, even basic communication is impossible. |
Well, that's a start!| Are they sweet and delicious, those cherries you are picking? |
Haven't tasted. Too busy trying to emulate your plum-sucking technique from Merriam-Webster!| The motorcycle club I belong to follows a set of common beliefs and practices (road safety, care of the machine, etc). The profession I am a member of follows a common set of beliefs and practices(medical procedures are taught by strict guidelines, the practice of setting aside your own ethics and values to respect those of others when they make decisions about their care, etc). |
You work on your bike in the operating room? Aren't there sterility issues?| So really, anything that two or more people agree upon can be a religion by your definition. Which renders your definition meaningless. |
Well, JC had to start with Andrew, and yes, at that time christianity began! The bible says that xianity is a Religion, and it's pretty hard even for you and me and the rest of the good folks listening not to recognize the bible as kind of a big time authority on JC even if they did make it all up! Meaningless, maybe. But it has relevance to what does it take to be called a religion!I don't think you fail to grasp this point, so what I am left with is that you are being intentionally insulting.
If you were a catholic and some pentacostal fundy walked up and called you an atheist because you don't believe the same doctrine, wouldn't you be insulted? |
No, if I was a devout Catholic, I would be concerned for the poor fundy's soul, as not having been indoctrinated into the True Church. I would pray for the person and probably talk to my priest about how to persuade the fundy to take instruction! The priest would ask if he was male and how old he was!
| The strength and great flaw of language. |
?????? Maybe you meant claw?| Fortunately for us we don't have to argue over the definition of established concepts. Most words have a primary definition which is what most people mean when they use the word |
God, for instance?
| Your usage of "religion" is demonstrably wrong because you have diluted it down to the point where you can call any two people who agree on any topic religious. |
Yes, I would cite Muhammad and Khadijah as two folks who definitely agreed on the topic of Islam and constituted the whole of the religion of Islam around 613 CE.
I think I said here - "Pavlovian reflex", not "Pavlovian dogma" And the reference was to the SM, not dogma!
| (off the topic of my response, but is it bias to prefer a hammer over a screwdriver for driving nails? Obviously not.) |
Only if you ran out of nails and had only screws loose in your toolbox!| Blind... ok, not in this thread. My mistake. |
We all fail to see the eye of the needle, sometimes!| I have been the very soul of civility, or as close to it as I am capable. |
Your restraint is admirable, I know it is difficult and you are to be commended for your growth!Personally, I appreciate this as much as anything you have said, and your post was well-taken. Would that more could take the few minutes required to make a statement more comprehensible! Thank you, Dude! |
|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 11/02/2007 : 00:58:13 [Permalink]
|
Dude.....
Thought you might get a laugh out of Mooners latest Humor post, with reference to our toolbox conversation!
|
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 11/02/2007 : 01:38:07 [Permalink]
|
bngbuck said:
How about:Therefore Skepticism and Religion both follow a general set of principles?
god! That is profound! |
So you retract your claim that skepticism is a religion? Good.
| Well, JC had to start with Andrew, and yes, at that time christianity began! The bible says that xianity is a Religion, and it's pretty hard even for you and me and the rest of the good folks listening not to recognize the bible as kind of a big time authority on JC even if they did make it all up! Meaningless, maybe. But it has relevance to what does it take to be called a religion! |
and:
Yes, I would cite Muhammad and Khadijah as two folks who definitely agreed on the topic of Islam and constituted the whole of the religion of Islam around 613 CE.
|
This little strawman construct is easily dealt with. Do you consider my motorcycle club a religion? Do you consider professions to be religions? If so I'm afraid you are going to be flying solo with that definition of religion.
And really, it only takes one person to start a religion. Just ask L. Ron Hubbard.
| ?????? Maybe you meant claw? |
No, flaw is what I meant. The greatest strength of language is that it can adapt and change to include new things. The same flexibility also enables vagueness and obfuscation. Like your ridiculous game with the word religion.
| I think I said here - "Pavlovian reflex", not "Pavlovian dogma" And the reference was to the SM, not dogma! |
Seriously. You said I responded in Pavlovian fashion, clamoring for evidence, and you use this as support for your claim that skepticism is dogmatic.
What is it called when you take a person's action or position, misrepresent it, and argue against the misrepresentation? I'd say it, but you'll just accuse me of following the "dogma" of logic.
| Haven't tasted. Too busy trying to emulate your plum-sucking technique from Merriam-Webster! |
Who was it who started arguing with definitions in this thread? Hrrmmm, wonder who that could have been...
| Your restraint is admirable, I know it is difficult and you are to be commended for your growth! |
No, I haven't grown. If anything I hold the billscott's of the world in more contempt now than I have in the past. I am just simply incapable of respecting stupidity and willful ignorance. But hey, its Kil's house, and he wants people to be civil. So I cope by typing in what I want to say, then going back and erasing all of the references to xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxx xxx xxx xx xxxxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxx xxx xx x xxx xxxxx xxx xxxx xxxxx xx xx,(redacted to prevent eye trauma upon reading) before I click "post new reply".
| Personally, I appreciate this as much as anything you have said, and your post was well-taken. Would that more could take the few minutes required to make a statement more comprehensible! Thank you, Dude! |
Much to my continued dismay, spell checkers don't correct improper usage. Is it "to" or "too", "affect" or "effect", and they don't correct my typically horrid and lazy use of punctuation. A stray comma can seriously alter what you meant to say. As for the note, its a fairly common practice for people here to leave one when they edit a post. I do it out of habbit, because in every other area of my life that requires something to be written down I have to leave the original intact and add the edited text to the end(or an inserted page) or use a strikethrough that leaves the underlying text legible, and add a reason for the edit. Never erase anything in lab journals or medical records.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 11/02/2007 : 10:51:37 [Permalink]
|
Dude.....
Good Morning.
So you retract your claim that skepticism is a religion? Good.
|
Well, I might. I'm thinking about it. I love the language and I believe that there are those whose mastery of it constitutes fine art in any definition of that term. I shall not live long enough to even glimpse the diamonds that lie under the mountain of rubble one has to move in order to achieve literary competence!
However, when I get mired down in a battle of semantic progression such as the current condition of this thread, that form of word game starts to lose it's appeal! I sense danger in proceeding much farther!
Dude, you are quite clever, to use a term of Marf's, which she applied quite aptly in another thread. Unfortunately, so am I. The concatenation of one cleverness after another eventually leads to a discussion that degenerates into vapidness, lack of substance -- Semantics!
And then, in this particular little kingdom, inevitably the tiny hoofmarks of the dreaded Troll begin to be percieved by some! This can lead to an investigation by a task force of the government (maybe just a Special Investigator), high level meetings are held, there may even be an solar tribunal meeting hall! Frequently, somebody gets executed! Metaphorically, of course (god, I hope!)
Now, execution such as this being a fate far worse than actual Death, I personally do not want to risk it! You can speak for yourself, frankly I do not believe you to be in anywhere near the danger that I am! Has to do with security of long term citizenship and the insecurity of an possibly illegal immigrant who has already been convicted of impertinence! Little warning signs (not big RED ones, yet) are appearing everywhere! Marf, a guy named Dude...others, probably who have not yet spoken!) Of course, I await with trepidation the Thunderous Word of the Lord, He who comes in red I have directed a little prayer to one of the dieties, but it has not been answered yet!
So, I leave it up to you. I can certainly continue this dialog until my cold, dead fingers have to be pried from the keyboard! (not so terribly long, at that!) Or, we can agree to disagree as Randi put it to me oh so succinctly, (and originally), long ago!
Bear in mind, that if you perceive this as a cop-out - or what we know today is much more cowardly, cut-and-run - and you challenge me to continue; you may be responsible for the detention, shipping to forumantanomo, waterboarding (wish they'd use Vodka), and eventual vaporization of another human being! Granted, a pretty ancient and worn version of Homo E.
I await your reply. Oh, and, I'll be glad to concede if that will help in making your decision and slow some of the glandular secretion you must be suffering! Won't mean it, but I'll make the gesture!
|
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 11/02/2007 : 16:05:51 [Permalink]
|
Dave wrote: | With that in mind, a chess club is "a group of people" with "a set of common beliefs and practices" and has "group rituals and communication stemming from shared conviction." Only your quote from World Encyclopedia, with its "formulated in response to a spiritual awareness of existence" clause, offers a definition of religion that would not include a chess club as a religious organization. |
A “spiritual awareness of existence” encompasses perspectives that exclude supernaturalism. People who know I'm an atheist tell me what a “spiritual” person they think I am all the time.
| In other words, I don't think religion scholars would turn to Wikipedia or Columbia Encyclopedia for their definitions, because they're overly broad in that they encompass groups with absolutely no metaphysical, spiritual, philosophical or transcendant interests. |
First, I think those definitions were written to encompass groups with no metaphysical, spiritual, philosophical OR transcendent interests, but not with absolutely no interest in any or all of those things at once. Also, there are groups which are not religions that do have interests in one or more of those qualities, such as a philosophy club. Whether something qualifies as a religion or not depends a lot on cultural context as well.
I think scholars in religious studies would agree with those definitions more exactly because they are broad enough to encompass all things which are regarded as religions. My friend Sharon has her degree in religious studies and she used to tell me about how the grad students and profs would enjoy talking about the definition of religion and then joking about how any definition that managed to include all things considered religions would also end up including things which are not regarded as religions such as sports fandom (or chess clubs.) What she told me was that religion is one of those things that generally people know when they see it, but it has no single, clear definition. And she eventually felt the same way about defining religion as I feel about defining art.
| Can you name a religion that we'd all recognize as a religion (or link to a Wikipedia page on one we wouldn't) that lacks any of those interests? Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Wicca, Buhddism, Taoism, Scientology (to name a few) all have definite interests in those areas. |
I and the definitions I cited say that none of those individual qualities was necessary for something to be a religion, and I've already given examples of religions that don't have some of or one of those qualities, including my own religion of Humanism, similar to Ethical Culture: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethical_Culture
To insist I name a religion that has none of those qualities isn't fair since I never claimed there are religions which possess none of those qualities.
|
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 11/02/2007 : 20:23:24 [Permalink]
|
bngbuck said:
Now, execution such as this being a fate far worse than actual Death, I personally do not want to risk it! You can speak for yourself, frankly I do not believe you to be in anywhere near the danger that I am! Has to do with security of long term citizenship and the insecurity of an possibly illegal immigrant who has already been convicted of impertinence! Little warning signs (not big RED ones, yet) are appearing everywhere! Marf, a guy named Dude...others, probably who have not yet spoken!) Of course, I await with trepidation the Thunderous Word of the Lord, He who comes in red I have directed a little prayer to one of the dieties, but it has not been answered yet!
|
I don't think you are in danger of getting the boot, or even a warning for that matter. Pretty far from it, if I had to guess. You don't come close to the level of trollishness exibited by those who have been excommunicated(as you would say) for it.
From what I can tell, if anything, I am much closer to recieving the swift kick to the ass from the board admins than you are. The degree of incivility which I am capable could bring a blush to the cheeks of the most hardened dockside doxie. I've seen my share of those red letters. Personally I find you more entertaining than annoying, so far.
The concatenation of one cleverness after another eventually leads to a discussion that degenerates into vapidness, lack of substance -- Semantics!
|
This is the natural course of this type of discussion. Sadly, I remain an optomist and hope that issues of semantics can be resolved to a mutual satisfaction which is the only way to restore substantive debate when it falls apart over semantics. Without definitions agreed upon, anything else said is fairly pointless.
So, I leave it up to you. I can certainly continue this dialog until my cold, dead fingers have to be pried from the keyboard! (not so terribly long, at that!) Or, we can agree to disagree as Randi put it to me oh so succinctly, (and originally), long ago!
|
I never agree to disagree. In my view this is the least favorable outcome of any form of debate. I usually just declare, by fiat of will, that I win when it becomes impossible to engage another in even a debate over definitions.
| and you challenge me to continue; |
Challenge? No. Request? Perhaps. But only if you are sure you are up to it. Wouldn't want to cause you any injury. I know old bones are brittle and it would be tragic to see you break a finger typing or pop a bloodvessle trying to be excessively "clever".
I await your reply. Oh, and, I'll be glad to concede if that will help in making your decision and slow some of the glandular secretion you must be suffering! Won't mean it, but I'll make the gesture!
|
Concede? Odd, but when I first read that sentence the word looked different, something more like "condescend". No, any concession on your part should be an honest one.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 11/03/2007 : 16:16:29 [Permalink]
|
Dude in Dade.....
(no, that's St. Pete, right?. I lived in Florida for a year or so, I get all those Catholic and Indian things mixed up!)....and bicoastal in the same damn State!!!
Well, days have passed and I still have not had my prayers answered. I am glad that you do not feel that my excommunication (that was the word that I was searching for) is imminent! Particularly after this from you:Posted - 11/01/2007 : 16:55:23 [Permalink]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
When you accept something as true without evidence, its called faith.
Seriously, are you just trolling us? |
and then there is the redoubtable Marf:| I won't defend him for that. Personally I think he's trolling which is why I've stopped responding to his posts. |
This from Marf, who responds with ardor and persuasion to many, many posts of less quality than mine!
Now as to whether my activity here is currently being judged as disruptive or not can only be defined by Dave (primarily, as I have been given to understand), or Kil, (who properly and probably defers to Dave's judgment most times in these matters.) I have asked for clarification, and absolution, but have not, as yet, received either.
Dude, the reason that I am cautious is that I have not been around here long enough to fully grasp the politics, (in psychobabble, the "social dynamics"), of this unusual club. It is a very interesting interactive group, and the mix of unfettered individualistic expression concomitant with significant episodes of authoritarian control is truly a object of, well, fascination for me. I truly don't want to leave. I'm having too much fun, and that may well be a bad thing!
I have sampled several other Forums and, probably because of their size (too big or too small) I don't find them nearly as interesting. Skepticality, for instance, has several excellent participants, but something seems too austere or proper over there. And they have this god damn no swearing rule! Shit!
In the meantime I have been digging deep into Trollogy (wiki, many articles, a veritable Google barf). For example:Research Criteria:
The Internet Troll Personality Disorder is characterized by attention-seeking and disruptive behavior in anonymous, delocalized places of socializing. It is indicated by the following traits:
A tendency to make the most useful, interesting comments.
An 18 charisma score that draws the attention of users toward them.
The ability to create ideas that flow from person to person nonstop until they have made everyone spend their time in the troll's valuable communique.
Such a brilliant command of social engineering, that the troll can trick others into fighting amongst themselves on the internet endlessly. (i.e. crossposting to two opposing usenet groups, tricking them into starting a flame war, then sitting back and watching the fun)
High intelligence (16 or higher)
High degree of social skills IRL.
Uses multiple usernames as sock puppets (the more the better)
Establishes dominance in a community by using multiple usernames |
Now, that wiki alone is enough to give me pause!
In the case of poor Jerome, whom I was foolish enough to defend, the sockpuppetry was, in itself, enough to seal his doom. He did frequently make an ass of himself, but I think D&K suffered that part of his foolishness tolerantly, if not gladly! I have to agree, he just got outrageous what with somethingBob and Boomerwife, etc.
So, call me a chicken and I'll cluck, but |
| Edited by - bngbuck on 11/03/2007 19:39:15 |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 11/03/2007 : 21:59:28 [Permalink]
|
bngbuck said:
In the case of poor Jerome, whom I was foolish enough to defend, the sockpuppetry was, in itself, enough to seal his doom. He did frequently make an ass of himself, but I think D&K suffered that part of his foolishness tolerantly, if not gladly! I have to agree, he just got outrageous what with somethingBob and Boomerwife, etc.
|
Jerome contributed nothing of substance (in anyone's judgement) to this forum. He was given every opportunity, even had his initial ban reversed. His only purpose here was to incite abuse.
Dude in Dade.....
(no, that's St. Pete, right?. I lived in Florida for a year or so, I get all those Catholic and Indian things mixed up!)....and bicoastal in the same damn State!!!
|
Dade is Miami, and yes St Petersburg is my home.
| Well, days have passed and I still have not had my prayers answered. I am glad that you do not feel that my excommunication (that was the word that I was searching for) is imminent! Particularly after this from you: |
Well, when you stubbornly cling to a ridiculous definition for a debate term, one so ridiculous as to render the term meaningless, it is trollish. It is not unreasonable to insist on specific definitions so the words will have a useful function in the discussion that follows. What possible reason could a person have for this behavior? So I asked you to clarify your intent, to reassure me by making some honest concession to reason on a single definition.
Still waiting for that to happen, and after your declaration that you wouldn't be sincere if you conceded anything I begin to doubt that it will.
This from Marf, who responds with ardor and persuasion to many, many posts of less quality than mine!
|
I will not publicly repeat my opinion of the person you mention. But she doesn't read my posts either. You should consider it a compliment. It certainly raises my estimation of you, however.
Dude, the reason that I am cautious is that I have not been around here long enough to fully grasp the politics, (in psychobabble, the "social dynamics"), of this unusual club. It is a very interesting interactive group, and the mix of unfettered individualistic expression concomitant with significant episodes of authoritarian control is truly a object of, well, fascination for me. I truly don't want to leave. I'm having too much fun, and that may well be a bad thing!
|
The "authoritarian control" is fairly recent, and probably needed. It hasn't yet been excessive imo, even though I disagree with Kil (to the point of argument) on his partiality. Several years ago there was a time when no person had ever been banned from these forums, and they had been in operation for quite some time. But as interest and traffic increased, the forum eventually started attracting people who came here only to disrupt. Really, the bannings have been few in any measurement. I honestly think I am closer to a ban than you are right now.
| In the meantime I have been digging deep into Trollogy |
Allow me to enlighten you:
An Internet troll, or simply troll in Internet slang, is someone who intentionally posts controversial or contrary messages in an on-line community such as an on-line discussion forum with the intention of baiting users into an argumentative response.
Sure, there are many definitions of troll out there, but this is what I meant when I asked you if you were trolling.
| So, call me a chicken and I'll cluck, but I think I'll wait until I hear from Dave. |
To my knowledge no one has ever been banned here without multiple warnings.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 11/04/2007 : 10:05:42 [Permalink]
|
Bill:
Now as to whether my activity here is currently being judged as disruptive or not can only be defined by Dave (primarily, as I have been given to understand), or Kil, (who properly and probably defers to Dave's judgment most times in these matters.) I have asked for clarification, and absolution, but have not, as yet, received either. |
See: this post. The registration agreement is as close to a set of rules as we will probably ever have around here. How we administer those rules is our call. It has to be. If we created a list of rule violations covering all possibilities (not possible) and stuck with them, SFN would soon become a ghost town at worst, or boring at best.
We understand that this opens up the possibility of error on our side of things and I can't say that it hasn't happened. But all in all, the only way to maintain the openness and feel of SFN is to approach our moderation with as light a hand as we can (unfortunately, not as light as it used to be) without letting things get out of control. It's a bit of a high wire act for us.
And Bill, I just don't get why you think you're in some kind of jeopardy of being banned. I honestly have no idea why you would think that.
As for a warning I issued to Dude, I learned a valuable lesson. Never ever issue a warning to an OG while in a debate with that person. It will be seen as being less than impartial and no amount of discussion about it will ever change that view. Oh well…
On a related note, I am extremely pleased with how the forum has been going of late.
I just needed to say that…
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 11/04/2007 : 15:21:10 [Permalink]
|
As for a warning I issued to Dude, I learned a valuable lesson. Never ever issue a warning to an OG while in a debate with that person. It will be seen as being less than impartial and no amount of discussion about it will ever change that view. Oh well…
|
I was a member of a forum where the owner did not participate at all. Consequently, he knew nothing about what he was talking about when he warned us.
On a related note, I am extremely pleased with how the forum has been going of late.
I just needed to say that… |
It is a fabulous place, and you and Dave especially deserve the credit. Others helped, but you and Dave an @tomic have done well. |
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Suicide Bombing - AAI
