Charles Anthony

Poor attempt to start a discussion. Try again. The Opening Poster needs to expand on his own views. A line and a link is insufficient.

Your posts were preserved and formed a separate thread on their own. You raise an important question and I think it deserves attention. I do not want it to get buried in this thread. What part of "Start a new thread." is unclear?

Yes.Good. On to the next step. Recall, you believe Argus' definition is accurate. I am demanding that we pinpoint the accuracy. So, let us remove what is either inflammatory and or ambiguous. Anybody can see quite plainly that the world is flat. Does the above statement qualify as actionable trolling, in your opinion? In other words, do you expect a moderator to intervene upon such a post? "Start a new thread." is clear enough. ... suggests that the double-entendre zipped over your head too. "Shucks. If Texas was good enough for John F. Kennedy, then golly gee, it must certainly be good enough to host anybody! Yuk, yuk." It is clear you can not see that there is no need for every single human being to share the exact same definition of "trolling" or of "boring" or of "exciting" or of any other qualifier that tickles your fancy.

I am not against labels. I wish to encourage you to express clarity over the labels you chose such that your reader does not misunderstand. Agree? or Disagree?

Yes, that is correct. They are thread drift and you should know better. Start a new thread. No, we are not going to do your homework. Oh, they are different? Answered here anyways. Euler seems to get it. SHORT VERSION: Nobody holds a monopoly on the meaning of those labels --- more precisely, on any kind of labels. Thus, the use of nebulous labels sows confusion --- at best. HINT: It is physically impossible to "see" a person's politics. All you can "see" is what a person writes. Focus on what a person writes instead of focusing on labeling people based on invisible concepts that you believe you can see. If that is too much for you, define your word "neocon" and start a thread to see if folks agree with your definition. Make sure to include a poll question such as "Every single person, past, present and future, agrees with my definition..... True? or False?" I am confident that in short order, the membership here will lead you to the answers you seek.

You are right. It gets boring. There is only 1 problem: nobody holds a monopoly on the truth. What is a moderator to do? The power is in your hands. If you do not believe something, ask for a cite. If you do not like the cite, say so. If you do not get a cite, then ignore it and move on. If you are expecting any more profound moderator intervention in this regard, forget it. We are not here to do your research for you. ---------- What do you guys think about changing the forum so that only Mod staff can see the names/avatars of the members? To the regular members and to the public, no posts appear attributed to anybody.

They have a choice: - ignore what offends/goes over their head or - politely ask for an explanation. Some folks refuse to do either. That is weird. What difference, at this point, does it make?!? You can not always presume somebody is being disingenuous. None of you hold a monopoly on the truth. Therein lies the heart of this nebulous dispute over the definition of trolling. I reckon my words would sow confusion. Labels such as "neocon" are vague and their use demonstrates that nobody holds a monopoly on the definition. Surely we can agree that some folks use the term "neocon" in a derogatory manner. Calling somebody a neo-con is either inflammatory or confusing. ... clearly debatable and there is no agreement on any specific instance of trolling. You are missing the point. Defining Trolling™ is inherently a fool's errand without any poetic value. What matters is agreement upon how to deal with the perception of trolling. Meh. It just looks like a turf war to me. I have a better idea..... wait for it..... You report whatever-you-perceive-to-be-trolling thusly: "Dear mod staff, this post is trolling because...." and you explain your reasoning. Whatever happened to the "It takes 2 to tango." brush-off? Uh.... no. Folks get offended at new and or challenging commentary all of the time --- so much so that it almost seems fake. Some of you folks get offended at the most inane and trivial things. What is the purpose of that?? Let us discuss such accuracy. Maybe you can answer the question that Argus refused to answer: Can we agree that the word "idiot" is either inflammatory and or ambiguous?? HINT: That is a yes or no question. .... sometimes you guys are wrong with your allegations of trolling. It really is that simple. Just because 99% of the population believes something to be true that does not make it true. False perception and fantasy make the world go around -- that is a fact if there ever was one. Popular concepts of nationality are peculiar. Criticism from a different national viewpoint is hardly objective. Most folks use their own national viewpoints to discuss national issues. This engenders debate but debate from another national viewpoint is not ONE opinion. Rather, it is a set of opinions on different issues that calls into question issues on a different level. We review all reports to make sure that the opinions stated are in context and are not insults but move the conversation forward. ------ Does the deliberate dissemination of misinformation in the forum offend you? There is nothing in the forum rules or guidelines concerning this.

Guys, Stay on topic and stop going of on personal banter. The thread is re-opened. I agree with that statement but I think that what the mods are struggling with is context. I have told someone that what they are saying is racist in nature and they may be considered as racist if they continue. That is in a helpful tone assuming that the person does not realized how far they have gone in their argument.No, we do not struggle with the context. We struggle with the purpose and intention. We start with an obvious 1st principle: There is no universal nor intuitive meaning/identifier for racism. Everybody has their own definition. Thus, as far as moderator intervention is concerned, it does not matter whether calling somebody "racist" is inflammatory or trolling or a personal attack or anything else. That is a moot point. What over-rides it all is that it is diverting the discussion. It is obvious by now that the thread is being diverted. TRANSLATION: Labelling Argus as a Racist™ is not the subject of this thread. HINT: Argus does not have to justify your choice of a label placed upon him. I do not even see any point to it either. Maybe Charles Anthony or Michael Hardner can weigh in on this. I am curious how a comment like that should be treated.Me too. Any suggestions? I suggest the easy way: treat is as thread drift. You could also treat is a trolling if you want and ignore it. However, each time you respond/reply/address it, mod staff has to step back and treat it like it is something worthy of discussion and treat folks as mature adults by giving them the freedom to express themselves. If you did not reply to it = if you ignored it and reported it, we would have probably just nixed the post entirely before anybody else had a chance to quote it. However, now that it is quoted, you mess things up. Not that it matters but I kind of enjoy reading different opinions on immigration. None of them make any sense to me. I am interested in knowing what my neighbors think.

Any and all posts which perpetuate the thread drift will be automatically nixed. We encourage you to start a new thread to continue in that direction. Indeed.

Oh, you can use the term neocon but not if you use it to label/target/insult somebody. Unless somebody says "I am a neocon." then calling that person a neocon is either an insult and or a personal attack and or thread drift -- at best, it adds nothing but confusion. MOD BIAS: I used to call myself a neocon but now, I can see quite clearly how it can be perceived-with-reason as a grave insult. That says nothing to whether or not I ever was a neocon or whether I actually am no longer.

Guys, You should all calm down. Kimmy, Next time, do a better job starting a thread. If "ridiculous" is all you have to say about a topic, then that is what you will get. This thread is locked. Try again.

Folks, Stop using pejorative names. Ch. A.

Guys, Stop re-copying the entirety of a fellow member's post in quotation. The next time it happens in this thread, the post will be taken down without warning. Ch. A.

Terrible Opening Post for a thread. Try again.

I will take that as either a Yes and or a No. My suggestion to you is the same: If you encounter what-YOU-perceive-to-be trolling, ignore it and do not respond in kind.

...which is good enough. We do not need to agree on both. We need only agree on at least 1 of them to begin to have an intelligent discussion about trolling in the forum. So, back to your "obvious" trolling post. What is the problem with it? You chose to inject an insult. Agree or disagree? Had the word "idiot" not been used, would it be an "obvious" trolling post in your opinion?

Folks, Going back and editing/deleting your own posts resulting in the deliberate disruption of civil discussion is absolutely unacceptable in this forum. ....irrelevant.

Can we agree that the word "idiot" is either inflammatory and or ambiguous? Cite?

When it comes to deciding upon a moderator intervention, I care only that you guys are cordial. As a reader, I am entertained.

No. I honestly do not care what your political opinions may be. I care only that those opinions are expressed politely. What more do you need????? Yeah. I am confused too about this uni-dimensional expression. Is "To the right of..." something the opposite of "To the wrong of..." something? Whatever happened to up and down? front and back?? before and after??? No. I honestly do not care whether somebody "has, in the span of a few days, evolved his views to the point" of whatever conveniently ambiguous-enough label some gal uses to hide a rhetorical trick. Do you have any sense of what you are asking?? Do you need a moderator to intervene in a discussion based on the flippancy of somebody's views?? Nobody is being judged by their views, for goodness' sake. You are all free to hold any "views" you want whether you are sucking on the blue pill or the red pill or any other pill from the rainbow. Me too. Lots of folks are heavy on the imagination --- how would our world turn without it? No doubt! I would expect a view from the south pole to throw everybody off more than just a bit!! LOL Maybe that is exactly what this world needs! Once you finally get "there" and see the light, you will have no choice but to see these discussions less personally. If we keep riding with the same ironic metaphor, Sensei Crusty Mod says: "Man go south pole must cross greater wall than china." Give up expecting to see consistent views. What difference does it make? I see everybody changing their views all of the time. If you think somebody is not being serious and if that bothers you, ignore them. What is this? A game of telephone??? Look, I do not care what any of your opinions happen to be. Get it? Now you are going to tell the next guy that I do not care about the forum, right? Is that how it works? The same could be said from the south "pole" too! Fake discussion?! Priceless!! You can not write this stuff! The bigger the lie... ....though it is still unclear whether everybody is on the same plane in this discussion. Can we agree that the word "idiot" is either inflammatory and or ambiguous? That is because some of you are obnoxious. Perception is everything as evidenced by this thread.

Do you honestly care? What difference does it make? Argus can not handle the fact that any idiot can see that the earth is flat. What is a moderator to do?? What difference does it make what I believe??? If you care to understand what I believe, start with this: Try with all of your might to explain what the word "believe" means to somebody who does not need to know what it means --- if you can imagine such a scenario. As far as the capacity of mod is concerned, I recommend that you do not bother to care. I am perplexed too. I do not understand how anybody would care whether the person typing out behind the avatar is credible or not.

This thread is locked. It is a terrible attempt to start a discussion. Everybody is free to re-create this topic under a new thread but you will be expected to put more effort into stimulating a focussed discussion. An incomplete sentence with a link is not enough.

Do you feel threatened by somebody who changes their views? Do you have a dog in a race? Lots of my views flip flopped. Others became more extreme. I came to this forum as a right-wing asshole. After reading thread after thread in the archives of past discussions which occurred before I joined, I changed my thoughts. I identified with a poorly thought out philosophy and I learned from an other guy who came to it as a former Marxist. I could not believe it when he told me he was a Marxist --- completely diametrically opposed to everything he ever wrote here in the forums. There are a couple of members of the forum who no longer post. We locked horns to the end over certain philosophical points. After many years, I realize they were right and I was wrong in specific arguments. They quit participating in the discussions around the same time I did. I never got a chance to thank them. Both of them had an uncanny ability to keep a discussion going in the most civil manner when faced with trolling --- doing so often with clever humor. Same as it ever was: report whatever-you-perceive-to-be-trolling, ignore it and move on. Indeed, many posters complain about trolling. Sometimes we agree. Sometimes we disagree. What is a moderator to do? --- because they intend to stifle discussion. It is that simple.

Thank you for the affirmation! Our intervention worked! The thread drift/trolling posts were taken down. Alternatively, you could consider my post to be trolling and then you could ignore it! Now, move on and carry on with on-topic discussion.

No but I will give you enough to discuss/figure stuff on your own. Here is a minor infraction and I am not going to identify the offending party because that is irrelevent: You are more proving my point about pollution being a greater issue instead of singling out carbon dioxide. A few posts were taken down because they were derailing the discussion and others were feeding it. In my opinion, the derail was MORE than obvious and it kept being fed DESPITE others setting a good example before our very eyes by ignoring it. When the thread drift dies and others move on, you should avoid necromancing the trolling/drift by leaving it to die. If you refuse to ignore trolling/thread drift by feeding the trolling/thread drift, then your posts will get nixed and will be treated as trolling/thread drift. Take baby steps: Try to recognize thread drift and avoid feeding it. It works for me. I get sad when I read about sad things. You know, like, children being enslaved, tortured, starved to death and cannibalized by nasty people --- stuff like that. Nearly 99% of the media reports are hellishly depressing one way or an other. You can call me a sissy if you want. I get sad whenever I read inane nonsense posted in the forums by otherwise intelligent members too.