NationStates Jolt Archive

Do you have to hijack every thread with your beliefs? If there's a thread about Burger King, no one is looking for a discussion on how it is oppressing the working class. If someone wants to know if religious institutions should be taxed then no part of that is a discussion about how all tax is theft.

So here is a question: can we contribute to these threads in the spirit in which they are created?

I don't find Dane Cook funny in the least.

I also can't believe it's not butter and anyone who says differently is a communist.

I also can't believe it's not butter and anyone who says differently is a communist.

Well then paint me red and call me Lenin...IT IS NOT BUTTER!!!

Nazis! There's Nazis here! Everyone's a Nazi! The OP wants to genocide me!!

Do you have to hijack every thread with your beliefs? If there's a thread about Burger King, no one is looking for a discussion on how it is oppressing the working class. If someone wants to know if religious institutions should be taxed then no part of that is a discussion about how all tax is theft.

So here is a question: can we contribute to these threads in the spirit in which they are created?

I sympathize with the frustration of threadjackees, but some of the ones you are referencing are at least near-topic, if not on-topic. If you don't find a particular aspect of the discussion to be relevant to your standard, ignore it.

To be honest, I'm not sure it serves fertile discourse to be overly stringent in focus, outside of a formal debate. I've often found that those departures from the narrow initial issue often lead to compelling observations that illuminate facets of the issue or its broader context that were not previously evident.

I would think the more blatant and not even tangential intrusions would be more objectionable.

Like that time Lunatic Goofballs and Straughn inserted an ancient Akkadian text on demon summoning into that thread on Canadian tariffs, and I spent two hours trying to behead a lamp post animated by Kulfar, The Fermented Pus of The Blonde Manwhores.

Nazis! There's Nazis here! Everyone's a Nazi! The OP wants to genocide me!!

Calm down. You can't genocide one person.

The OP wants to genocide you and everyone like you.

So actually, in the strictest sense, you were right the first time.

Shit, I'm so sorry, here's your AK back.

I sympathize with the frustration of threadjackees, but some of the ones you are referencing are at least near-topic, if not on-topic. If you don't find a particular aspect of the discussion to be relevant to your standard, ignore it.

To be honest, I'm not sure it serves fertile discourse to be overly stringent in focus, outside of a formal debate. I've often found that those departures from the narrow initial issue often lead to compelling observations that illuminate facets of the issue or its broader context that were not previously evident.

I would think the more blatant and not even tangential intrusions would be more objectionable.

Like that time Lunatic Goofballs and Straughn inserted an ancient Akkadian text on demon summoning into that thread on Canadian tariffs, and I spent two hours trying to behead a lamp post animated by Kulfar, The Fermented Pus of The Blonde Manwhores.


:confused: -> :eek: -> :p

:confused: -> :eek: -> :p

Three orbic visages, and yet none speak that salient thrust for freedom upon whose brow is written:

Those who are a little too much into one issue are not necesarrily loons.

Well then paint me red and call me Lenin...IT IS NOT BUTTER!!!

Guards! Oppress this man!

Otherwise, perhaps we should be changing someone's name to Sir-moan-o1?

If it wasn't Thursday I'd wonder whether it was...Moanday?

Something I always do is read threads from the last post backwards, it can be interesting to see how a thread on, say, the sexual abuse of kittens can turn into a discussion on what kind of green cheese the moon is made of and work back through the connections.

Yes, you're all my personal psychological experiment and I'll be publishing my book, A Forum for Insanity, soon - available in all good bookstores.

On that note - I've always been bemused by that line - is it a challenge to bookstores? That if they don't stock this book it's clearly not a good bookstore - what is the purpose?

North Korea has teh NOOKZ (http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=sBaPI2AKu2g)

Guards! Oppress this man!

Otherwise, perhaps we should be changing someone's name to Sir-moan-o1?

If it wasn't Thursday I'd wonder whether it was...Moanday?

Something I always do is read threads from the last post backwards, it can be interesting to see how a thread on, say, the sexual abuse of kittens can turn into a discussion on what kind of green cheese the moon is made of and work back through the connections.

Yes, you're all my personal psychological experiment and I'll be publishing my book, A Forum for Insanity, soon - available in all good bookstores.

On that note - I've always been bemused by that line - is it a challenge to bookstores? That if they don't stock this book it's clearly not a good bookstore - what is the purpose?

I've already been warned by fairly patient mods, but I have to...


This reminds me of the time we started talking about literature verses cinema and we organically arrived at a phrase along the lines of

"I won't begrude you a giant, floppy vagina mouth."

Do you have to hijack every thread with your beliefs? If there's a thread about Burger King, no one is looking for a discussion on how it is oppressing the working class. If someone wants to know if religious institutions should be taxed then no part of that is a discussion about how all tax is theft.

So here is a question: can we contribute to these threads in the spirit in which they are created?

well yeah.

it would also be nice if people didnt use a new thread as an excuse to dis a poster for something he said in an earlier thread or claim that he is going to make a post that reflects something he said somewhere else so he is an asshole for being going to say it.

but most threads dont have that long a shelf life so if active posters want to drift from the war of 1812 (that they know nothing about) to the wit and wisdom of star trek (which they know all too much about) what difference does it make as long as the topic of the thread has been as discussed as anyone had interest in doing so.

Guards! Oppress this man!

Otherwise, perhaps we should be changing someone's name to Sir-moan-o1?


Oh, but you can't expect to wield supreme executive power just because some watery tart threw a sword at you! If I went 'round sayin' I was Emperor, just because some moistened bint lobbed a scimitar at me, they'd put me away!

Help! Help! I'm being oppressed! Violence inherent in the system! Violence inherent in the system!

well yeah.

it would also be nice if people didnt use a new thread as an excuse to dis a poster for something he said in an earlier thread or claim that he is going to make a post that reflects something he said somewhere else so he is an asshole for being going to say it.

but most threads dont have that long a shelf life so if active posters want to drift from the war of 1812 (that they know nothing about) to the wit and wisdom of star trek (which they know all too much about) what difference does it make as long as the topic of the thread has been as discussed as anyone had interest in doing so.

Okay, I think I agree with you, but I'm not sure I'm down with the part that says "or claim that he is going to make a post that reflects something he said somewhere else so he is an asshole for being going to say it."

Not because I find it false, I just find it parsed oddly.

"Down with" it...is that what the young people say, "down with"?

I've already been warned by fairly patient mods, but I have to...


This reminds me of the time we started talking about literature verses cinema and we organically arrived at a phrase along the lines of

"I won't begrude you a giant, floppy vagina mouth."

Indeed, which is why an entire chapter of my book is specifically devoted to you.

Okay, I think I agree with you, but I'm not sure I'm down with the part that says "or claim that he is going to make a post that reflects something he said somewhere else so he is an asshole for being going to say it."

Not because I find it false, I just find it parsed oddly.

"Down with" it...is that what the young people say, "down with"?

how else would you phrase it?

he is an asshole because he is going to say something. honestly, its the kind of post that annoys me most these days. its more annoying than the stupid "who would win a death match between charlie gibson and king leonidas?" threads.

its more annoying than the stupid "who would win a death match between charlie gibson and king leonidas?" threads.

Well, obviously, Chuck Norris.

how else would you phrase it?

he is an asshole because he is going to say something. honestly, its the kind of post that annoys me most these days. its more annoying than the stupid "who would win a death match between charlie gibson and king leonidas?" threads.

I preface by admitting this is my fault in that I have no gift for language, but I hope you at least know that I'm trying to get it.


The OP here is going to say something, or he called someone else an asshole for something the other person didn't say?

Maybe I just need some context, can you tell me what thread the OP is really trying to dig on?

Well, obviously, Chuck Norris.

Chuck Norris sucks.

Chuck Norris sucks.

Well, it's not like I could say Mr. T or some other random person.

I preface by admitting this is my fault in that I have no gift for language, but I hope you at least know that I'm trying to get it.


The OP here is going to say something, or he called someone else an asshole for something the other person didn't say?

Maybe I just need some context, can you tell me what thread the OP is really trying to dig on?

oh you didnt understand what i wrote. that didnt occur to me.

person A has a history of conflict in threads with person B. when a new thread on known topic begins person B will make a reasonable post. person A will respond that person B really means something else--inflamatory and wrong-- or that person B will next post something similar to something that he has posted in past threads (that person A felt he had defeated in that past thread) and that that post will brand person B an asshole for posting it.

i prefer that each thread stand on its own and we pretend that we dont know other (stupid) things that anyone has posted in other threads. it makes things more civil instead of continuing old fights that were boring for everyone else the past dozen times they have broken out.

Well, it's not like I could say Mr. T or some other random person.

Mr.T is way cooler than Chuck Norris, he has his own Commandments (http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=VwQoV407vJY)

oh you didnt understand what i wrote. that didnt occur to me.

person A has a history of conflict in threads with person B. when a new thread on known topic begins person B will make a reasonable post. person A will respond that person B really means something else--inflamatory and wrong-- or that person B will next post something similar to something that he has posted in past threads (that person A felt he had defeated in that past thread) and that that post will brand person B an asshole for posting it.

i prefer that each thread stand on its own and we pretend that we dont know other (stupid) things that anyone has posted in other threads. it makes things more civil instead of continuing old fights that were boring for everyone else the past dozen times they have broken out.

I think I follow a bit better. It reminds me of talk radio where the host will often say "Oh, and of course, now the left/right wing fanatics will start in with yadda yadda", basically trying to preemptively discredit the other person.

Then, yes, I belive I agree with your position.




Chuck Norris tongue kissed Javier Bardem behind a dumpster in East LA, and that took courage.

I think I follow a bit better. It reminds me of talk radio where the host will often say "Oh, and of course, now the left/right wing fanatics will start in with yadda yadda", basically trying to preemptively discredit the other person.

Then, yes, I belive I agree with your position.




Chuck Norris tongue kissed Javier Bardem behind a dumpster in East LA, and that took courage.

Chuck Norris fighting Javier Bardem would be a cool fight...

http://images.eonline.com/eol_images/Articles/20071105/425.bardem.country.110507.jpg

he scares me...

I think I follow a bit better. It reminds me of talk radio where the host will often say "Oh, and of course, now the left/right wing fanatics will start in with yadda yadda", basically trying to preemptively discredit the other person.

Then, yes, I belive I agree with your position.


you didnt follow me because you arent around enough to be annoyed by this tactic over and over again like i am. many a promising thread has been ruined by attacking the OP for something they assume he is going to say.

are you on some kind of spring break? you arent usually here this frequently.

Well then paint me red and call me Lenin...IT IS NOT BUTTER!!!

*splashes red paint across NM*

"ZOMG LENIN!"

I don't like jelly?

Do you have to hijack every thread with your beliefs? If there's a thread about Burger King, no one is looking for a discussion on how it is oppressing the working class. If someone wants to know if religious institutions should be taxed then no part of that is a discussion about how all tax is theft.

So here is a question: can we contribute to these threads in the spirit in which they are created?

and precisely what spirit would that be?

i'm not opposed to anyone eating plastic WHO WANTS TO. just against suffocating because someone wants to con everyone else into putting trying to impress each other ahead of the kind of world we all have to live in.

this IS a forum about a POLITICAL simulation game. at least i thought it was the last time i checked.

=^^=
.../\...

Like that time Lunatic Goofballs and Straughn inserted an ancient Akkadian text on demon summoning into that thread on Canadian tariffs, and I spent two hours trying to behead a lamp post animated by Kulfar, The Fermented Pus of The Blonde Manwhores.

You mean it worked? :eek:


...

Coool! *makes appropriate checkmark in notebook*

This thread is obviously merely a tool of the fascist petty-bourgeoisie used for the oppression of the working class and the free-thinkers! And the OP must be a religious fanatic who makes fallacious, circular arguments to attempt to prove the existence of an imaginary God, while murdering babies. Speaking of which, stem cell research is WRONG.

And here's an amusing image macro coupled with a generic smartass comment and/or a cleverly concealed link to a youtube video of a once-popular '80s song.

Topic changing inside of a thread seems alright as long as its led up to. For example, if over the course of say 20 posts people stop talking about the main subject and start talking about something else it's fine. After all, threads are almost like a typed conversation, and when you converse with your friends, you don't always stay on the same topic do you? If people don't stay on topic in actual conversations, why should these types have a different standard? However, I do object to people who just post completely random things that have nothing to do with the original post or where the thread is heading. For example, if someone had a thread about say, gun control, and then someone else just jumped in and said "I like waffles for breakfast," this would be really strange, in real life or online.

I also can't believe it's not butter and anyone who says differently is a communist.


What's wrong with communists? Do you know any?

Why do you think I'm implying there's something wrong with communists? Given the product is not actually butter, my statement casts communists as reasonable, well-informed people.

Perhaps it's you who has the problem?

*eyes suspiciously*

Topic changing inside of a thread seems alright as long as its led up to. For example, if over the course of say 20 posts people stop talking about the main subject and start talking about something else it's fine. After all, threads are almost like a typed conversation, and when you converse with your friends, you don't always stay on the same topic do you? If people don't stay on topic in actual conversations, why should these types have a different standard? However, I do object to people who just post completely random things that have nothing to do with the original post or where the thread is heading. For example, if someone had a thread about say, gun control, and then someone else just jumped in and said "I like waffles for breakfast," this would be really strange, in real life or online.

I have no problem with topic changing. It's just the kind of people who, when you see their name next to a topic you know what they will be talking about regardless of what the topic is about. And then the thread is consumed with a tiresome discussion about the merits of zero taxation/communism/colonialism/ racism etc.

Take Neu Leonstein's thread about Mugabe - he wants to talk about that situation and all he got was a guy with a extreme take on history arguing with half of NSG. Don't get me wrong, I'm up for debating anything but it seems some posters want to impose their area of interest on everything.

It'd be like a 9/11 conspiracy theorist coming into this thread and going "trying to shut down debate, eh? Bet you believe the simplistic government explanation of what happened on 9/11". The link is so tenuous that actually this kind of attitude stifles debate as the thread would soon be just a series of people going through the same arguments about 9/11 that have been done a million times before. To bring up your radical take on the world regardless of context means that we only end up talking about the theory of some form of extremism or another and anyone who wants to talk about something else just gets overrun.

I really must insist that the European value of action in the game of soccer is severely overrated. While, yes, it is fast paced, that does not necessarily dictate its superiority over baseball. The high tension that can be developed in a game, where the entire event hangs on each and every single tiny action more than compensates for the comparatively sluggish, and often paused pace of the game. In fact I would daresay that the pauses in a (non-commercial) game, the pauses serve as a psychological jolt to both the targeted player(s), as well as to the fans in attendance.