NationStates Jolt Archive

Hey, all...I've seen other threads where people asked for story ideas, etc. What I'd like now is a Nationstates Jury.

Note, this is NOT for a homework assignment, and there is no deadline. If it takes me 6 months to put this jury together, that's fine.

Also, this is NOT to judge whether anyone's side is "correct" or not. If the jury decides one side is correct, don't run around claiming "I've won or I'm correct or validated." It only means you've convinced a very small sample population.

Nor is this a forum game. There are no points, no real outcome, just a chance to learn about the environment here.

The purpose is twofold:

One, to learn about how discourse on nationstates is conducted and how it is evaluated by the community. The community's opinion, even if it were nearly unanimous, is not any kind of proof that the supported side is correct. But the means by which collective judgement is rendered (even given that such judgement is not any kind of rigorous proof or validation of the "winning" position) is of interest.

Two, to examine the meta-linguistic dynamic as to why persuasive or expository NSG posting is evaluated this way or that.

So, I need volunteers. Post here or TG me.

Duties are as follows:

You will examine a series of debates on NSG, whether archived (don't post to them if its gravedigging please) or current.

You will score the debates (usually a subset of a thread that has involved the commonly seen "squaring off" of two, but a threesome is possible. If you want to examine a controversial poster who was dogpiled, it may be problematic, but we can work a protocol out).

Areas of score will be:

Effectiveness (persuasiveness, skillfullness of expository attempt, etc)
Style
Use of Data
Cogency (avoiding fallacy, addressing points, preventing or reconciling contradiction, etc)

This is not a final list. If you join the jury, we'll collaborate on the final criteria.

Each juror may choose one thread that involves themselves as a contributor, but they may not vote on or evaluate that thread.

I'd ideally like 12 jurors, me included, which we would do one thread at a time (in a meta thread, mods willing, so as to avoid gravedigging), but 9 or 6 jurors could be reasonable.

So, post here or TG if you're interested, I'd like people with at least 500 posts or more, but if you are a long time poster with a new nation, that could work.

Thanks.

I would definitely toss my 2 cents in here, although i cannot swear upon consistent attendance. Ya know.
My vote if nothing else.

Eh. I don't think debates here should be taken too seriously. As entertainment it's all great fun, but analysis probably isn't going to yield much, beyond arguments over the validity of the analysis. :p

I would definitely toss my 2 cents in here, although i cannot swear upon consistent attendance. Ya know.
My vote if nothing else.

Okay, you're J#1...there is no deadline on this, so if you can't put in your vote for some number of weeks or even months, its fine.

Welcome aboard.

Okay, you're J#1...there is no deadline on this, so if you can't put in your vote for some number of weeks or even months, its fine.

Welcome aboard.
Thank you. *bows*
Of course, at this point, i'll point out conflict of interest on threads and issues regarding twins.

Eh. I don't think debates here should be taken too seriously.

Even when filtered through the internet, the positions and reasoning voiced here are generated by people. One day, the internet or its descendent might be the primary means of public discourse. Some are quite silly (in a good way, many times) but some represent the actual viewpoints of their proponents. That makes them serious enough to be examined.


As entertainment it's all great fun, but analysis probably isn't going to yield much, beyond arguments over the validity of the analysis. :p

Even that would be useful, in fact I'm counting on it.

Thank you. *bows*
Of course, at this point, i'll point out conflict of interest on threads and issues regarding twins.

Eruh?

Eruh?My conflict of interest. That would be the inhibitor to my attendance. :)

If i may offer for consideration, even if they profess no interest (and in no particular order)
The Cat-Tribe
Grave_n_idle
Muravyets
Jocabia
Deus Malum
Desperate Measures
Neesika/Sin
Sarkhaan
plus a few more, as well as Fiddleysticks.
Of course, my opinion carries little weight, but these folks do quite a bit of leg/digitwork at times.

My conflict of interest. That would be the inhibitor to my attendance. :)

If i may offer for consideration, even if they profess no interest (and in no particular order)
The Cat-Tribe
Grave_n_idle
Muravyets
Jocabia
Deus Malum
Desperate Measures
Neesika/Sin
Sarkhaan
plus a few more, as well as Fiddleysticks.
Of course, my opinion carries little weight, but these folks do quite a bit of leg/digitwork at times.


Any and all of these seem fine, if they are willing.

Any and all of these seem fine, if they are willing.
I suspect there will be strong revisiting. Especially if the issue is "Tastes Great!" vs. "Less Filling!"

this sound like a pompous way of codifying forum royalty and i will oppose it vigorously if it seems to be taking off... and i remember... or i may just ignore it, especially if there are shiny things about.

this sound like a pompous way of codifying forum royalty and i will oppose it vigorously if it seems to be taking off... and i remember... or i may just ignore it, especially if there are shiny things about.

Does commentary and evaluation of peers make for "royalty"? Has anyone been excluded unfairly?

If you prefer, some spaces could be set aside for posters with small post counts, if its the preference for the long-time members that bothers you.

In what way would service on a jury like this make one "royalty"? And in what ways could those issues be mitigated?

i tend to assume the jury will be made up of high count people, but that isn't really what bothers me. the general discussion board is a place for open and free wheeling discussions open to anyone who signs up and abides by the rules. the moderators serve to enforce the rules and prevent the boards from degenerating into flaming chaos and spam mountains and are therefore a necessary evil(as an institution certainly not a individuals).

the idea of a jury however seems to be an attempt to abitrate the truth not the rules and i think that is wrong. it seems to be an attempt to set certain posters above the rest with the idea that they would somehow be able to judge the value of arguments and even other posters and that i think is a very bad idea. it creates a hierarchy on the board and implies that the juriers' opinions are somehow more important than those of everyone else. let's do what we have always done and have the debates and each of use decide in our own hearts and minds who is right and who won.

i tend to assume the jury will be made up of high count people, but that isn't really what bothers me. the general discussion board is a place for open and free wheeling discussions open to anyone who signs up and abides by the rules. the moderators serve to enforce the rules and prevent the boards from degenerating into flaming chaos and spam mountains and are therefore a necessary evil(as an institution certainly not a individuals).

Can't "free wheeling discussion" be free enough to withstand and allow meta-discussion about the discussion?


the idea of a jury however seems to be an attempt to abitrate the truth not the rules and i think that is wrong.

I specifically mentioned that the outcome of the jury (which isn't likely to be unanimous and is in no way enforceable) does not make any side "right" or "wrong" or to have "won" or "lost". How then does this purport to arbitrate anything so grandioise as "truth"? As you yourself said, the mods handle the rules. This will be a review and examination by multiple people, drawn from nationstates members in as egalitarian way as we can manage.


it seems to be an attempt to set certain posters above the rest with the idea that they would somehow be able to judge the value of arguments and even other posters and that i think is a very bad idea.

But as you say yourself below, we already do make such judgements individually. This would simply lend some transparent discussion to the process people are already engaged in. As for placing "certain posters above the rest", how does non-binding power and invitation to commentary place anyone "above"? Who has been excluded? Who has been told "you may not participate"?


it creates a hierarchy on the board and implies that the juriers' opinions are somehow more important than those of everyone else. let's do what we have always done and have the debates and each of use decide in our own hearts and minds who is right and who won.

We can't voice and openly debate our own hearts and minds, share them, debate the debates themselves, with no binding power on anyone? EDIT You can, of course, "vigorously oppose" our own "free wheeling discussions", simply because we dare discuss the discussions, but can you bar it?EDIT (sorry, the original was phrased poorly, my bad)

There is no hierachy here. No one will be able to credibly say "Ha! The Jury sided with me", and if they do, it will contrary to the juries charter itself.

What the jury will do, is allow for a forum within (not above) the forum, and if you feel it may become "royal" or "hierarchical" or somehow elitist, we simply make the jury threads open post, where even people who chose not to sit on the jury can throw in, with whatever credibility they have earned, and with as much authority as any juror, which is none.

You don't have to join in, but if the discussion you advocate is truly free, it shouldn't bar some of us choosing to examine and debate the merits of the arguments and the dynamic in which they are delivered and received.

If you want to spend your time deciding, in your heart and mind, who is "right" and who "won", that's fine, but the purpose here is to examine, both amongst one another and introspectively, why and how we arrive at those things.

one the technical side, how would your jury work, would you have one giant jury thread or would you have different threads for each issue the jury was debating? would these threads be considered open to all posters or would they be like closed gameplay threads?

one the technical side, how would your jury work, would you have one giant jury thread or would you have different threads for each issue the jury was debating?

Different threads for each debate thread being examined, with anyone having participated in the examined debate being asked to refrain from rating it, as a matter of form to avoid conflict of interest, and to prevent the meta-thread becoming a mere rehash or continuance.


would these threads be considered open to all posters or would they be like closed gameplay threads?

I'm sorry, I'm not familiar with the gameplay side of nationstates, and I was not aware that one could close a thread in that manner.

I can't speak for what the eventual mass of the jury will decide, but my model as envisioned would allow anyone to post. As for the voting, we could limit it to the first 6, 9, 12, or more people wanting to be jurors, with the only practical limitation being how many jurors can be reasonably kept track of.

If each juror's review and scoring can be kept to under four or five posts, it seems to me that as many as 20 jurors could participate without clogging the thread as unreasonable.

As a matter of respect for those not into this, the jury could limit itself to one or two active rating threads at a time, refraining from opening the next until one of the other two is concluded.

i don't actually do the roleplaying part of the ns forums, but i think you can on the gameplay boards ask that a thread be closed to people not included in the roleplaying... i could however be wrong.

I'm not particularly understanding the point of this. Sure, you rate a debate thread based on the value of the debate as well as the content; however, what will this 'score' ultimately prove? "This thread is better than this other thread"? "This thread is not a worthy discussion on said topic?" Personally, I see it as an over-examination of the forum in general. I understand that this is supposed to give a sort of examination of the debaters in the general forum; however, I don't really feel like a jury for this sort of thing is really even needed.

I'm not particularly understanding the point of this. Sure, you rate a debate thread based on the value of the debate as well as the content; however, what will this 'score' ultimately prove?

Any literary debate, review, or evaluation can't really claim to prove anything categorically. But much like one could comment on televised political debates or on the merits of a given non-fiction book on a given subject, the meta-debate is on how the debaters made their case, how it was reacted to, and why.


"This thread is better than this other thread"? "This thread is not a worthy discussion on said topic?"

I should clarify, the premise of relevance here is less about the thread on its topic, and more "this poster made responses outside the scope of the thread in this way and I think it resulted in this loss of cogency, in my opinion, what could I be missing" or sometimes instead "this poster made a highly salient point, I found it convincing on this level or that, but it was responded to thusly, lets examine why".

The threads themselves will not be rated so much as the manner in which they were debated by two or more contributors. We comment on one another's debate style all the time; it is usually snarky, and not often well received. This is a chance to do it by third party observers, in an utterly non-enforcable way, the same way a reviewer might comment on an album or an orator.


Personally, I see it as an over-examination of the forum in general. I understand that this is supposed to give a sort of examination of the debaters in the general forum; however, I don't really feel like a jury for this sort of thing is really even needed.

Perhaps it isn't needed in any sort of urgent way; the forum will obviously endure if it never gets off the ground.

But consider the opportunity to learn here; it may at least be possible that certain themes will emerge, to sound out the very culture of nationstates.

The jury's responses, in the aggregate and over time, might reveal abiding and pervasive characteristics, not necessarily of a given poster, but of the aggregate society of nationstates, how and why it argues and advocates, rather than merely who and what.

I do not guarantee that such data will emerge or even be meaningful; but is the attempt so objectionable? Is the chance itself worth tolerating one or two extra threads amidst all the others?

This sounds cool. Can I join?

This sounds cool. Can I join?

Okay, but remember that this is still Max's ground, we're essentially guests here, and we are subject to the moderators, regardless of what excercise we engage in.

That being the case, your sig "mods are dicks" (such as you presently appear to have) seems like an ongoing flame. That is not my judgement to make, but those who do make such decisions are the real power here.

May I ask if you are prepared to make assessments of the examined posters and threads that are more meaningful?

Mods are dicks doesn't mean moderators, it's the guys on scooters from the 1960s who used to go around smashing stuff up.

And yes, I am willing to make assessments of the examined posters and threads that are more meaningful.

Mods are dicks doesn't mean moderators, it's the guys on scooters from the 1960s who used to go around smashing stuff up.

My apologies, I was unfamiliar with the term.

No, it's fine.the majority of people on here aren't English so I should've realised.

And yes, I am willing to make assessments of the examined posters and threads that are more meaningful.

Well, I guess that makes you J#2.

I suppose a week should hopefully be sufficient to gauge how much interest there will be, or if the nature of the thread needs to be modified to better comply with forum policy.

I hope we can get as many as 12 jurors, but even 6 should allow for an attempt at the idea.

If there are more who want to contribute, that will be great.

Sign me up --- it definitely sounds like an intriguing idea. Forcing oneself to step back from the issue and take a look at the quality of the debate is also an excellent method of considering something, and often a good way to learn new debating ability.

I can't serve on the jury, I get bored too easily. Besides, I'm distractable and ... oh, yeah .. prejudiced, yeah, that's it, prejuduced in favor of logic and facts. My prejudice in favor of logic and facts alone disqualifies from serving on a jury.

sounds like a good way to procrastinate, I'll do it.

Sign me up, Ammu. Sounds intriguing.

Sign me up --- it definitely sounds like an intriguing idea. Forcing oneself to step back from the issue and take a look at the quality of the debate is also an excellent method of considering something, and often a good way to learn new debating ability.

That makes you J#3, welcome.

I can't serve on the jury, I get bored too easily. Besides, I'm distractable and ... oh, yeah .. prejudiced, yeah, that's it, prejuduced in favor of logic and facts. My prejudice in favor of logic and facts alone disqualifies from serving on a jury.

My hope is that logic (or at least a probing of what axioms are prevalent here) will play a key roll, but obviously mileage will vary.

Well, let me know if you change your mind.

sounds like a good way to procrastinate, I'll do it.

You're J#4 then, welcome.

Sign me up, Ammu. Sounds intriguing.

You're J#5, Tange'r. Welcome.

They're all Guilty.

They're all Guilty.

Heh, sounds like the jury of Kryptonian authorities at Zod's trial...

Seriously, I imagine we're almost all occasionally guilty of the things this jury will be looking for; by examining it and discussing it, maybe some of our own endemic bad habits might be observed more transparently.

Heh, sounds like the jury of Kryptonian authorities at Zod's trial...

Well, you'd be inclined to be grumpy too, if you had to spend your working hours surrounded by cheap Hula-Hoops masquerading as special effects. It's like the editors looked at that revolving rubbish and just said "ah, fuck it, nobody'll care, it's SUPERMAN."

Well, you'd be inclined to be grumpy too, if you had to spend your working hours surrounded by cheap Hula-Hoops masquerading as special effects. It's like the editors looked at that revolving rubbish and just said "ah, fuck it, nobody'll care, it's SUPERMAN."

Well, when your alien planet is a foam glacier, and your alien court room is a dark room with big projected heads, the hula hoop was at least a non-static effect...

So, we've got six including me. What does everybody say we leave this up another 5 or 6 days, to see if anybody else wants in, and then take a dry run at looking at a thread?

Sign me up, Ammu. Sounds intriguing.
Not having seen ya on in a while, i hadn't volunteered ya (although i was intending to today.) :)

What's the point of this?

At worst it will be ignored, at best it will be pretentious.

I can see the point of an NSG discussion thread, a thread devoted simply to NSG. It might have summaries of longer threads, point to some good debates worth reading and alert us to anyone going off the rails for pure amusement.

Yet having certain people judge a thread?

Just seems a little hi-falutin' to me.

What's the point of this?

At worst it will be ignored, at best it will be pretentious.

I can see the point of an NSG discussion thread, a thread devoted simply to NSG. It might have summaries of longer threads, point to some good debates worth reading and alert us to anyone going off the rails for pure amusement.

Yet having certain people judge a thread?

Just seems a little hi-falutin' to me.

Don't be so judgemental. :p

Don't be so judgemental. :p

Indeed, I find this thread guilty as charged on all counts and recommend the death sentence by thread derailment.

http://broadsides.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/01/farside-dumb-bunny.gif

What's the point of this?

At worst it will be ignored, at best it will be pretentious.

I can see the point of an NSG discussion thread, a thread devoted simply to NSG. It might have summaries of longer threads, point to some good debates worth reading and alert us to anyone going off the rails for pure amusement.

Yet having certain people judge a thread?

Just seems a little hi-falutin' to me.It takes all kinds. 'sides, there's the oft-mentioned "ignore" factor. *shrug*
Can't fault at least *half* the frequenters here on that whole "pretentious" thing. Seriously.

It takes all kinds. 'sides, there's the oft-mentioned "ignore" factor. *shrug*
Can't fault at least *half* the frequenters here on that whole "pretentious" thing. Seriously.

What I'd like, and it's really all about me here, is a kind of NSG Bulletin, a sort of 'hey, did anyone see that guy flip his nut at Katganistan in the X thread?'.

I don't read all the threads, I'd like a little more service given all the money I spend on my monthly NSG member payments to Ardchoille.

What's the point of this?

At worst it will be ignored, at best it will be pretentious.

I can see the point of an NSG discussion thread, a thread devoted simply to NSG. It might have summaries of longer threads, point to some good debates worth reading and alert us to anyone going off the rails for pure amusement.

Yet having certain people judge a thread?

Just seems a little hi-falutin' to me.

Perhaps the term jury is evoking a connotation of authority and finality that is not commeasurate with what I'm trying to describe.

Think of it more like reviewers, but with numbers so we can try to mine some data out of it.

And bear in mind, its the jurors themselves that are essentially being studied. Why did they find this post compelling and that one less so? How did this clause detract from effective argument and that one augment the same?

Not "He sucks, and she's chili", but "I feel this post is wide of the mark and here's why".

Even just amongst the jurors, even if it is ignored (which actually might serve some experimental value, if the meta threads don't provide some kind of observer-effect feedback), the jurors will be able to explore what they value and respond to in rhetoric and why.

What I'd like, and it's really all about me here, is a kind of NSG Bulletin, a sort of 'hey, did anyone see that guy flip his nut at Katganistan in the X thread?'.Don't those usually end up in Moderation? I always swing 'round there first as t'is. :)

I'd like a little more service given all the money I spend on my monthly NSG member payments to Ardchoille.All your spendings for her and you don't get service .... hmmm ... :confused:

Perhaps the term jury is evoking a connotation of authority and finality that is not commeasurate with what I'm trying to describe.

Think of it more like reviewers, but with numbers so we can try to mine some data out of it.

And bear in mind, its the jurors themselves that are essentially being studied. Why did they find this post compelling and that one less so? How did this clause detract from effective argument and that one augment the same?

Not "He sucks, and she's chili", but "I feel this post is wide of the mark and here's why".

Even just amongst the jurors, even if it is ignored (which actually might serve some experimental value, if the meta threads don't provide some kind of observer-effect feedback), the jurors will be able to explore what they value and respond to in rhetoric and why.

There's a useful experiment called the Yellow Hat Gang. It was a video in Psychology 101 at university though I've never found it on the net. Essentially, in a playground, they give 4 kids yellow construction hats. That's it.

They become tyrants.

Don't those usually end up in Moderation? I always swing 'round there first as t'is. :)
All your spendings for her and you don't get service .... hmmm ... :confused:

She gets a lot of headaches apparently, that's what she tells me.

Phear my mad multi-quote skillz

All your spendings for her and you don't get service .... hmmm ... :confused:

Dude...

There's a useful experiment called the Yellow Hat Gang. It was a video in Psychology 101 at university though I've never found it on the net. Essentially, in a playground, they give 4 kids yellow construction hats. That's it.

They become tyrants.


But a tyrant can, by defintion, excercise power, autocratically even.

The very nature of this venue prevents us from exerting any power over anybody.

The Builder Bob fascist brigade can wall off the sand box, turn the swings into a "coercive questioning off-site facility", and start dictating merry-go-round rationing, but only because they can touch the other kids.

All we can do is consider and comment, and everyone else can do exactly the same.

And so far, rather than "yellow hats" being handed out as a distinction that the other "kids" might think represents some kind of authority, ours is "first come, first serve", preventing even the appearance of any kind of "annointing", much less one in actuality.

I'm going to wear a yellow construction hat to lecture tomorrow, and I'm betting the most I'll get is the occasional request to "do YMCA!"

Dude...
She's whalloped me *at least* once. I'm sure she'll understand it's the fear and incomprehension speaking. She ROCKS.

She's whalloped me *at least* once. I'm sure she'll understand it's the fear and incomprehension speaking. She ROCKS.

Whallop must be one of those Dutch words that I don't know what it means.
You know, like all of them.

She "whalloped" you?

Thats okay. I once told her she sucked as a moderator, and my use of satire sometimes is...unclear.

Well if anyone reading this wants to do a weekly NSG Update newsletter, I"d be very grateful.

I"d do it myself but I have neither the skill nor the application.

BTW,Hammurab.your name reminds me of a song by They Might Be Giants.

We've been driving around
From one end of this town to the other and back
But no one's ever seen us (No one's ever seen us)
Driving our Econoline van (And no one's ever heard of our band)
And no one's ever heard of our band

We're the Mesopotamians
Sargon, Hammurabi, Ashurbanipal, and Gilgamesh

Then they wouldn't understand a word we say
So we'll scratch it all down into the clay
Half believing there will sometime come a day
Someone gives a damn
Maybe when the concrete has crumbled to sand

We're the Mesopotamians
Sargon, Hammurabi, Ashurbanipal, and Gilgamesh

The Mesopotamish sun is beating down
And making cracks in the ground
But there's nowhere else to stand
In Mesopotamia (No one's ever seen us)
The kingdom where we secretly reign (And no one's ever heard of our band)
The land where we invisibly rule

As the Mesopotamians
Sargon, Hammurabi, Ashurbanipal, and Gilgamesh

This is my last stick of gum
I'm going to cut it up so everybody else gets some
Except for Ashurbanipal, who says my haircut makes me look like a Mohenjo-Daren

Hey, Ashurbanipal
I'm a Mesopotamian
Sargon, Hammurabi, Ashurbanipal, and Gilgamesh

We're the Mesopotamians
Sargon, Hammurabi, Ashurbanipal, and Gilgamesh

"Hey, man, I thought that you were dead
I thought you crashed your car"
"No, man, I've been right here this whole time playing bass guitar
For the Mesopotamians"

We're the Mesopotamians
Sargon, Hammurabi, Ashurbanipal
Sargon, Hammurabi, Ashurbanipal, and Gilgamesh

We're the Mesopotamians
Sargon, Hammurabi, Ashurbanipal, and Gilgamesh

They Might Be Giants-The Mesopotamians.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jAMRTGv82Zo

BTW,Hammurab.your name reminds me of a song by They Might Be Giants.


I hadn't heard that one, but then, I haven't bought a new album since "Flood", not because I don't like it, I'm just not into much music.

I hadn't heard that one, but then, I haven't bought a new album since "Flood", not because I don't like it, I'm just not into much music.

yeah,i only heard of them on TVtropes.org.then,downloaded everything i could find.ain't big in Fnland.pretty much nobody has heard of them.

Hey, I'd be glad to be a juror` Count me in Hammurab! :D

Not having seen ya on in a while, i hadn't volunteered ya (although i was intending to today.) :)

Thanks in...advance? Retrospect? Erstwhile? Anyway? Where's Dr. Dan Streetmentioner when you need him?

I hadn't heard that one, but then, I haven't bought a new album since "Flood", not because I don't like it, I'm just not into much music.

"The Mesopotamians" is from a recent release called The Else. If you liked Flood, you should DEFINITELY pick up at least John Henry and Mink Car -- same brilliance, more textures due to more musicians....lots more fun overall.

I dont normally participate in these sort of things but an opportunity to be anonymously critical and judgemental? Thats no different then any other day for me so count me in.

Hey, I'd be glad to be a juror` Count me in Hammurab! :D

I think that makes you J#6, pick a chair, no smoking in the bathroom.

I dont normally participate in these sort of things but an opportunity to be anonymously critical and judgemental? Thats no different then any other day for me so count me in.

Cool, you'd be J#7.

May your anonymity be blended and tempered with insightful critique and thoughtful judgement.

Thanks in...advance? Retrospect? Erstwhile? Anyway?That, yes. :)

Istanbul, not Constantinople. *nods*

That, yes. :)

Istanbul, not Constantinople. *nods*

the song that inspired me to do a thread about the namechange of Istanbul.absolutely great song.

the song that inspired me to do a thread about the namechange of Istanbul.absolutely great song.I might be wrong, but i could *swear* i heard an OLDER version of it from two OTHER dudes.
Great song, yes. :)

I might be wrong, but i could *swear* i heard an OLDER version of it from two OTHER dudes.
Great song, yes. :)

TMBG's is indeed a cover, and a damned good one.

The song's popularity dates back to 1953, when The Four Lads made it a hit. Bette Midler covered it in 1977. I can't seem to find a date for it's actual composition on a skimming Google search, so I'll assume it was 1953 unless someone with even less of a life can find an earlier date.

I might be wrong, but i could *swear* i heard an OLDER version of it from two OTHER dudes.
Great song, yes. :)

yeah,it was a cover but i haven't heard the original version.

Whallop must be one of those Dutch words that I don't know what it means.
You know, like all of them.

She "whalloped" you?

Thats okay. I once told her she sucked as a moderator, and my use of satire sometimes is...unclear.

It's English for whacked.

It's English for whacked.

Which is Italian for "1st degree murder, especially when associated with conspiracy and in collusion with orgnaized crime"?

Okay, so that looks like Eight, including me. If everybody is agreeable, we'll pick a thread to take a stab at this weekend, maybe Friday?

Hammurab, I'm too bored to read the thread...what's this about?

Hammurab, I'm too bored to read the thread...what's this about?

We're going to get together and review and rate debate threads, by criteria of cogency, style, whether a poster has or hasn't addressed/ignored a central issue.

Then, we're going to mine it for data to see if there are emergent themese in why we find certain kinds of debate more compelling, or by contrast, more fallacious.

We're going to get together and review and rate debate threads, by criteria of cogency, style, whether a poster has or hasn't addressed/ignored a central issue.

Then, we're going to mine it for data to see if there are emergent themese in why we find certain kinds of debate more compelling, or by contrast, more fallacious.

so....you want me to be critical of people?

sweet.

so....you want me to be critical of people?

sweet.

Sweet as bananas Foster licked from out the ass cleft of a Raelian angel, dude.