Forums | MacLife

I's like to take this opportunity to share this comic, which of course reminded me greatly of MiniThink:

ShnickyShnack wrote:

I's like to take this opportunity to share this comic, which of course reminded me greatly of MiniThink:

http://www.partiallyclips.com/storage/surgeon_lg.png

That's awesome.  And, to top it off, I love the Rams.

ShnickyShnack wrote:

Hank Rearden wrote:

ShnickyShnack wrote:

I's like to take this opportunity to share this comic, which of course reminded me greatly of MiniThink:

http://www.partiallyclips.com/storage/surgeon_lg.png

That's awesome.  And, to top it off, I love the Rams.

You poor, tasteless smurf.

Fixed.

Zetetic Apparatchik wrote:

FFS another good webcomic with 1000+ backstrips...

Yes, but are the apropos?

KingFred wrote:

ShnickyShnack wrote:

Zetetic Apparatchik wrote:

FFS another good webcomic with 1000+ backstrips...

Yes, but are the apropos?

Are the apropos what?

They. Smartass,

I just want to register a protest:

The new psuedo rule Oatmeal has in this place regarding evolution/religion is getting ridiculous.

I can understand where a thread is explicitly dealing with a battle between ID or creationism against evolution gets put into a sticky, because it consolidates it all. But when there is a thread about education/indoctrination/what-do-we-really-know that gets lumped in there simply because it touches on science or religion, or when a thread regarding cosmology and the nature of the universe does too, I think it exemplifies a prejudicial bias that actually stunts the board. It simply marginalizes topics which may otherwise be interesting, basically because it seems to irritate Oatie, and I dont really think its fair or reasonable. What if we did that for every thread someone felt was a boring or overly explored subject matter (Bush threads, red/blue state threads, neocons vs commieliberals, etc)?

I get it Oatmeal, youre sick of certain religious subjects. But you could just do like every other grown up and NOT click on subjects that are not your taste. You basically created a garbage bin and then make judgments for eveyone else over what is garbage and what isnt, and I think people can make up their own minds about that. Further, I dont think some of the threads being tossed in there are deserving of being lumped in with everything else in there.

Last edited by StaticAge (2005-09-19 2:35 pm)

I concur.

mo' ron wrote:

I do see what you're saying, but Res is pretty much the only person that argues for the YEC side. If all threads on that topic are going to end up the same way, it seems to make sense to keep them in the same place. It makes it easier to keep track of what was said to who, and who acknowledged what too. If perhaps there were other YECs who could help Res out (so he doesn't get frustrated, which he clearly is), having one thread would be a problem. But it's pretty much only Res backing the YEC.

So quaratine Res' opinions from everyone else? That still is ridiculous IMO. If there was only one black person or gay person, would it be cool to make a little sticky so all their threads about racism or homophobia go there so as not to "bother" anyone else?

Anyway, I'm not saying that YEC needs more arguments, but for crying out loud, anything that just gets close or touches on evolution gets banished there. Talking about aspects of cosmology or epistemology to me is a bit different than arguing straight up YEC or whatever. At this point if someone posted news on a medical breakthrough that mentioned "genetics" I would not be surprised if it got tossed into the garbage bin clustersmurf that is the evolution sticky.

Sorry I haven't replied sooner, I didn't see this until now (my topic notifications aren't coming in anymore).


The opening post from that thread:

oatmeal wrote:

As of this post we have five active Intelligent Design / Creation / Evolution threads going on at once.  That seems to more than qualify as "Duplicate Threads."

So let's try something different.  At least until we see how it works, this is the only place for new ID/Creation/Evolution posts.  New threads will be locked with a link to this thread.  I'll leave the ones that are already active alone; they're grandfathered in.

Or, if you think this is a horrible idea, say so (but be brief).

Please notice the last part, bolded for clarity here.  To date, you are the only person who has complained about this.  Hell, everyone else who commented thought it was a good idea. 

Duplicate topics aren't permitted, as per the rules; as I posted, we had five active topics running concurrently.  Most of the time I'm pretty lenient about that as long as they're not about exactly the same thing.  Since we tend to have so many Creation/ID/evolution threads, I figured this would be a good thing to try for at least a while.  So far it seems to be working out well.

mo' ron wrote:

His posts aren't being quarantined. He's free to post everywhere else. His particular posts though on Creationism, and everyone else's are all going to be in one, easy to access spot. It gives Res' posts more attention, if anything.

Yeah, it probably works the same way that free speech zones bring more attention to protestors.

StaticAge wrote:

All I am saying is, if its evolution, its evolution. But if its cosmology, or something else, let it live.

No, that topic is "Intelligent Design / Creation / Evolution."  That breaks down several ways.

YEC vs Old Earth Theory
Creation/ID vs Evolution
Creation/ID vs Big Bang
Creation/ID vs Darwinism
Creation/ID vs Science in general

more or less wrote:

what would be funny to me, is if we put all the gay issues in a sticky as well.  but, i like our gay members too much to suggest that.  but, in the name of minority rights, it does call into question fairness.

Tempting... but not right now.

more or less wrote:

however, i am often reminded that this forum is not a democracy.

In this case, however, I've asked for input.  A negative response would have canceled it out.   Like I said, the response has been overwhelmingly positive.

I avoid that sticky, even though I'd probably just read anyway -  you can only make so many snappy quips on ID after all .

It's become, last I ventured in there, probably a couple of weeks back, simply a 'res against the world' magnet. But with this particular "Giant Sticky Thread" set up (regardless of subject heading, ID, gay marriage, Bush, etc.) why bother going in if any new points on any particular issue is dumped into this vile soup that already has it's own points on the go? New issues will simply drown.

It's dumb and, yes, I did object to it earlier on, even if Oats says no one else raised an objection.

From post #14 in the evolution quagmire:

KingFred wrote:

I think this "one thread shall bind them" idea is not going to be helpful. Most of the threads on this particular topic start out with a specific issue, they simply degrade to the usual "res vs everybody else" back-and-forth volleys after a while. This is counterproductive. It removes the whole purpose of starting threads because a specific issue has come up somewhere. Might as well just create/evolve a whole new "Origins of the Earth" forum, then, so that there's at least a possibility of having different threads started based on specific points.

Will we soon have one permathread for all posts on government, gay issues, environment, etc.? What exactly does a permathread gain everybody?

This cesspool format is, IMHO, goofy. It would be akin to making all of MiniThink one messy, giant thread where you'd have to plow through every post on every issue in one long discombobulated discussion with several angles and points being debated at the same time. It's just not worth participating, even if simply as a reader.

And I really don't see the advantage to anyone here in amalgamating all discussions into one thread, other than (no offense, dude) making modding a smidge easier. But this comes at the glaring expense of clear discussion. So what if there are six threads all generally around one issue? ["Duplicate" topics are a separate item.] Those that aren't going anywhere will eventually die and drop off the front page or otherwise will be active and carry on. Just like any other topic. It would be no more stress on the server than if the 20 topics were completely different. This singular mess of supposedly semi-related topics simply deters people from joining and adding to it.

I think it's a crappy way to create/allow discussion. If this were the 1990's and there wasn't the technology to run separate threads, there'd be an excuse for the format. It's akin to going back to the ancient bulletin board system where there were no page breaks, all topics were under one "thread", you had to plow through hundreds of posts to try and follow the separate discussions, etc.. Why is it seen as useful to go back to that ancient format for specific issues? It certainly can't be to help the server; since each post ends up in the database anyway, it saves nothing. If there must be "One Giant Place" for such topics, then create a new forum for it so that sub-topics and specific or new issues can be given their own separate threads.

I call for a stop to this format: it completely sucks. But if Oats and/or the Mod Squad feel it needs to go on, I'm certainly not going to blow up or anything, I'll simply continue not reading it, as I suspect many others currently do as well. Which, to my mind, completely defeats the entire point of a bulletin board. As guardians of MAF, going with this format is certainly their right, even if I happen to think it's wrong.

It's their sandbox after all, they get to make the rules, even the poor ones.

oatmeal wrote:

Sorry, KF.  That's two.  Is there anyone else who thinks that corralled ID threads are too gamey and would prefer free range ID threads?

I'm not saying its a bad idea for certain aspects of those discussions, I'm saying you are being too general in what is considered as belonging in that sticky and some ideas are getting lost in the fray.