Forums | MacLife

Honestly, I abandoned the ID discussion long ago so I don't care what is done with them

What if all posts in MoFT were changed so that the poster had a randomized name... like each time you logged in, and posted, your name would change to a number, or some random word, and it would stay that way for a session (avatars, sigs, etc., could be stripped or randomized as well). We should try it out one day...

FREE HAT

For the most part, there are only three or four of us who are really involved in the discussion in that sticky, anyhow...for whatever that's worth.  I would say that those four pretty much include only res, jerwin, tycho, and me...with occasional input from others (cbaines, Sassy).

...again, for whatever that's worth...

personally, I don't care if it remains a sticky or goes "free range".  I'll argue wherever it is because I can't stand to see science (and science education) attacked for no good reason.

Hank Rearden wrote:

For the most part, there are only three or four of us who are really involved in the discussion in that sticky, anyhow...for whatever that's worth.  I would say that those four pretty much include only res, jerwin, tycho, and me...with occasional input from others (cbaines, Sassy).

...again, for whatever that's worth...

personally, I don't care if it remains a sticky or goes "free range".  I'll argue wherever it is because I can't stand to see science (and science education) attacked for no good reason.

I agree with Hank. I like these discussions. Learn something from every one of them, including res'. Do what you think is best, Oats. You are an excellent moderator in my opinion.

So what do the rules say about lubing each other up for administration of flanged enema nozzles?

:PMs Oaty:

Last edited by Freakout Jackson (2005-10-20 3:36 pm)

Oats, I understand and approve why you shut down my suggestion for a SchnickySchnack dictionary, but you have to admit his neo-english is entertaining. Some people have a 'flair' for language and SS is one of them. Shame we can't make a record of them. And, that's a compliment, son!

Phydeaux wrote:

Let's start a Wiki. Seriously.

How about it Oats? U game?

Want to see a discussion be destroyed?

XYZ wrote:

AP wrote:

And what if the unthinkable happens and Cheney is indicted?

Cheney has said he is not interested in pursuing the Republican nomination for president in 2008. So Bush's choice to replace his running mate would tip the president's hand on his preference for 2008. Florida governor and first brother, Jeb Bush?

Sassy wrote:

There was a so called 'expert' on this subject on CSPAN recently about who, currently, he predicts are likely candidates for both parties in 2008. Jeb wasn't mentioned, and no one in the audience asked about him.

Who was mentioned: George Allen for the Republicans. Hillary Clinton for the Democrats. He cautioned on Clinton because he suggested that someone from the south or the midwest, based on current history, would be favored by the right leaning independents who are the swing vote. He very strongly suggested that the Democrats HAD to move to the middle.

Course, this is based on current events and people currently in the news. I disagree with him but what the smurf do I know! He gets big bucks for his opinion so he must be correct.

Nefarious Bidding wrote:

Jed, a chip off the blockhead, is not the dim bulb that Little George is. 

But I can never imagine the country would want a 3rd Bush in the White House.  Enough, we say.

Duke Stratosphere wrote:

Personally, I wish Jeb had been elected in 2000 instead of George.  At least he knows how to handle a smurfing hurricane. I haven't really investigated him a lot, but I haven't seen anything that suggests he'd be any worse than his stupid brother.

Goosey Loosey wrote:

This thread really confused me at first.

Chicken Little wrote:

Oh, well, Jesus Christ. ZOMBIE!

Chicken Little wrote:

HEY! HEY! I FOUND THE CULPRIT! BLAH BLAH BLAH THREADS! HE SHOULD BE BANNED!

Chicken Little wrote:

You are in such big trouble now.

Chicken Little wrote:

Ignorance of the rules is no excuse. ...You should check more often, Chuckles. (Commence posting pages of giant photos!)

posters wrote:

Ann Coulter and other irrelevant posts.

XYZ on topic wrote:

... .. ... .. .. .. ..

Goosey Loosey wrote:

Members of the media can kiss my ass!

Rules wrote:

1) Don't be a jerk (DBAJ)
- The MacAddict forums-wide edition of "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." - When in doubt, DBAJ.

2) No flamewars.

- Solve personal conflicts at the lowest possible level.  If not quickly in a thread, then take it to email.
- If you can't solve it between yourselves, contact a Mod or Admin.
- Do not take it upon yourself to chase someone from thread to thread to heckle them.

3) No SPAM.

4) Stay on topic.

- Don't derail threads.  Someone probably put some effort and/or thought into creating them.
- No personal attacks.  If you disagree with something, refute the post, don't flame the messenger.

No spam includes not posting pages of huge images. Stay on topic means don't derail topics with huge images, talk about Steyr, and heckling about the Rules. No flamewars means no derailment with huge images, screaming all-caps posts, irrelevant talk about Steyr, and heckling about the rules. And, don't be a jerk means don't do anything you did, Duke, and then start another topic to rub it in more.

Oatmeal. When someone grossly violates 5 rules, I find it hard to accept the least important rule, one that you changed, is the one that prompted your action. You used to agree that topics that are still relevant can be continued. Nothing about Debbie's Jeb Bush topic was out of date. The discussion was working just fine until Duke realized he could be a jerk at my expense. The topic was destroyed and the moderators were fine with that. That makes this forum very poor indeed.

You can say "well, it was a zombie" all you like, but the fact is that you used to think that it's ok to continue relevant discussions. Even Benighted agreed after a long debate on the subject that locking topics simply because of the date of creation or last post is illogical. You can say "I'm a mod so what I say goes", or "might makes right", but might makes right is not logical. Might makes might, not right. Truth is not determined by convenience.

This place should be a place for civilized adult discourse, not a kiddie playpen. The behavior in Debbie's topic by Duke and even somewhat by Shnicky is abominable, and you're not helping this forum by promoting it.

Last edited by XYZ (2005-10-24 1:05 pm)

GUI! The bots need resetting!

XYZ, perhaps if you had resuscitated the thread with something more than a small news snippet it wouldn't have caused so much offence. Occasionally it makes sense to bring back a thread that contained either a lot of heated discussion or interesting information. It doesn't follow that reviving a thread that everyone had forgotten and that had contained very little debate is a good plan, especially when it just causes confusion over when posts were made, and the new post contains very little content.

The topic was almost ten months old, I'm sure you could have taken the time to start a new one, with a bit more background, or just any content at all really. It's not like this was your life's work that got trashed, it was an AP news clipping.