Lets jettison the insane asylum!

[Dirty Dog]

....but if I took an old-fashioned anal thermometer, and shoved it up your ***, it'd probably read 98.6F just as accurately after a couple of uncomfortable minutes....:lfao:

Rectal temps will generally register 1F higher than oral, so your example ought to say 99.6F. I'm just saying...


Folks, let's try to remember that this isn't about ANY INDIVIDUAL, and we need to keep it that way. And yes, I know I've been guilty too, so there's no need to point it out.
Let's keep this on topic: The Study is, generally, a mess. Moderating it might cause the thermometer mentioned above to be snapped by the tension of the sphincter. What can/should be done about this?

 

[granfire]

Rectal temps will generally register 1F higher than oral, so your example ought to say 99.6F. I'm just saying...


Folks, let's try to remember that this isn't about ANY INDIVIDUAL, and we need to keep it that way. And yes, I know I've been guilty too, so there's no need to point it out.
Let's keep this on topic: The Study is, generally, a mess. Moderating it might cause the thermometer mentioned above to be snapped by the tension of the sphincter. What can/should be done about this?

well, yeah, it isn't about one individual...
But it would help if the individuals would not jump up and scream 'HERE' when some misdeed is mentioned....

 

[seasoned]

I don't really go into the study that much, but I do enjoy the rational discussions at times that happen there. Me, not knowing that much about politics, at times get value from different opinions, and would hate to see it go entirely.

I believe Tgace makes a good point, that has been made many many times before.

I say "Ignore, stay out, comment and debate intelligently", but, if you do get involved, play nice and don't get personal. Life is to short to get so worked up over other people's opinions.

The open apology that was given by Elder999, I feel was sincere, but I don't think it was excepted by offending parties. That would be a good place to start.

From Bob's post, it may be to late to have business as usual, and changes are coming. Whether you're a supporting member or just a free loader, the rules pertain to you the same. This is the best site on the net because of the set up and caring people, lets stop ruining it, because I can't imagine what else I would be doing at 12:43 am on a Friday night.

Time for bed... see ya.

 

[Tames D]

Wow. How long does this stuff (********)have to keep coming up before Bob gets rid of the Study. This is a Martial Arts Forum right? Let the kids find another playground.

 

[arnisador]

Whether you're a supporting member or just a free loader

Wait--I'm a freeloader?

 

[Tames D]

Wait--I'm a freeloader?

You are no freeloader. You are a valuable contributor to this site. I enjoy reading your posts.

 

[ballen0351]

You guys crack me up. You have no self control. You cry about how bad the study is yet you post here in the study daily. If you don't like the study don't read it don't post in it. Have some self control and stay away from it. If you are cry its a martial arts forum then go.post there. But noo we can't expect anyone to act like adults and exercise self discipline. Its easy you don't like the study don't come here

 

[Dirty Dog]

You guys crack me up. You have no self control. You cry about how bad the study is yet you post here in the study daily. If you don't like the study don't read it don't post in it. Have some self control and stay away from it. If you are cry its a martial arts forum then go.post there. But noo we can't expect anyone to act like adults and exercise self discipline. Its easy you don't like the study don't come here

The problem isn't a lack of self control by those of us who rarely visit the Cesspool. It's a lack of self control by those who DO spend a lot of time in here.

 

[Tgace]

The problem isn't a lack of self control by those of us who rarely visit the Cesspool. It's a lack of self control by those who DO spend a lot of time in here.

That makes no sense. If they were put on ignore or just not responded to there would be no problem. Y'all are obsessed with proving that someone is wrong on the internet.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk

 

[ballen0351]

The problem isn't a lack of self control by those of us who rarely visit the Cesspool. It's a lack of self control by those who DO spend a lot of time in here.

How would you know if you didn't come to the cesspool? And I would hardly consider you someone that rarely visits so if your so bothered by it stop posting in it.

 

[Xue Sheng]

So here is what seems to be going on in the thread
there are those that are for the study
those that against the study
bob is fed up
bill is defending himself
and Arni is a freeloader

But with all of this I cannot figure out if it all about the study or all about bill

 

[Chris Parker]

Okay, I've watched this over the last day or two, and here's my take on the current situation...

The Study is meant to be for serious discussion of non-martial arts related topics. We're all agreed on that, yeah? The essential problem is that, really, that isn't what it's being used for. It has become a home of single agenda ideals and for the spouting of rhetoric. That's not discussion. Bill has taken the brunt of the blame for this, both from other members, and from himself (by taking the approach that this thread, although incredibly similar to others from the past here, predating his arrival), and has come up to defend his stance. Unfortunately, for better or worse, this defense has simply shown the biggest problem I currently see in the study... namely, that it is not being used for it's purpose: discussion of non-martial arts related topics.

Oh, don't get me wrong, there's plenty of non-martial arts related threads in there.... but very little discussion. Instead, we have Bill (sorry to single you out, but hey, you did that yourself to begin with here) posting what he considers "facts"... which really are little more than highly biased and misleading spins on facts, more in line with the concept of opinion, rather than the actual simple facts themselves. People take those opinions, and argue facts against them... but Bill doesn't answer the counter argument. Instead, he posts more of his "facts". From the way he described it here (and correct this if it's wrong, Bill), he feels that he's providing credible sourced information, and is using that to express his argument. But the thing is, that's not discussion. It's parroting, it's spouting rhetoric, it's hiding behind someone else's opinion. If you have an opinion yourself, or a reasoned thought about something, put it down. And be willing to hear others.

Recently I decided to get involved in a thread (in the Study) on guns "saving lives". I was on the side of more gun control, but looked at a larger impression, based on my observation of the US, the membership here, friends on facebook, and my personal study (as well as scholastic study) of history, psychology, cultural sociology, and so on. My posts were my opinions, and my take on the entire situation. There were a few things that other members called me on, with them either asking for me to present a solution to the issues I'd identified (in my opinion), or to challenge my interpretation of some facts in historical and legal aspects. Each of the people who engaged me in that manner did so in the form of a discussion... which lead me to realize, for one thing, that in some areas I had been given a more "idealized" version of some history, that had other interpretations. So I learnt from that. And hopefully others might have gotten some food for thought out of my posts as well.

This thread (the guns-save-lives one) was started by Bill. However, he didn't supply any counters to the discussion being put forth, he simply said (essentially) "Oh yeah? Here's more examples of the one thing I'm talking about". That's not a discussion. And that is the common trait we see.

There is a lot of talk in this thread about "well, just don't go in there.... just ignore it..." But here's the thing. A lot of us like good discussion. Some of us thrive on it. We like it when people challenge us, we like it when we're argued with. In my case, it helps me solidify, or clarify my own opinions and beliefs on things... and if my opinions or beliefs don't hold up against the argument, I can change them when armed with better information. So the Study can be a great place to go, for that purpose. But if all you get is "fingers-in-the-ears" parroting of others highly skewed opinions, spouting extremist rhetoric at you, without there even being the image of listening to what you're saying, why would we visit the threads there? Honestly, I see a lot of Bills threads and posts, and want to add to the discussion, but there's no discussion being had. There's just Bill, spouting a single belief, with his only support being those ultra right-wing personalities (who freely admit that their job fits more into "entertainment" than "information"... so why they're being looked to as "reputable sources" by Bill I can only put down to a lack of critical thinking), completely ignoring every post that demonstrates the issues and problems with what he's presenting. That's not a discussion, it's one person who refuses to listen. Why would I waste my time joining that?

In the end, no matter how much of the content is political, social, welfare-related, gun-control related, or anything else, if there isn't actual discussion being had, that's what's keeping people out of it. Ignoring it, really, doesn't solve the problem. The only thing I can think of is to encourage actual posting of discussion/debate. Because the biggest problem with the Study right now is that that isn't happening. And it's not happening because a few people simply won't engage.

Remember, the Study is for the discussion of non-martial arts related topics... not the badgering of others with them.

Anyway, that's where I sit. I'll wait and see what Bob is doing with it.

 

[billc]

Actually, I do much of both Chris Parker but people seem to be fixated on the articles I cite to put in a researched point of view that doesn't agree with their point of view. I have "discussions" here where people say I don't know what I am talking about, and they will simply state "facts." Mind you, they are just putting these "facts" into the post and we have to accept them as "facts." I post my sources so that whoever reads it can decide on the validity of my "facts," versus what I just put on the screen as facts. I also comment as well...

Besides our God given right to defend ourselves from human and other predators, there is also a lack of history in some of these arguments. Most of the poster here, if not all, live in stable, countries with the rule of law, a reasonably responsive government with a means of putting grievances before the government....now. To say that these same countries will be i the same condition 50 to 100 years ago is just not right. Would armed citizens be able to defeat a modern army...maybe, maybe not but they stand a much better chance to resist, if they have access to all types of firearms, at a minimum, the same weapon as the common infantry soldier they might have to fight.

It is not our right to decide for future generations what tools they are allowed to have to secure their freedom or their security, should the central government fail to meet its duties, by banning assault rifles today, and handguns or other firearms tomorrow.

Do you think the people of Germany foresaw the death camps in 1930? Would the victims have been worse off if they had access to "assault" rifles? Can you garuantee that a situation like that will never again happen in a modern nation? If not, then you don't have a right to disarm future generations of citizens.

This was part of my response to the other side of the "discussion," from the gun thread you wrote about. It is my own thought on part of the issue. The post also included really intelligent insights by Larry Correia an author and firearms instructor, so really it was a combination of the two. I still don't know why how I post, or what I post bothers some people so much. Many of the people here post things I disagree with, and have attacked me personally as they did it, and yet, I either stopped reading their posts, or I just counter posted. How hard is that supposed to be?

 

[Tgace]

What's keeping you from ignoring Bill and continuing a "discussion" with others?

It boils down to "Bill pisses me off and I have to comment on it".

The ignore user option is here for a reason. You all just lack self-control.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk

 

[elder999]

the Study can be a great place to go, for that purpose. But if all you get is "fingers-in-the-ears" parroting of others highly skewed opinions, spouting extremist rhetoric at you, without there even being the image of listening to what you're saying, why would we visit the threads there? Honestly, I see a lot of Bills threads and posts, and want to add to the discussion, but there's no discussion being had. There's just Bill, spouting a single belief, with his only support being those ultra right-wing personalities (who freely admit that their job fits more into "entertainment" than "information"... so why they're being looked to as "reputable sources" by Bill I can only put down to a lack of critical thinking), completely ignoring every post that demonstrates the issues and problems with what he's presenting.That's not a discussion, it's one person who refuses to listen. Why .

QFT. :asian:

 

[billc]

Another example. In my Thread on the Republican national convention Master Dan put out a list of "Facts," one of which was that George Bush caused the 2008 financial meltdown. Now, I can say, no he didn't. Then everyone would say, "you're an idiot, yes he did, everyone knows that." I choose to go to articles that support the "discussion," of the issue that shows that no, he didn't cause the mortgage meltdown, and in fact he tried to reign in Fanny and Freddy and was blocked by Barney Frank and Chris Dodd, and some republicans. Now, if I just state that, the response I get is, "you're an idiot, everyone knows George Bush caused the financial collapse." When I link and quote articles, by people paid to research these topics and write about them, it isn't just me saying it, it is an actual professional journalist or academic saying it, or a blog that links to a professional journalist or academic researcher that leads to the information. Yet this isn't seen as being part of the "discussion," just me copy and pasting. It is far easier to say I am a troll, or an idiot, when I just say, "No, Bush didn't cause the financial meltdown," without supporting evidence. I choose to support my "facts," with actual sources, and then let the reader decide to believe it, disregard it or see that perhaps, there is more to the argument than one side saying "everybody knows..." when in fact that isn't true.

Instead, everyone complains about what I post, how I post it, they say I intentionally go right up to the line of breaking the rules "but know how not to cross it," or call me a troll in actual word or insinuation. Yes, that always adds to the discussion, doesn't it.

On the issue of national socialists, I cite world leading Ph.D's in economics, one of whom is a Nobel Prize winning economist, I also cite Jonah Goldberg, and John J. Ray ( behavioral sciences) and other Ph.D's in complimentary fields such as political science. Yeah, that is a weak way to discuss an issue since everyone just takes my word for everything. I give hard opinion from experts, and I am a troll...

 

[Xue Sheng]

OK my questions has been answered...its all about bill

 

[Chris Parker]

Actually, I do much of both Chris Parker but people seem to be fixated on the articles I cite to put in a researched point of view that doesn't agree with their point of view. I have "discussions" here where people say I don't know what I am talking about, and they will simply state "facts." Mind you, they are just putting these "facts" into the post and we have to accept them as "facts." I post my sources so that whoever reads it can decide on the validity of my "facts," versus what I just put on the screen as facts. I also comment as well...

Bill, I'm going to be blunt. Your "facts" aren't facts. They are opinions with the facts either distorted, or removed. That's why your sources aren't taken as reliable... that, and the detail that you always only go to the one (type of) source. There's no balance to your take on things, which is where the other people's opinions can come into it. But as you don't ever actually take on board anything anyone says that even slightly contradicts your take on things, or even parts of what you post that contradicts your take on things, then there's no discussion. Really, you're fine to have nothing but ultra-right wing ideals and opinions... but if you don't actually engage in dialogue (which, for the bulk of your postings, you don't), then there's no point.

I mean, we could talk about your post on "Actor Doesn't Like Southerners" thread... you completely missed the context of the comments that the actor was talking about (as did the article you cited), despite everyone pointing it out. You went on to complain that Jeff Bridges doesn't like the US because a particular speech a character of his gives in a TV show was "gold" for him as an actor... let me tell you, as someone with a slightly theatrical background, I'd love to have had things with that emotion and power to say.... and did you hear the second half of the speech? Or see the program at all (this was before the program had even debuted, from memory)? The character you were lambasting is written as a Republican, not another "evil Alan Sorkin Democrat"... so you should have been on his side. In fact, he describes himself as such in the show, but he separates himself out from those ultra-conservative identifying souls as he believes "tornadoes are caused by high barometric pressure, not gay marriage". And the second half of the speech (the first half basically saying that no, America is not the greatest country on the planet) essentially was a rallying cry to all that America has achieved in the past, and what it could achieve again... a cry to the great potential that exists in the land... a call for people to rise up and be what they idealize themselves as, rather than seeking to blame others for all that is wrong, to achieve, rather than rest and wait to be given. Honestly, if you didn't see it, go back to the thread, and watch the clip Elder put up... it has it in full. As an actor, it's gold.

This was part of my response to the other side of the "discussion," from the gun thread you wrote about. It is my own thought on part of the issue. The post also included really intelligent insights by Larry Correia an author and firearms instructor, so really it was a combination of the two. I still don't know why how I post, or what I post bothers some people so much. Many of the people here post things I disagree with, and have attacked me personally as they did it, and yet, I either stopped reading their posts, or I just counter posted. How hard is that supposed to be?

Disagreeing isn't the thing, Bill... it's that you come across as not listening to a thing anyone else says, instead only interested in putting your agenda across. And yes, it becomes agenda when it is constant, consistent, and doesn't allow any deviation or discussion.

 

[billc]

Actually, I don't think I have ever mentioned Jeff Bridges in a post. This is a great example of me stating my "opinion," on the subject and people not agreeing with it so I am a troll for discussing it.

then there is this...

completely ignoring every post that demonstrates the issues and problems with what he's presenting.That's not a discussion, it's one person who refuses to listen. Why .

I don't ignore those posts, I disagree with those posts and go on to post what I think and the opinions and research that I agree with. I will not be brow beaten into agreeing with something I believe is false or wrong just because "Everybody Knows..." when they actually don't know.

The character in the Sorkin show is written as being a Republican because they are trying to pretend to be "fair and objective," by having a Republican go on diatribes against Republicans. Yeah, that's fair and balanced. Oh wait, would that be my opinion, I guess it would be.

 

[Tgace]

Sigh...

You cant even ignore him here....