View Full Version : Demanding a new rule
Cronos Impera
10-18-2009, 20:46
I am sick of Orgahs giving answers in posts like "Lewis Caroll was a beaver" with absolute conviction, without assuming that opinion or citing a source for that statement. It sometimes gets me calling Mendill a Gunbortionist or nothingainer because such posts usually derail the thread and bring joycamptours for the Orgahs who posted in that thread.Than is Room 101 for the fool who gets annoyed (that is usually me).
So please mods, for the sake of OrgSoc do something about it.
If Orgah 1 posts:
"Lewis Caroll was a beaver"
(bogus)
(bogus)
(bogus)
(bogus)
You can save the thread by editing:
"Orgah 1 thinks Lewis Caroll was a beaver"
Its so incremental but it can mean the difference between a closed thread and a frontroomish Backroom.Thank you for your kindness.
Tratorix
10-18-2009, 22:07
What? :inquisitive:
InsaneApache
10-18-2009, 22:46
Must be mushroom season. :laugh4:
Louis VI the Fat
10-18-2009, 23:19
I call Meneldil a gunbortionist all the time, but I think him and me agree Lewis Caroll was a hamster.
pevergreen
10-19-2009, 00:05
I am sick of Orgahs giving answers in posts like "Lewis Caroll was a beaver" with absolute conviction, without assuming that opinion or citing a source for that statement. It sometimes gets me calling Mendill a Gunbortionist or nothingainer because such posts usually derail the thread and bring joycamptours for the Orgahs who posted in that thread.Than is Room 101 for the fool who gets annoyed (that is usually me).
So please mods, for the sake of OrgSoc do something about it.
If Orgah 1 posts:
"Lewis Caroll was a beaver"
(bogus)
(bogus)
(bogus)
(bogus)
You can save the thread by editing:
"Orgah 1 thinks Lewis Caroll was a beaver"
Its so incremental but it can mean the difference between a closed thread and a frontroomish Backroom.Thank you for your kindness.
Vote: Mutiny
Lewis Carol was, in fact, a badger. I thought this was common knowledge.
WE DON'T NEED NO STEENKIN BADGERS!!!
pevergreen
10-19-2009, 00:23
https://img190.imageshack.us/img190/6793/lolcatsfunnypicturesler.jpg
I feel as if I've missed something. :skull:
Louis VI the Fat
10-19-2009, 01:53
Lewis Carol was, in fact, a badger. I thought this was common knowledge.That is not common knowledge, it si opinon you joypridecamptouring Wisconsin nogainer son of a badger and nephew of Menedill!
I shall repent for your sins by relating the History of the Button:
Over 3,000 years ago, during the Bronze Age, the first buttons made their debut. While recognisably buttons, Bronze Age man didn't fasten anything with them, but simply wore them for decoration. The dandies of the day wore buttons fashioned from bone, horn, wood, metal or even seashells; but, in the absence of a buttonhole, were they anything more than just sew-on brooches?
At the time, man used belts, pins or brooches to fasten his clothes; even in extreme weather there was no practical use for a button. So the button just existed, waiting for the next big clothing innovation.
The Greeks, although they had no word for button, did, like the Romans, use them for decoration. However, at some point, someone thought the button might make a nifty fastener. To this end, they ran the button through a little loop of thread and thereby created a use for the button, alongside the pin or the brooch, to keep garments together.
As clothing became more fitted, the button and loop became more attractive since it was less likely to cause injury than a pin. By around 1200, the button and buttonhole arrived in Europe, delivered, like many other things, by the returning Crusaders. Not that they invented it themselves — no, they had 'freed' the idea from the Turks and Mongols encountered on their travels. At any rate, the button and buttonhole were to become a driving force in clothing design.
The first buttonholes were slits made in fabric just big enough to pass the button through, and this was enough to hold clothes fast and inspire a fashion revolution.
The word button appeared at around this time and stems from either the French bouton for bud or bouter to push. Whatever the basis for the word, the French were quick to spot the potential of the button and by 1250 had established the Button Makers Guild. The Guild produced beautiful buttons with great artistry, much to the delight of the aristocracy. The peasants, however, weren't allowed to join this button fest, even if they could afford it. The aristocracy passed laws to limit buttons permitted for common usage to thread- or cloth-covered buttons. As a result, the button became a status symbol, and it wasn't discrete; buttons were being used like there was no tomorrow - not just for fastening clothes but, once more, as adornment.
By the middle of the 1300s buttons were big business and people loved them. Tailors produced garments with row upon row of buttons with matching buttonholes. France, by this time, was the button capital of Europe and the Guild made considerable profit producing buttons for coats, dresses and anything that looked as if it needed a button. Europe was so button crazy that even the Church got in on the act and denounced them as 'the devil's snare', seemingly referring to the ladies in their button-fronted dresses.
This attraction for buttons resulted in some outfits adorned with thousands of buttons, all of them with accompanying buttonholes. Dressing and undressing became a chore, but created a niche for the employment of professional dressers. Button mania ran on unabated, and in 1520 reports tell of a meeting where King Francis I of France, his clothing bedecked with some 13,600 buttons, met King Henry VIII of England, similarly weighed down with buttons.
The button thing couldn't last forever though, and with the Puritans condemning it as sinful, in the 16th Century its popularity began to wane to more sensible levels.
Proletariat
10-19-2009, 03:11
Great thread, would read again
10/10 thanks to the post before mine
:bow:
Rhyfelwyr
10-19-2009, 14:51
omg this thread is racist
Aemilius Paulus
10-19-2009, 19:26
That is not common knowledge, it si opinon you joypridecamptouring Wisconsin nogainer son of a badger and nephew of Menedill!
I shall repent for your sins by relating the History of the Button:
Over 3,000 years ago, during the Bronze Age, the first buttons made their debut. While recognisably buttons, Bronze Age man didn't fasten anything with them, but simply wore them for decoration. The dandies of the day wore buttons fashioned from bone, horn, wood, metal or even seashells; but, in the absence of a buttonhole, were they anything more than just sew-on brooches?
At the time, man used belts, pins or brooches to fasten his clothes; even in extreme weather there was no practical use for a button. So the button just existed, waiting for the next big clothing innovation.
The Greeks, although they had no word for button, did, like the Romans, use them for decoration. However, at some point, someone thought the button might make a nifty fastener. To this end, they ran the button through a little loop of thread and thereby created a use for the button, alongside the pin or the brooch, to keep garments together.
As clothing became more fitted, the button and loop became more attractive since it was less likely to cause injury than a pin. By around 1200, the button and buttonhole arrived in Europe, delivered, like many other things, by the returning Crusaders. Not that they invented it themselves — no, they had 'freed' the idea from the Turks and Mongols encountered on their travels. At any rate, the button and buttonhole were to become a driving force in clothing design.
The first buttonholes were slits made in fabric just big enough to pass the button through, and this was enough to hold clothes fast and inspire a fashion revolution.
The word button appeared at around this time and stems from either the French bouton for bud or bouter to push. Whatever the basis for the word, the French were quick to spot the potential of the button and by 1250 had established the Button Makers Guild. The Guild produced beautiful buttons with great artistry, much to the delight of the aristocracy. The peasants, however, weren't allowed to join this button fest, even if they could afford it. The aristocracy passed laws to limit buttons permitted for common usage to thread- or cloth-covered buttons. As a result, the button became a status symbol, and it wasn't discrete; buttons were being used like there was no tomorrow - not just for fastening clothes but, once more, as adornment.
By the middle of the 1300s buttons were big business and people loved them. Tailors produced garments with row upon row of buttons with matching buttonholes. France, by this time, was the button capital of Europe and the Guild made considerable profit producing buttons for coats, dresses and anything that looked as if it needed a button. Europe was so button crazy that even the Church got in on the act and denounced them as 'the devil's snare', seemingly referring to the ladies in their button-fronted dresses.
This attraction for buttons resulted in some outfits adorned with thousands of buttons, all of them with accompanying buttonholes. Dressing and undressing became a chore, but created a niche for the employment of professional dressers. Button mania ran on unabated, and in 1520 reports tell of a meeting where King Francis I of France, his clothing bedecked with some 13,600 buttons, met King Henry VIII of England, similarly weighed down with buttons.
The button thing couldn't last forever though, and with the Puritans condemning it as sinful, in the 16th Century its popularity began to wane to more sensible levels.
Louis, you have no honour. That is a shameless knock-off of Abokasee's Bartix thread zipper post. :clown:
Crazed Rabbit
10-19-2009, 20:07
I believe the term is 'homage'.
And now I know about zippers and buttons. :beam:
CR
Hello Cronos Impera,
Do you mean every post without the 'I think' part must be like a scientific article mentioning sources?
I think there are a couple of problems with that.
-it's not everyones cup of tea to make such an article and that has little (not always) to do with not willing to
-who's the audience and what needs further explanation/sources? Unlike a targeted scientific audience, not all readers here are trained at university
-it's not easy for anyone to read such posts
I guess it's a problem in some topics that try to provide such posts. I think the topic starter should state in the first post about wanting a bibliography/source with each contribution. It's clearly asked for then and moderators or me can remove posts that do not comply (upon request and/or when spotted).
But to make a forum wide rule? No, that doesn't work well I'm afraid.
I am sick of Orgahs giving answers in posts like "Lewis Caroll was a beaver" with absolute conviction, without assuming that opinion or citing a source for that statement. It sometimes gets me calling Mendill a Gunbortionist or nothingainer because such posts usually derail the thread and bring joycamptours for the Orgahs who posted in that thread.Than is Room 101 for the fool who gets annoyed (that is usually me).
So please mods, for the sake of OrgSoc do something about it.
If Orgah 1 posts:
"Lewis Caroll was a beaver"
(bogus)
(bogus)
(bogus)
(bogus)
You can save the thread by editing:
"Orgah 1 thinks Lewis Caroll was a beaver"
Its so incremental but it can mean the difference between a closed thread and a frontroomish Backroom.Thank you for your kindness.
Aemilius Paulus
10-19-2009, 22:39
I believe the term is 'homage'.
Are you kidding? Louis is the greatest Orgah I have ever known. His humour and wit is superior to most of what I have seen from professionals. He has no business imitating Abokasee, whose style of humour was randomness - a style that I do not recognise nor like. Takes far more skill IMHO to be like Louis, as one has to have a well-developed and highly knowledgeable mind.
A Very Super Market
10-19-2009, 22:56
Err, he didn't imitate Abokasee. Abokasee was incoherent (At the time) and did not respond to his own request with the history of the zipper. That was someone else.
Alexander the Pretty Good
10-20-2009, 07:01
Are you kidding? Louis is the greatest Orgah I have ever known. His humour and wit is superior to most of what I have seen from professionals. He has no business imitating Abokasee, whose style of humour was randomness - a style that I do not recognise nor like. Takes far more skill IMHO to be like Louis, as one has to have a well-developed and highly knowledgeable mind.
You underestimate the cultural might of Bartix.
Cronos Impera
10-20-2009, 11:37
Hello Cronos Impera,
Do you mean every post without the 'I think' part must be like a scientific article mentioning sources?
I think there are a couple of problems with that.
-it's not everyones cup of tea to make such an article and that has little (not always) to do with not willing to
-who's the audience and what needs further explanation/sources? Unlike a targeted scientific audience, not all readers here are trained at university
-it's not easy for anyone to read such posts
I guess it's a problem in some topics that try to provide such posts. I think the topic starter should state in the first post about wanting a bibliography/source with each contribution. It's clearly asked for then and moderators or me can remove posts that do not comply (upon request and/or when spotted).
But to make a forum wide rule? No, that doesn't work well I'm afraid.
Ok, but I just wanted to cut a distinction between personal opinions and facts, since most thread-killer replies are just about that.
When someone mixes a historical fact with a personal opinion and posts that word-pudding (on controversial issues mostly) some people (who feel offended becase they think their interpretation is better) copy that style of posting, get personal and start a flame war.Than its Joycamptour en mass and a bad atmosphere. I'm not saying we should qoute in every post, but please for the Backroom's sake not turn the whole fora into a "My Opinion is the truth, your opinion is the lie."
People sometimes (especially if they aren't as informed on the matter) confuse a personal contribution with a real "something" and either get defensive on the matter (flame war) or......lacks ideaa. Than the writepol close the thread, joycamptour all the Orgahs who got into the fight and....all start suspecting the other party of dishonesty.
And that is the root of all Backroomish joycamptours.
Banquo's Ghost
10-20-2009, 14:22
I'm not saying we should qoute in every post, but please for the Backroom's sake not turn the whole fora into a "My Opinion is the truth, your opinion is the lie."
I thought that was the official motto of the Backroom. :idea2:
One can learn new things in the Backroom, but precisely because one comes to know those who speak wisely, and those who may not. Most patrons who do post sources invariably link to Wikipedia or newspapers, magazines and blogs - all of which tend towards being opinion themselves.
Learned citations are usually taken from books and peer-reviewed journals and an internet forum discussion is unlikely to provoke scrambling for the nearest library.
The Backroom is just a bit of fun. We are blessed with many well-read and opinionated members who argue their case very effectively - or conversely, employ Gah and Godwin as the mood strikes. No-one is required to do either.
If you want intellectual rigour, I suggest the Monastery. Sensitive intercourse on the stature of the dong, come this way. :evil:
Learned citations are usually taken from books and peer-reviewed journals and an internet forum discussion is unlikely to provoke scrambling for the nearest library.
Actually, the few times I have been forced to cite a non-digitized book, it's been a huge pain. First I have to type in the words, then I have to proof them, then I have to type in the title and author as a citation and proof that. Finally I have my quote. Ugh. Too much work.
Lastly, can we all agree that Lewis Carol was some sort of indeterminate brown quadruped that could have been a beaver or a badger, or even an opossum? You know, split the difference.
Vladimir
10-20-2009, 15:48
I'm sorry. I don't think brown opossums exist.
Pannonian
10-20-2009, 16:33
I'm sorry. I don't think brown opossums exist.
I'm not sure about brown badgers either. But blonde beavers exist.
Ok, but I just wanted to cut a distinction between personal opinions and facts, since most thread-killer replies are just about that.
When someone mixes a historical fact with a personal opinion and posts that word-pudding (on controversial issues mostly) some people (who feel offended becase they think their interpretation is better) copy that style of posting, get personal and start a flame war.Than its Joycamptour en mass and a bad atmosphere. I'm not saying we should qoute in every post, but please for the Backroom's sake not turn the whole fora into a "My Opinion is the truth, your opinion is the lie."
People sometimes (especially if they aren't as informed on the matter) confuse a personal contribution with a real "something" and either get defensive on the matter (flame war) or......lacks ideaa. Than the writepol close the thread, joycamptour all the Orgahs who got into the fight and....all start suspecting the other party of dishonesty.
And that is the root of all Backroomish joycamptours.
Yes, I'm aware of the problem. However, it's not quite true that making scientific posts reduces the amount of arguments. It's rare that all scientists agree on something. And sure, it often yields a healthy debate, and maybe in 10 years they see they were all wrong, but have adapted a new set of conflicting ideas about the same topic.
It does also happen that scientist go for each others throat in a debate (not literally).
Whether it's an opinion or a 'fact', it's more about giving each other some space. No, doesn't mean you have to abandon your own position. But it's not really required to totally ridicule the other either.
When I say: 'vikings had cowhorns on their helmets', you could simply reply that no evidence has been found for that yet. I don't have to give up my position then, but there's no harm. Now, if someone replied: 'dream on about your fantasy units or get a library card', yes then the topic will get hairy very quickly.
But sure, it's ok to start a topic requiring backup by sources.
I have scientific proof. It was the opossum's relationship that had me stymied, but now I've worked it out.
https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v489/Lemurmania/beaver.jpg + https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v489/Lemurmania/badger.jpg - https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v489/Lemurmania/opossum1.jpg = https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v489/Lemurmania/lewis_caroll.jpg
edyzmedieval
10-20-2009, 19:56
This thread is now OFICIALLY:
Beavered.
Yes, I'll go run away now. :inquisitive:
Banquo's Ghost
10-20-2009, 21:13
So Lemur, are you claiming the third picture is actually a slithy tove? 'Cos they sure look like they are gyring, if not actually gimbling in that there wabe.
https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v695/aslanngrae/tryon14_slithy_tove.gif
Meneldil
10-20-2009, 22:42
I'm somewhat glad I'm the reason for all this :2thumbsup:
Vladimir
10-21-2009, 16:25
I shouldn't have looked at Lemur's post while eating lunch.
Banquo's retort was classy, as always.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.